On this page

• Text (3)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    1S4 QL%Z ILga&gn [Saturday,

  • 

    WHAT IS OUR SOCIALISM ? Various correspo...

  • 

    UNIVERSITY REFORM. The Commission of Inq...

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Farmers Revolutionary. *' When Some Peop...

    Peerage for accuracy . But how can he suppose that the great mass of the farmers are not suffering severely at this moment ? Thoughtless f reetraders , when told of the low prices of food , afnrm that provisions were as cheap in 1836 as they are now , and that farmers are consequently no worse ott than they were at that period . But here the freetraders are decidedly in the wrong . It is , no doubt ,

    true that the price of wheat was quite as low in the early part of 1836 as it is in 1850 , but the prices of all other kinds of agricultural produce were from twenty-five to fifty per cent , higher then than they are at present . Besides , cheapness is now a settled fact then it was only a brief accident . If the farmer was threatened with ruin in 1836 , it is clear that he is in a fair way of being thoroughly ruined

    in 1850 . . But if there really is so much agricultural distress why do not the farmers petition Parliament for a committee of inquiry ? When trade was suffering from the dearness of food in 1839-42 the Free-traders were constantly petitioning for leave to give evidence at the bar of the House of Commons , in order to show the extent and causes of manufacturing distress . What hinders the Duke of Richmond and Mr . Disraeli from taking the same

    course . Will the great Protectionist Stump Orator take that plain and obvious method of bringing the question before the House ? If the landlords would give him leave he might possibly do so ; but the revelations about rent which were made before the Parliamentary Committee in 1836 put a final extinguisher on that constitutional mode of proving the extent of a grievance . For the last

    fourteen years the landlords have carefully abstained from asking a committee to inquire into agricultural distress , because they know too well that such an inquiry would open up the Rent question , the clearance system under the operation of the New Poor Law , and a whole host of other questions deeply affecting the condition of industrialism in England .

    But the unwillingness of the landlords to bring their case before Parliament will only render the rural agitation all the more alarming when it fairly begins . At the Crown and Anchor meeting on Tuesday one of the leading orators , in alluding to the insurrectionary spirit among the labourers , warned the Duke of Richmond and his friends that it would be impossible to keep things quiet much longer : — _ _ .

    _ " The torrent may perhaps be stayed until after the harvest , but that is the outside ; and if the labourers should then assemble in masses to obtain their just rights it is not very likely that the English yeomen , hitherto distinguished for peace and quietness , will mount their horses to prevent them . " This speech was loudly cheered by the farmers , who are evidently getting into a very revolutionary

    temper , and no wonder . A large number of them are paying their rents out of capital , a process which will speedily convert them into agitators . But the revolution is not likely to be one against the state : that is a farce 5 for we agree with the Morning Chronicle , that " if ever the farmers of England should take to agitation as a trade the first object of thoir first real movement will be rents . '

    1s4 Ql%Z Ilga&Gn [Saturday,

    1 S 4 QL % Z ILga & gn [ Saturday ,

    What Is Our Socialism ? Various Correspo...

    WHAT IS OUR SOCIALISM ? Various correspondents question us upon our adhesion to Socialism ; one of them—a very eminent moral writer , whose letter we print in our Open Council—seems to think there is some equivoque of language ; and indeed the variety of interpretations given to that one word , Socialism , in England , France , and Germany , renders it extremely difficult to write on the subject without being misunderstood . In France Socialism means

    the doctrine of Common Labour—the " Associative principle" as it is called ; and Communism means community not only of labour but of property , rights , and families . In England , generally , the terms arc reversed . By Communism is understood the doctrine of Common Labour and property ; by Socialism the community also of rights , and the doctrine under that title has become complicated with Atheistic dogmas . In the

    Times newspaper a Socialist is a bearded rufhan riotous for barricades . In many a thoughtful mind the Socialist is one supposed to be desirous of a complete subversion of all morality—an infidel , an anarchist , and many other things equally alarming . It is imperative , therefore , that we of the Leader , profoundly convinced of the extreme importance of Socialism , should state explicitly what we mean by that term . Considered as " a system , we emphatically say that wo accept none yet propounded . No , our Socialism

    is not that of Owen ; no , our Socialism is not that of Fourier ; no , our Socialism is not that of Louis Blanc ; no , our Socialism is not that of Proudhon . It is none of these : yet it is also all of these ! Adopting none as the true solution of the social problem , as a system on which we are prepared to act , we adopt them all as the brilliant facettes of one diamond . All men are Socialists who proclaim—as we proclaim—that European society cannot continue for ever based upon the present

    patchwork-remnant of extinct feudalism . All men are Socialists who insist—as we insist—on polity being the action of the whole nation , and not merely of certain classes ; who regard Humanity as a vast Brotherhood wherein mutual help and mutual reliance must take the place of rivalry and self-reliant egotism . All men are Socialists who belieVe _ as we believe—that the misery and ignorance ( parent of untold miseries ) might be greatly alleviated by a more generous , cooperative social doctrine . It is not necessary to have a system , nor

    a faith m any system . In treating of the various systems of Socialism , it is necessary to separate that which is central , vital , and common to all , from that which is derivative and peculiar . Thus , Owen , Morgan , Fourier , and Maurice are all Socialists with distinctive systems : on their common ground Owen would once have had no Church , while the most conspicuous ornament of Morgan ' s village is the Church of

    England ; where Fourier places " passionate attraction , " Maurice places primitive Christianity . The one principle which lies at the bottom of all these systems is the principle of Common Labour : in that they all agree . Between the Economists and the Socialists—between the Old Society and the New—the contention , therefore , really and truly lies on this narrow ground . Competition or Cooperation ? Decide .

    Economists defending a society which is governed according to the doctrines of the Past naturally refer to the past experience of man in proof of the excellence , universality , and—as they say . —indestructibility of Competition . Socialists , while they admit that Competition always has been , that it was , perhaps , the necessary stimulus to industry in less civilized times , declare it has now ceased to become necessary , and has been found productive of terrible waste of labour and intolerable social evils . They say that Competition is the rude and instinctive principle which as

    society advances gradually gives way to the more comprehensive and reflective principle of Cooperation . Instead of trade being , as now , a wasteful rivalry , it should be a friendly arrangement . The answer made to this by Economists is : The thing is impracticable ! An answer somewhat arrogant , and not at all conclusive . Cooperation is practicable and practised to a very great extent . As men better understand its advantages , it becomes more extended . Meanwhile , the duty of all Socialists should be to take up this one principle of Common Labour or Association , and to do for it

    what the Economists have done for Competition : expound it , illustrate it , apply it . Setting aside for the present as premature , when not ridiculous , all those attempts at legislating for a state of society the very basis of which has yet to be laid , they should throw all their energies into the perfecting of that one central principle . In the doctrine of Common Labour there is something substantial , something which admits of agreement and united action . And , inasmuch as Labour must form the basis of every society , it is the first thing theorists have to settle . When once the material existence

    of the whole nation is secured , and we are freed from the terrible anxieties and perplexities of the present state , it will be time enough to think of legislating for the new society ; but at this moment , it is a profitless waste of ingenuity—it is worse—it i « dangerous ingenuity : dangerous , because while on the . one hand the laws thus framed cannot be applied , on the other hand , they alarm wellmeaning persons , and prejudice them against a doctr ine to which they would be friendly , did it not seem to them knit with fatal consequences .

    Systematic Socialists have not only erred in thus prematurely legislating before they established their society on its basis ; but have also erred in the supposition that a radical change can take place in society otherwise than as growing out of the convictions of the nation . Whoever meditates on the complex condition of society will see that unless stringently coercive , it must be based upon the general agreement of mankind as to fundamental principles . Without a doctrine to give life there is no escape from anarchy except in despotism , which

    will give rigidity in place of life . Imagine , for a moment , the present state of things swept away in the whirlwind of a revolution , and the power seized by some daring band of Owenites , Fourierites , or even Cobdenites ; when the nation recovers from its passion of resentment against former governors , and tries to settle down calmly under its new lords , will it not very speedily perceive that a section rules the nation , and that the nation cannot continue thus ? Nothing is more instructive in the history of 1848 than the variety of the

    convictions moving large masses of men , convictions wholly irreconcileable and yet all sincere . With such anarchy of opinion there could be no stability of society . Institutions grow up out of convictions consecrated by feelings ; they cannot be forced upon a nation and flourish . Theories of government are not difficult to frame ; but to make them work , that is the difficulty ! On paper , they follow the logical deduction of ideas ; in fact , they have to contend with the complexity arising from ignorance , prejudice , want , impatience , and

    scepticism . They have to contend also with the inertia of men . As long as the old system continues men will go through their routine ; but you cannot get them to adopt a new system by merely wishing or commanding it . If they are not moved by their own convictions or enthusiasms it is hopelessto expect their adhesion to a new system . Their feelings , prejudices , and opinions are not to be controlled ; and the general indolence and inertia of men clinging to routine because of its facility can only be overcome by some stimulus of conviction or of terror .

    Social equality will best arise from intellectual equality ; and although equality of capacities is a chimsera , equality of intelligence may be looked for . Hence the great and only true revolutionist is Education . Teach men , penetrate them with views , make your beliefs their beliefs , and you will make your scheme of government theirs . Give them positive ideas , and these will replace , without violence , the errors you wish to destroy . The action of Socialism in England just now is precisely of this kind , and is immensely beneficial . It does not throw itself upon barricades . It agitates the masses by the pen . Its beneficial influence is direct and

    indirect : direct , when it brings forward positive deeds ; indirect , in loosening the hold of ancient forms , and preparing the mind to give up -without a struggle , as without a sigh , all its respect for and clinging to the remnants of feudalism , replacing them by institutions more accordant with the age . If Socialism had nothing of positive truth in it , we should cherish it as a powerful dissolvent . By accustoming men to think of a better condition as practicable , it familiarizes their minds to the idea of giving up the present when that better offers ; by loosening all the clasps of prejudice and habit which knit us to routine , it opens for the new doctrine ( when that presents itself ) a peaceful path .

    In the opposition which flies at the throat of every innovation , and retards the progress of our kind , the real momentum is derived from ancient prejudice , not from clear conviction . The most obstinate opponents of the French Revolution were the Breton peasants , not the enlightened Royalists ; and , even among the Royalists , it was not the theory of monarchical government , but the sentiment of loyalty , which threw them across the frontier . We emphatically assert , therefore , that those who foster Socialism are fostering a beneficial

    influence , which will make the coming changes easy , gradual , and peaceable . As a dissolvent , it will soften the fierceness of opposition . As an agitation of the great problems of society , it will materially hasten their solution by forcing all men to attend to it . As a positive doctrine , it will counteract the narrow , one-sided—and , because one-sided , cruel—doctrines which political economy—mistaking certain imperfectly conceived laws of trade for the laws of all human societyhas declared to be the last word science has to utter on the subject .

    University Reform. The Commission Of Inq...

    UNIVERSITY REFORM . The Commission of Inquiry into the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge , promised by Lord John Russell , is a great boon . If issued as proposed , and with the powers , very moderate though they are , which are claimed for it , the effects can hardly fail to be wholesome . And , however successful Mr . Stuart ' s opposition may be for the time , it will not be possible to undo what has been done . Our Government has distinctly declared that the time for inquiry has come . It may be foiled ; but in such matters no retrograde movement is now con-

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), May 11, 1850, page 10, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_11051850/page/10/