THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 ftt^
 
 COMMONSENSE SOCIALISM, 
 
 The Inadequacy of the Reward of Labour^ 
 the Depression of Trade, and the Organization of 
 Material Progress. 
 
 N. KEMPN E R. 
 
 " . . . the proper Epic of this world is not now ' Arms and 
 the Man ' ; how much less, ' Shirt-frills and the Man ' : no, it is now 
 ' Tools and the Man ' : that, hencefortli to all time, is now our 
 Epic. . . ." 
 
 Carlyle: "Past and Present," Book III., Chap. xii. 
 
 3L0nlJon: 
 
 SWAN SONNENSCHEIN, LOWREY & CO., 
 
 PATERNOSTER SQUARE. 
 
 1887.
 
 Butler 6^ Tanner, 
 
 The Sehvood Printing- IVorks, 
 
 Froine, and London.
 
 ^327c 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 Socialism, in its proper sense as opposed to Individualism, 
 is in the ascendant and may be considered already the 
 faith of the majority of those who give any thought to 
 the great social problems. The State may be hard upon 
 those who call themselves Socialists or Social Democrats 
 and who are merely the noisiest, or the most extreme 
 representatives of Socialism, but Society has nevertheless 
 been imbued with the socialistic doctrine and is absorbing 
 it eagerly. There is no need to look for proof to repub- 
 lican France or America, we can find it nearer at hand 
 at home. With compulsory education — probably soon to 
 be free, — with the recent factory and shop hours regu- 
 lation, with the Irish Land Act and other measures of a 
 similar character, Socialism may claim fairly to have con- 
 verted or subdued the majority of the British people. 
 There is only a difference of degree between the socia- 
 listic tendency of these measures and that of the most 
 advanced scheme advocated by professed Socialists. 
 
 1381749
 
 iv PREFACE. 
 
 That the latter find themselves in opposition to the State, 
 is not the fault of their Socialism, but either of their 
 extremism or of their obnoxious methods of proceeding. 
 That they sometimes — as in America — are working hand 
 in hand with Anarchists, is not due to a conformity of 
 convictions, but to the circumstance, that both parties 
 are in a minority. But, as a matter of fact, Socialism is 
 directly opposed to Anarchism. As the old party-lines 
 are obliterated more and more, a new cleavage of society 
 takes place, determined by opinion upon social subjects, 
 of which so-called political questions form only a part. 
 On one side will rano^e themselves the forces of Anar- 
 chism tOQfether with that conservative Individualism which 
 declines to interfere for the preservation of the common- 
 wealth, and prefers to let matters drift Into the state 
 which the Anarchists are endeavouring to produce by 
 action. The other side will be held by Socialism, the only 
 really constructive force, reinforced by the enlightened 
 conservatism of common sense, which has the courage to 
 sacrifice the semblance for the substance and, if necessary, 
 the part for the whole. 
 
 There is not much even in advanced Socialism which 
 need be called downright impossible, but there is a great 
 deal which appears unnecessary and so difiicult as not to 
 repay the trouble. It is easy enough to show in shadowy
 
 PREFACE. V 
 
 outlines, how the world's business might be conducted, 
 and easier yet to decline to translate such theories into 
 action on the plea of impracticability. But for any 
 practical purpose it is necessary to select the line of least 
 resistance, and this office can only be performed by com- 
 mon sense, by a calm appreciation of things as they are 
 and as they might be. What we want is a recognition 
 of the fact, that Socialism (in its proper sense) is the 
 tendency of the future, and the exercise of common 
 sense as to its practical application. 
 
 I have tried to do my duty towards pointing out the 
 way in the following pages, which I recommend to the 
 serious consideration of every one who is alive to the 
 paramount importance of the social problem. 
 
 N. KEMPNER. 
 
 London.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 I. Introduction.— Some Popular Fallacies.— The Right 
 
 TO Reform i 
 
 II. Insufficiency of the Reward of Labour . . .16 
 
 III. The Doctrine of Over-population 33 
 
 IV. The Moral Condition of the People. — Extravagance, 
 
 Drink, Idleness. . • 45 
 
 V. Work and Production for their own sake. — Increase 
 
 of Production as a Remedy ...... 60 
 
 VI. Education.— Skill and Culture ..... 72 
 
 VII. Internationalism. — Federation. — Emigration. — Export 
 
 Trade. — Protection 84 
 
 VIII. The Condition of the Land. — Tenant-right. — Peasant- 
 proprietorship. — Nationalization of the Land . 104 
 
 IX. The new Centre of Gravity. — Progress inherent 
 in Capital, not in Labour. — Position of Capital 
 and Labour at different stages of Civilization. 
 — Modern Monopoly of Large Capital . . . 125 ■ 
 
 X. The Claims of Capital. — What it gets actually and 
 how. — Monopoly.— Credit. — Spoliation of Labour. 
 — Speculation 148 
 
 vii
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 XI. How Capital Fares in times of Depression.— About 
 Value.— The Real Interests of Capital and of 
 Labour. — Depression of Trade, its Cause and 
 Character i75 
 
 XII. Final Review of the Relations between Land, Labour 
 
 and Capital 192 
 
 XIII. Regulation of Maximum Working-time .... 206 
 
 XIV. The Future of International Trade and of Agri- 
 culture 228 
 
 XV. The Future of the Commercial Classes.— Duty on 
 Speculation. — Waste and Display. — The World's 
 Work and Human Aims 243 
 
 XVI. Limitation of the Rights of Inheritance, Bequest 
 
 AND Gift.— The Exceptions.— Entailed Property . 263 
 
 XVII. Recapitulation.— The Ruling Spirit . . . .287 
 
 Summary of Contents.
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Introduction. — Some popular fallacies. — The right to reform. 
 
 " I ^HE old comfortable habit of resignation to existing evils is 
 -*- dying out fast. That in ordinary cases it was never more 
 than a sham, becomes evident from a comparison of the ease with 
 which people used to accept the sufferings of others, with the 
 fierce struggles and the burning discontent which they opposed to 
 anything threatening to inflict suffering upon themselves. Yet, 
 sham and stupid as it may have been, it supplied at least an 
 intelligible theory of life. No doubt it was a comforting thought 
 for the well-to-do, that their special mission on earth was to live 
 in plenty and security, whilst the lower classes were sent into the 
 world for the express purpose of toiling their lives away in the 
 support of the wealthy. In those times not only kings were " by 
 God appointed," but everything tending to the power and comfort 
 of the powerful and comfortable was equally accepted as a matter 
 of right and necessity. As to the toiling masses, they were 
 grovelling in the dust of ignorance, blind, deaf, and dumb ; even 
 their sense of suffering dulled to such a degree, that oppression 
 and insults were borne with a stolid indifference which might 
 have been sublime, had it not had its source in ignorance, super- 
 stition, and cowardice. 
 
 That sentiment in favour of the privileged has passed away. It 
 lingers yet in many individuals of all degrees of station, but the 
 masses are swayed by feelings and reasonings of an independent 
 character, they have begun to understand the possibility of change, 
 
 B
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 and the wealthy minority, to do it justice, has accepted the turn 
 of public opinion favourably enough. 
 
 We are making excuses for our social order upon every 
 occasion. We are always trying to make exceptional circum- 
 stances account for undeniable facts. The frightful amount of 
 misery in existence is too apparent to be denied by or to any one 
 who has eyes to see or ears to hear ; but all of us are disposed at 
 first to look upon every case as peculiar and to attempt to trace 
 it to the sufferer's own fault. Where this is clearly impossible, 
 we ascribe it to exceptional or unavoidable causes. These things 
 exist. Drunkenness, idleness, vices of all sorts beset the poor on 
 all sides and produce their terrible crop of moral degradation and 
 material distress. Sickness, loss of power, sudden death, accidents 
 of elementary or artificial character throw individuals and families 
 into unexpected destitution. But that the great mass of misery 
 and want which oppresses all civilized nations cannot be traceable 
 to personal circumstances, is evident, and that it is not the 
 necessary outcome of unavoidable and unalterable conditions, that 
 human laws and arrangements are to a large extent responsible 
 for suffering and distress, this is becoming more and more the 
 universal belief. There is no prospect of an easy rest in this like 
 that produced by resignation formerly, but there is instead hope 
 of a better state, to be attained by earnest search and strong, 
 steady work. 
 
 The chances of success in such a search have improved much 
 and are improving continually. The spread of education does not 
 only bring classes nearer to each other, but it enables also the 
 lower strata to take a more active share in the work. If in all 
 private affairs we expect, taught by experience, that — ceteris 
 paribus — the man who has the strongest interest in a certain event 
 is the most likely to find resources for realizing it, we may also 
 expect that the people, when it is sufficiently educated to grasp
 
 THE MODERN SENTIMENT. 
 
 facts and draw conclusions, will be best able to find a basis for 
 satisfactory relations between all classes and to reduce want and 
 misery to those cases where they are in fact unavoidable and 
 irremediable. And, as the lower classes are gaining in intelligence, 
 whilst the upper are acquiring a more living interest in social 
 questions, there is a growing probability that all may work 
 together towards the great aim, each one urging or moderating, 
 projecting new ideas or translating old ones into practice according 
 to his natural gifts and inclinations. There is strong hope in 
 this possibility, which has only arisen in the most recent times 
 from the extension of education. 
 
 But this possibility carries with it not only a hope, but also a 
 duty. It does not require a very lofty moral standard to conceive 
 that, when we can do a good work, we ought to do it, nor does it 
 need a deep philosophy to understand that the bettering of the 
 condition of the lower strata, which form the vast majority of 
 mankind, must be a good work. Well may it appear to some 
 the only work really worth doing, but, with all due regard to 
 individual duties, rights and inclinations, it is surely not asking too 
 much that every one capable of thought or action, outside of his 
 immediate sphere of activity, should devote a share of the surplus 
 to the great social questions which are pressing for solution. An 
 answer will be demanded before long; symptoms of a most 
 significant nature crowd upon us on all sides and will not be 
 gainsayed. It would be a fearful misfortune and a most serious 
 danger, if the nation should be found unprepared, but this can 
 only be averted, if every man and woman capable of thought give 
 continuous and earnest attention to the common cause. Nothing 
 can be effected, if the questions coming to the surface from time 
 to time and the state of things laid bare by the public press are 
 treated merely as sources of sensation ; they must be transferred 
 from this sphere to that of serious consideration and, where it is
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 possible, of practical activity. No one can be excused. It is 
 our common mother crying for help — who has the right or the 
 heart to say that it is no concern of his ! 
 
 I observe at this point that I am not going to recommend 
 reform for the sake of change. Wherever the existing state of 
 things appears justified and offers the same advantages as a 
 proposed change, I would preserve the former ; but where a reform 
 appears indispensable in order to effect a considerable ^improve- 
 ment, I shall recommend it unflinchingly. I approach the con- 
 ditions developed by historical growth in a spirit of reverence, 
 but not of superstition. By this principle my attitude towards 
 communism, the most far-reaching reform, is determined. Only 
 if we come to the conclusion that a lasting improvement on the 
 basis of the institution of private property is impossible, shall 
 I accept communism as an unwelcome necessity, but I hope to 
 prove that such a radical reversal of our ideas and habits is not 
 necessary. 
 
 Before starting upon the search for the causes of want and 
 poverty and their possible remedies, we must deal with some 
 contentions which stand in the way of every reform. 
 
 There is an idea extant that state interference with the working 
 or the results of the laws of political economy is a pernicious, 
 almost a sacrilegious, process from which no good can be expected. 
 In some quarters the theory of laissez-faire has been raised to 
 the dignity of a dogma, and interference with it is looked upon 
 as a sin. Now this is evidently based upon a mistaken conception 
 of the idea of law. There cannot be any doubt that the laws of 
 economy are working in a perfectly regular manner, that they are 
 as fixed and immutable as the law of gravitation. But an alter- 
 ation of the conditions under which they apply themselves cannot 
 and does not alter anything in the law. Such a change may 
 be good or bad, for or against the interest of the area concerned,
 
 POLITICAL ECONOMY. 
 
 but the natural laws will hold sway afterwards as before. If 
 an avalanche is stopped half-way by a protecting structure, the 
 builder has merely altered the conditions ; if we put up lightning 
 conductors to protect our houses, we have only tried to alter the 
 direction of the lightning of which we stand in fear. The natural 
 laws governing the phenomena of avalanches and of lightning will 
 govern them after the erection of the protecting roof and the 
 conductor just as much as before. We do not interfere with 
 them ; things would be very different indeed if we could ! 
 
 The misunderstood sort of fatalism which would have opposed 
 the endeavours of men to protect themselves against the action of 
 natural forces on the plea that interference was sinful, and which 
 has died out from the ignorant class which held it in former times, 
 seems to have survived in a class of people where one would 
 scarcely look for it, namely amongst the devotees of political 
 economy. They would not quarrel with the man who succeeded 
 in catching the stone falling in the direction of their heads ; they do 
 not scold the community when it proceeds to dam rivers threaten- 
 ing inundation. Inconsistent as it may seem, they feed every day, 
 and thereby prevent most effectively the consequences of the 
 natural law by which they must perish, if the condition of their 
 stomachs is not interfered with at certain intervals. But when it 
 comes to meddling with social or economic conditions, a change 
 comes over their spirit, an unwonted timidity falls upon them, 
 anything existing appears to them sacred and worthy of preserva- 
 tion in spite of evident evils resulting from the action of the eternal 
 laws of economy upon the existing state of things. 
 
 There is not much prospect of these susceptibilities being con- 
 sidered when a necessity for change becomes apparent. I suppose 
 that they are partly a remnant from those times when the state 
 was governed by a small minority, and when there was good 
 reason to beware from letting it step in between different classes
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 or individuals, as neither a full understanding of the conditions nor 
 perfect impartiality could be relied on. But with the democratic 
 development of our times the legislative tends more and more to 
 become the representative of all classes, and there is consequently 
 much less reason to be afraid of ill-will or of a want of under- 
 standing of conflicting interests. Still it is easy to understand 
 that the old feeling lingers in the breasts of politicians of the old 
 school, even when they profess advanced opinions upon other 
 matters. In many cases we must also make allowance for a not 
 unnatural unwillingness of those who profit by the existing con- 
 ditions, to accept or promote a change which would partly deprive 
 them of their advantages. 
 
 Another obstacle which meets the reformer at every step is the 
 general doubt, whether any proposition touching the social struc- 
 ture at a point below the surface is practicable. This is one of 
 the reproaches which are hurled at most reforming ideas and 
 dropped quietly, after their practicability has been proved by 
 actual experience. As long as there is any possibility of failure or 
 miscarriage, it is easy enough for any opponent of a reform to cast 
 doubt upon its practicability. By reason of its handiness and 
 general applicability this reproach will always remain one of the 
 favourite sticks to beat the dog of reform with, and will at all 
 times draw the votes of the timid and of those who are either unable 
 or unwilling to work out the social problems. But what is decried 
 as impracticability, is in most cases only difficulty or inconveni- 
 ence. Any one can see clearly enough that a proposed reform 
 cannot be initiated without a great deal of agitation and of 
 legislative labour, to bear a share in which most people feel them- 
 selves with reason entirely incompetent. Any one can point out 
 that the reform will prove inconvenient to certain people or 
 classes, that it will impose sacrifices on some, limit the freedom 
 of action of others ; and most people are tenacious of their rights,
 
 PRACTICABILITY OF REFORMS. 
 
 their property, and their personal liberty. But to conclude from 
 such facts that a reform cannot be effected, is evidently working 
 on a very weak basis. Once we have recognised the desirability of 
 certain reforms, no difficulties in the way of their execution 
 should restrain us from attempting them, and only in that case 
 should we consider ourselves justified to declare them impractic- 
 able, when we are forced to acknowledge that their introduction 
 is, not beyond our individual power, but beyond human power 
 altogether. 
 
 The most violent reproach thrown in the face of the reformer 
 is that of selfishness. Not that much is meant thereby, at least by 
 the leaders who raise the cry. In most instances it is just like 
 the cry of " fire," or " murder," which is frequently raised when 
 the apprehended danger is not nearly of so appalling a character. 
 People either lose their heads or are not inclined to specify 
 the nature of their peril, but they know from experience that 
 certain cries are more apt to attract attention and sympathy 
 than others. So they holloa lustily, " fire," or " murder," in one 
 case, and " selfishness " in the other ; and for the moment they 
 obtain their end of drawing a crowd and making it believe that 
 an awful danger is imminent. But when the people come to con- 
 sider the reforming aspirations in a cooler mood, they find in most 
 cases that selfishness does not apply to them at all. Of course 
 one may wish for a reform for personal ends, just as another may 
 oppose it for similar reasons ; but these considerations are entirely 
 beside the issue. The crucial questions are only : " Is the reform 
 just?" and "is the reform useful .-* " Whether the promoters 
 have to gain or to lose by it, has nothing to do with its value and 
 desirability. The individual's duty is simply to take his stand 
 upon that side which in his opinion has justice for itself. There 
 is no room for generosity until the question of justice has been 
 settled ; blind generosity towards one party may be and frequently
 
 SOCIAL DE VEL OP ME NT. 
 
 is, tantamount to treachery to the other and to justice. I cannot 
 help feeling that there is something mean in the appeal which is 
 raised by some special advocates of the upper classes, that the 
 democracy should not use its full powers. We^need not go into 
 the historical fact, that these same upper classes did not scruple 
 to use, and even to abuse, their power when there was nothing to 
 hold them in check, because retaliation has no part in the ideas 
 of the democracy. But if the people exercise their power for the 
 right and for the interest of the whole, is it reasonable to expect 
 that they should stop short in order to spare susceptibilities of 
 a personal character ^ Prove to them that they are wrong, show 
 them the justice of your claims, contrive a system which shall 
 preserve to you all your advantages and yet allow the masses to 
 live decently and to thrive reasonably, and you need not be afraid 
 that they will change anything for the mere love of change. But 
 let us abstain from that prayer for mercy before the battle has 
 fairly begun, and smother that parrot cry of "selfishness " which, 
 if it has any meaning at all, has a false one ! If that cry is 
 still potent enough to draw some people away from purposes 
 which they either approve or which they have not examined, this 
 is only a symptom of the low state of public morality. By a great 
 number of men and women the demands of the community, in so 
 far as they do not bear a visible relation to their own interest, are 
 still treated on the footing of charity, not of justice. This habit 
 of mind prompts them to oppose all measures which would inter- 
 fere with the advantages of individuals or classes, no matter how 
 they may tend to the welfare of the whole. In the case of those 
 who would personally gain by reform, this opposition bears the 
 semblance of unselfishness. But is it really unselfish to give up 
 the rights of one set of men for the benefit of another ? What 
 right have they to be generous with the whole people's property or 
 advantages ? Robin Hood ought to be the patron saint of these
 
 THE REPROACH OF SELFISHNESS. 
 
 generous people. You would not call a man unselfish because he 
 defrauded the state of its rightful taxes in order to spend the 
 money in charity. You would call him a goodhearted fool, and 
 describe his actiqn as mischievous weakness. Yet the whole 
 difference between him and the man who opposes a reform on the 
 sole ground that it restricts the advantages of an individual or 
 a class, lies in the fact, that the community's claim to taxes 
 approved by Parliament is clear- to the meanest comprehension, 
 whereas it requires a certain exercise of thought to grasp the 
 claim of the community to things which have not been formally 
 assigned to it. 
 
 This is sheer ignorance, the only remedy for which lies in the 
 spread of education and the extension of political power and 
 activity. For the present it must be admitted that the masses are 
 still very timid in view of comprehensive changes. " It has been 
 so in our forefathers' time, and they were as good men as ourselves, 
 if not better," is an argument which prevails strongly with the 
 lower classes, and renders them unwilling to attack institutions 
 which their forefathers have left untouched. But this argument, 
 although loveable enough in its simple reverence, is based on false 
 premisses. For one thing, former generations, although probably 
 equal in a moral sense to the present, lacked the power of 
 perspective which can only be acquired through the habit of 
 observing and comparing many different things, and which in 
 our time is supplied to everybody through the public press. 
 Further, our forefathers, even if they had the will, had not the 
 power of effecting great changes in any but the crudest way, by 
 violent means, from which the normal man recoils unless driven to 
 extremities. And lastly, circumstances have changed consider- 
 ably during the last few decades, and some interests have grown 
 more oppressive than they were formerly. From the extension of 
 political rights we have good reason to expect that the people
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 will gain the means of putting into practice peacefully, by orderly 
 legislation, those measures which by the light of their improved 
 education and ripened intelligence they will recognise as necessary 
 and salutary. 
 
 As to what constitutes the elements of necessity in this con- 
 nection we shall consider later on ; but it seems appropriate to 
 state in this place the extent and the limitation of the right of the 
 community to interfere with existing conditions, even to the tem- 
 porary disadvantage of individuals or classes. 
 
 I do not intend to go back to so-called natural rights, which 
 can never be more than postulates, and which as general argu- 
 ments carry no more power of conviction than special religious 
 dogmas or spiritual manifestations. None of us are in the secrets 
 of nature which, for all we know, may create for the purpose of 
 destroying, or without any purpose whatever. But we can reckon 
 with the tangible facts of life, with the desires which it implies 
 and with the relative necessities which it imposes. We can follow 
 and appreciate the historic development of many ages and dis- 
 tinguish between those steps which have brought an improvement 
 to the race, and those which have made its burden heavier. Fail- 
 ing an extraneous purpose, we are driven to accept humanity for 
 its own sake, and to look upon its preservation and improvement 
 as the great duty of the whole. We cannot escape from it ; we 
 cannot substitute anything better or equally good. All religions 
 which have stood the test of time, admit and prescribe the cult 
 of humanity, although it may be veiled under mysterious dogmas 
 and rites. Only too frequently the husk of formality and conven- 
 tionality has been hardened under the hot breath of bigotry, or 
 mis-shapen by the clumsy grasp of stupidity and ignorance, so 
 that for a time the kernel was hidden from view ; but this process 
 has led invariably either to stagnation and decay, or to the eman- 
 cipation from the mummified religion of that part of the people
 
 RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS OF REFORM. n 
 
 which was capable of development. Whatever vitality there may 
 be in the religious beliefs prevailing in our time, rests merely upon 
 their comprehension of the rights of humanity, and of the duties 
 of the individual implied thereby. 
 
 No consideration of any kind can outweigh the clearly under- 
 stood duty of furthering the true happiness of the community ; 
 but few, if any, human beings attain such a degree of immovable 
 clearness of perception, that they can without hesitation sacrifice 
 their nearest interests and their strongest instincts. Brutus doom- 
 ing his son to death for conspiracy against the republic is an 
 historical instance of the overwhelming sense of duty towards the 
 community, which brooks no obstacle, and shrinks from no pain. 
 But in ordinary life the path of duty, if less hard, is also less 
 clearly defined ; and where the battle still rages, where opinions 
 disagree, the possibility of error cannot be entirely excluded or 
 disregarded. There it seems unavoidable that we should shrink 
 from making or imposing sacrifices which offend the instincts of 
 humanity. We should therefore not consider ourselves justified 
 in recommending a reform which would imply extirpation of a 
 race or a nation, or the moral degradation of classes and indi- 
 viduals. But short of such elementary exceptions I should not 
 hesitate to interfere, by orderly and legal means, with any advan- 
 tage or privilege which has been found incompatible with the 
 maintenance and progress of the community. 
 
 As. the whole amount of human happiness in existence — unless 
 we sanction the vices of envy and spite as legitimate sources of 
 happiness — must be constituted by the aggregate sums of indi- 
 vidual happiness, the ideal of humanity for its own sake implies 
 the highest development of individual well-being so far as it is 
 consistent with the maintenance of the whole. It is, therefore, 
 one of the chief tasks of the community to create conditions which 
 offer to every individual the highest possible prospect of finding
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 happiness for himself and promoting that of others. An absolute 
 equality would not fulfil these requirements, because the desires 
 and powers of human beings differ so widely; but experience 
 teaches, on the other hand, that too great differences between the 
 social states of individuals and classes do not either conduce to 
 the benefit of the whole. A state of society which condemns 
 some men to common labour who, if scope and encouragement 
 were extended to their powers, might produce exceptional work, 
 and which forces others to spend in idleness or useless activity like 
 fishing, shooting, or flirting, gifts which might have been properly 
 and usefully employed in felling trees, or digging, or effecting sales 
 across a shop-counter, is evidently very far removed from the 
 ideal. An immense waste of power is kept up by these personal 
 misadjustments ; for the wealthy man, who does not know what 
 to do with his time, would have been perhaps a better workman 
 than the potential Milton or Michelangelo, if he had a reason to 
 work. And the man of exceptional gifts, if placed outside the 
 reach of want, would exercise his gifts for the benefit of the com- 
 munity, which would thereby be a gainer on both sides. 
 
 I claim for the community the right to arrange its conditions 
 on such a basis that every individual reaches happiness in the 
 exercise of its best powers, and, when it is found that the actual 
 state renders such a consummation impossible, to readjust its 
 constituents, and to reform a system which leads to undesirable 
 results, although this involves sacrifices on a part of the popula- 
 tion. In practice the principle is generally admitted and acted 
 upon, but each application is represented as an exception, and 
 without prejudice. Still the memory of the suppression of slavery 
 in America without compensation to the slave-owners will not 
 die out ; and even the most conservative Englishman would scorn 
 the idea of compensating African or Asiatic slave-drivers for any 
 interference with their trade. We do not speak of vested interests
 
 VESTED INTERESTS. 13 
 
 in such cases, because the anti-social tendency of the suppressed 
 system is evident at a glance. We refrain also from airing our 
 prescriptive rights in the case of states introducing military con- 
 scription. Whatever objections might be raised to such a course, 
 the opposition would not base itself upon the denial of the state's 
 right to interfere with the prescriptive right of the citizen to im- 
 munity from military service. I fully acknowledge the importance 
 of prescription in the intercourse between individuals and between 
 nations, as it is most desirable to close the door against litigation 
 and disturbance at a fixed point. But to deny to the community 
 the right of revision, would be tantamount to preventing once for 
 all the possibility of an improvement of social conditions. With 
 all respect for vested rights of any kind, I submit that after all 
 no right can be more sacred than the right of the living to live, 
 and no offence greater than that of taking life. Yet we know that 
 only too frequently humanity is under the necessity of suspending 
 even this right. Soldiers and hangmen are taking life without 
 being counted offenders. If circumstances can be strong enough 
 to force society to approve of the taking of life, there must surely 
 be situations which justify a revision or suspension of the prescrip- 
 tive rights of property and privilege. 
 
 Nations and individuals alike are slow in acknowledging radical 
 defects ; human impulse always tries to mend matters by small 
 remedies or small concessions ; every day we are endeavouring, 
 each in his own sphere, to pacify hungry lions with crumbs of 
 bread, to put out conflagrations with thimblefuls of water. But 
 if we find, after a long course of tinkering, that matters are grow- 
 ing worse instead of better, we are driven to look deeper, and to 
 search for measures of a more thorough character. Tinkering 
 cannot be carried on for ever ; all human concerns, from a spade 
 to an ironclad, from a shop to an army, from a partnership to a 
 constitution, will only stand a limited amount of mending. After
 
 14 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 they have been in use for a certain space of time, we are forced 
 t6 go back to the beginnings, to overhaul the whole, to alter and 
 to replace what we find unsuited to our altered requirements. 
 And this most complicated of all possible concerns, the social 
 arrangement, is to be carried on for ever on the basis of a system 
 grown at haphazard out of the most contradictory motives, none 
 of which could by the nature of things take into account the most 
 active and vital influences of our times ? 
 
 The community's right of revision is admitted by those econo- 
 mists who maintain the necessity of prescription in all ordinary 
 relations. John S. Mill says, in his " Principles of Pohtical 
 Economy" (Book II., chapter ii.) : "It is scarcely needful to re- 
 mark that the reasons for not disturbing acts of injustice of old 
 date, cannot apply to unjust systems or institutions, since a bad 
 law or usage is not one bad act, in the remote past, but a perpetual 
 repetition of bad acts, as long as the law or usage lasts." It 
 should indeed be "scarcely needful" to lay stress upon such a 
 self-evident proposition, but in view of the persistent clamour of 
 spoliation which is raised as soon as any old institution or interest 
 is threatened, no matter whether interference is desirable or not 
 in the public interest, it is clear that the promptings of fear and 
 indolence are for the time deadening reflection, and it becomes a 
 duty to point out with decision that a truth remains true, even if 
 it should be inconvenient to a large and influential class. 
 
 We must take due account of unforeseen developments. Things 
 which might have been left to themselves with impunity in former 
 times, have evolved qualities which render them dangerous to the 
 community. No one is surprised at the measures taken by the 
 state for the protection of its citizens against dynamite, although 
 formerly the manufacture of blasting materials was carried on 
 without supervision or interference. If any one should develop 
 the wonderful capacity of upsetting a house by merely touching
 
 THE LIMITS OF TINKERING. 15 
 
 it with a finger, should we not stop him at once from exercising 
 his power? Yet we all claim the right of the free use of our 
 hands, and would laugh at any one who tried to make it unlawful 
 to lay a finger upon a house. Thus, if we find in the course of 
 our investigation that the community's interference is required in 
 quarters which have been under no restriction until now, the his- 
 torical reference will not be deemed a sufficient answer.
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 hisufficiency of the reivard of labour. 
 
 THE outcry about the housing of the London poor and the 
 agitation connected with the industrial distress have had 
 the valuable effect of putting on record the fact, and bringing it 
 into public notice, that a great number of people in the wealthiest 
 city of the world are habitually living in a state which is undeni- 
 ably a disgrace to civilization. When we hear of cases of absolute 
 starvation occurring in our midst, we try to make ourselves 
 believe that there must have been something wrong with the 
 sufferer. But when we are shown whole classes living in a state 
 of abject misery, of which most people in better positions can 
 hardly form an idea, we cannot take shelter under the plea of 
 exceptionality. We are then brought face to face with the 
 necessity of deciding for ourselves whether these fearful pheno- 
 mena are due to natural and irremovable causes, or if their source 
 is to be found in institutions or conditions which admit of alter- 
 ation by human agencies. In a case of such importance as this, 
 no one who is not afraid of the trouble and bitterness of thought 
 could accept the former alternative before having exhausted to 
 the best of his knowledge the whole range of possibilities con- 
 nected with the other. 
 
 Thanks to the persistence and energy of the agitation and to 
 the corresponding thoroughness of the scrutiny in the public press, 
 it is now generally admitted that the principal cause of the bad 
 housing of the poor is poverty, and that, in fact, the problem forms 
 
 i6
 
 THE CHRONIC DISTRESS. 17 
 
 only one branch of the great question of the insufficiency of the 
 reward of labour. Apart from its possible practical results, the 
 agitation has done a great deal of good by calling attention to the 
 larger question and thereby diminishing the danger, that society 
 might accept as a radical remedy what at the best can only be a 
 temporary expedient. Ultimately the question of over-crowding, 
 as far as it can be considered and treated by itself, will resolve 
 itself into one of public outlay, partly temporary, partly a fond 
 perdu. In this manner the community will be mulcted in pocket 
 for its former neglect of social questions. In a similar way, 
 charity funds and a suspension of some restrictions of the poor 
 law, which also means a contribution in money, are expected to 
 help the poor tide over the present distress. But to expect a 
 lasting improvement from such exceptional measures would be as 
 unreasonable as to expect a man, starved into a fever and relieved 
 by medical treatment, to thrive ever after upon the former in- 
 sufficient diet. Sensible men know better. They are aware that, 
 in order to restore the sufferer to health, it may be necessary to 
 apply drugs which would prove injurious to a healthy organism, 
 and they will therefore approve in a case of emergency of 
 measures to which they could not agree under normal circum- 
 stances. But they know also that the temporary relief offers no 
 guarantee whatever for the future, and that like causes will pro- 
 duce like effects at all times. This suppositious case is strictly 
 analogous to that of the poor suffering from over-crowding and 
 distress. Whatever drugs may be applied in the shape of excep- 
 tional measures to remedy the paroxysm, a regular supply of 
 health-sustaining nourishment will be required ever afterwards to 
 keep the cured patient in fair condition, and to prevent others 
 from slipping into that abject state of distress which, by common 
 consent, ought not to disfigure the face of a civilized and wealthy 
 country. 
 
 C
 
 1 8 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 This regular supply of nourishment, namely a sufficient income, 
 cannot be given or accepted as a present, but must be obtained in 
 exchange for what ordinary people have to offer, their labour. 
 And, in order to appreciate the far-reaching importance of the 
 problem, we must bear in mind that the insufficiency of the 
 reward of labour affects other considerable strata beside those 
 suffering from absolute want. Our fine, respectable humanity is 
 very apt to be touched by palpable nuisances in which, to a 
 certain extent, we are physically co-sufferers, but to ignore the 
 ills which are not sufficiently conspicuous to create a public 
 offence. By dint of strenuous clamour we have been induced 
 to notice those acute cases where the insufficiency of income 
 results in enforced indecency and absolute hopelessness ; but we 
 have not yet extended our sympathy to the incomparably larger 
 number of cases where it merely forces the labourer to be satisfied 
 with a lower degree of comfort and security than he could claim 
 according to the proper value of his labour, if a reasonable scope 
 was afforded to him for its exercise. Yet this part of the problem 
 is not inferior in importance to the more striking case of absolute 
 want and must be dealt with in any thorough inquiry. 
 
 Few of us have realized probably, how deeply this cancer, the 
 insufficiency or inadequacy of the reward of labour, has eaten into 
 the vitals of this and other civilized nations, that want of employ- 
 ment, depression of trade and all the other ills of which the 
 industrial and commercial world complains, are only symptoms 
 of this great evil, that poverty is only another name for it. Yet 
 it seems clear that, the vast majority of human beings having only 
 labour to offer in return for wealth, nations must be rich or poor, 
 must gain or lose, as labour commands an adequate reward or 
 
 not. 
 
 A superficial glance at the condition of the most civilized 
 nations reveals a startling state of affairs. Looking at the accu-
 
 ENOUGH FOR ALL. 19 
 
 mulated stocks of almost all objects of ordinary consumption ; 
 at the hundreds of factories standing idle or working short time ; 
 at the hundreds of thousands of people unable to find em- 
 ployment for their willing hands ; at the stretches of cultivable 
 land unoccupied and the enormous amount of capital waiting to 
 transfer itself to directly productive purposes, we cannot escape 
 the conclusion that probably the world's actual production, and 
 most certainly its capabilities of production, are large enough to 
 afford to every living being the means for a decent existence. 
 If we consider that mankind has managed to maintain itself in 
 former times upon a much smaller area of production, without the 
 aid of labour-saving machinery and with the most scanty and im- 
 perfect means of communication and exchange, it seems incredible, 
 were it not for the dreary facts staring us in the face, that want and 
 distress should still be rampant at this present time. With all the 
 powers acquired recently, mankind should have been able, not only 
 to sweep away undeserved want, but to afford such an increase in 
 the reward of labour as to secure a high degree of comfort to 
 every labourer. The return for every kind of work should be 
 high enough to leave to the labourer a margin for some material 
 and intellectual enjoyment of life, measured in a reasonable pro- 
 portion to the opportunities to which people lay claim by virtue 
 of the possession of land and capital. We are fast improving the 
 education of the common man and doing our best to inculcate in 
 him the taste for pleasures of a higher character than he could 
 have appreciated in his former state of culture. Can we expect 
 peace, if we rouse the appetite without providing reasonable 
 opportunities for its satisfaction.? Educated men and women 
 begin to understand this and to offer to the ordinary workman a 
 share in the pleasures of culture. The ladies and gentlemen who 
 arrange musical and dramatical entertainments for the dwellers in 
 poor districts, are amongst the pioneers of the movement. Toyn-
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 bee Hall forms a nucleus for aspirations of the same tendency, 
 although of a more serious character. The Beaumont Trust is 
 attempting to do something in this direction on a larger scale. 
 All this is highly praiseworthy and deserving of encouragement, 
 but no system can be built upon the kindly dispositions of one part 
 of the population towards another. The principle of charity, as 
 commonly understood, is not sufficiently stable to form the foun- 
 dation of the social order. If the endeavours of these philan- 
 thropists are crowned with success, — if the lower classes are led 
 gradually to take an interest and a pleasure in good music, in 
 science, and other artistic and intellectual pursuits, such interests 
 and pleasures become a necessity to them. It is a consummation 
 to be wished and striven for with all might. Very many things 
 besides those taken in view by the present leaders of the move- 
 ment will have been gained, when the common labourer will have 
 learnt to look forward to the concert, the lecture, or the enjoyment 
 of a book as he looks forward now to his evening in the public- 
 house. But when this point has been reached, he will claim these 
 enjoyments as his rights, not accept them as favours. Such an 
 issue can neither be made dependent upon the goodwill of indi- 
 viduals, nor imposed upon them as a duty. For although it may 
 be the vocation of a great many ornamental members of society 
 to afford entertainment — consciously or unconsciously — to the 
 remainder, their faculties and kindliness would hardly sustain the 
 strain of a fixed obligation. With our actual resources, it seems 
 that there should be no reason to grudge to the labourer the 
 margin of income and the leisure required for a more refined and 
 agreeable life than what falls to his share at present. A reason- 
 able proportion between the most and the least favourable con- 
 ditions might be maintained, or at least aimed at. At present 
 such reasonableness does not prevail. Not to mention absolute 
 want, it will certainly go hard to prove to any one, unless he be
 
 THE ASPIRATIONS OF CULTURE. 21 
 
 prepared to maintain the right of everything existing to continue, 
 undisturbed and unreformed, in virtue of its existence, that the 
 opportunities are fairly distributed, when one individual is allowed 
 to waste in a day or an hour what would supply dozens of families 
 with the means to found a healthy life, filled by work and leisure 
 in fair admixture. Talk of setting class against class ! The facts 
 are there, speaking for themselves, and only those are fostering 
 hatred between classes who shut their eyes to these glaring dis- 
 crepancies and refuse their help towards their mitigation. Preach- 
 ing self-help to the oppressed may be natural to people who have 
 the means of helping themselves, but when they oppose a virtuous 
 indignation to the appeals of the weak and poor for the help of 
 the community, — which includes the preachers of self-help, — they 
 forget or ignore the difference between their own condition and 
 that of the applicants. 
 
 In treating of the inadequacy of the reward of labour, the latter 
 term must be taken in its proper and wider sense, and made to 
 include not merely physical exertion, but every kind of activity, 
 from the highest intellectual occupation to the coarsest drudgery, 
 provided that the performance either benefits the community or is 
 intended to benefit it. Complaints about insufficient income are 
 heard on all sides from individuals who are not classed amongst 
 labourers in the ordinary acceptance of the term. Merchants, 
 manufacturers, brokers, ship-owners, and others find their profits 
 falling off", but they are content to explain the evil by putting a 
 fine name on it, like "depression of trade," or "general want of 
 confidence." To hear that they are suff"ering — in so far as they 
 are suffering in reality, not merely in computation — from the in- 
 adequacy of the reward of labour may be news to many of them. 
 Nevertheless it is a fact, which will appear beyond a doubt in the 
 course of this investigation. 
 
 Although it is very doubtful, whether a community free through-
 
 22 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 out from want and poverty has ever maintained itself during any 
 length of time, there is, at least, good reason to assume that in 
 former ages labour obtained a larger share of the production than 
 it does now. When the whole produce, and also the capabilities 
 of production, were so much smaller than now, and when the 
 wealthiest and most prominent men lived in a style which, com- 
 pared to that prevalent now in the wealthy classes, appears simple 
 and even coarse, it was natural that only the most common 
 necessaries of life fell to the share of the common man. A com- 
 parison of mere money wages paid at different periods cannot help 
 us to form an opinion about the relative degrees of material 
 happiness, as the same amount of money represents very different 
 quantities of commodities at different periods and places, beside 
 which the average of wages does not make allowance for the 
 unemployed labour. On the other hand the comparison of 
 quantities consumed, which is so much in vogue just now, leaves 
 out the all-important element of distribution, and is therefore not 
 to be trusted, even if it conveyed a full and true picture of the 
 actual consumption, whereas in reality the increased consumption 
 of some articles proved by statistics is often only a compensation 
 for a falling off in other commodities of which statistics take no 
 notice. We know exactly, for instance, how much more tea is 
 consumed in the United Kingdom, and can easily see that the 
 poor man's consumption of this commodity has increased con- 
 siderably ; but who can tell, how much more or less milk is used 
 to-day by the poorer classes, more especially by agricultural 
 labourers } We have gone very far in the cult of the average, 
 but yet we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that there are other 
 factors of equal importance. The same average of power is repre- 
 sented by a hundred machines of four horse power each as by 
 ninety-five of one and five of sixty-one horse power. A hundred 
 incomes of ;;^500 give the same average as ninety-five of ;£^ioo and
 
 INCONCL USIVE ST A TISTICS. THE CUL T OF THE A VERAGE. 2^ 
 
 five of ^8,100 each. Yet what different degrees of efficiency are 
 indicated by the same average in the one instance, what different 
 states of comfort in the other ! To be of real service, in com- 
 parisons of consumption those strata of the population which enjoy 
 more than ordinary comforts should be eliminated, and some clue 
 should be provided to the manner of distribution amongst the 
 remainder. The usual statistics of consumption, or rather the 
 conclusions drawn from them, imply a petitio principii by the 
 unwarranted assumption of a reasonable distribution, which does 
 obviously not prevail, and which is exactly the thing aimed at by 
 those who have not yet become blind devotees of the average. 
 
 But even if it were proved that the ordinary labourer of to-day 
 consumes the same, or even a larger quantity of commodities 
 than the labourer of a former period, it would by no means 
 follow that the position of labour cannot have deteriorated. For 
 together with the growth of production, which is the sign and 
 outcome of civilization, consumption and the desire to consume 
 grow also. Even the idea of bare necessaries is expanding 
 constantly. Nomadic tribes are content to live in tents, but 
 when a community has once emerged from the nomadic state 
 and become accustomed to live in firmly built houses, a house 
 becomes one of the necessaries, and the want of one a sign of 
 poverty and a cause of deep misery. As an instance of the natural 
 variations of the standard of comfort, I may cite the difference 
 between the rates of wages paid in different parts of the world, 
 which are accounted for in part by the greater production or 
 productivity of the country which puts up the higher claim. As 
 long as production increases, the standard of comfort must ad- 
 vance ; for, unless each forward step, which effects an increase 
 or facilitation of production, was accompanied or followed by a 
 corresponding increase of consumption, there would be no call for 
 the application of the improvement, and consequently no material
 
 24 . SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 progress. In a community where all material desires were 
 satisfied, material progress would be manifestly impossible. It 
 is therefore by no means cupidity or pretentiousness which urges 
 man constantly to increase his claims on life, but this elevation 
 of the standard of comfort is the natural supplement to the growth 
 of production which is the outward sign of material progress. 
 
 The inducement to raise their claims is supplied to the work- 
 ing classes in two ways, namely : firstly by the cheapening of 
 commodities under the influence of improved methods of pro- 
 duction, etc. ; and secondly, by the example of the well-to-do, 
 who actually raise their standard of comfort by the full value of 
 every improvement. Of the two the latter motive is the more 
 powerful, for, whereas the cheapening of commodities leads mostly 
 to reductions of wages which deprive the labourer of the increase 
 of purchasing power, the example of the wealthy is always steadily 
 at work, proclaiming to the poorer that some new means of en- 
 joyment or of security have been introduced into life. If this 
 new thing is of lasting importance, the desire for it filters down 
 from one stratum of society to the other, until it comes to be 
 accepted as one of the necessaries. And once accepted as such, 
 it becomes one in fact, which nothing short of a down-break of 
 civilization can reduce to the state of a superfluity. It may be 
 superseded by improved things, but by its amount the range of 
 the necessaries of life has been extended for once and all. Only 
 the general opinion of the time determines the idea of what 
 constitutes a decent life, and what is to be considered as neces- 
 sary to it. 
 
 It is therefore quite possible that, even with wages which buy 
 a larger quantity of commodities than their forefathers could buy 
 with theirs, labourers may yet be worse ofl" now than in former 
 times. Any comparison which leaves out of account the growth 
 of the standard of comfort, may be interesting as a piece of
 
 VARIATIONS OF THE STANDARD OF COMFORT. 25 
 
 statistical science and useful as a help to the picturesque historian, 
 but is utterly worthless as a guide to an understanding of the 
 relative well-being of the people compared with each other. 
 The changing habits and growing appetites of nations must be 
 reckoned with in the provision which is made for the ordinary 
 individual. As well might we call manhood /rzw« facie a happier 
 state than childhood, because the man commands a larger income 
 and consumes more than the child, as to measure the relative 
 degrees of comfort enjoyed by different generations of men by 
 a comparison of the absolute quantities consumed by them. As 
 an instance of the worthlessness of such comparisons, we may 
 take the question of ordinary clothing. Let us admit that men 
 and women are dressed better now than their ancestors have 
 been, although there is something to be said about differences 
 of quality which renders the gain rather uncertain. But any- 
 how it is evident that ladies now-a-days are not better off or 
 happier because they are wearing silk, than ladies were in former 
 generations when they were satisfied with coarser materials 
 and less frequent changes. At some previous time two home- 
 spun and home-made dresses involved fully the same amount 
 of comfort as three silk dresses do now, and the want of means 
 to get the silk implies now the same amount of suffering which 
 the inability of procuring the home-spun brought then. It 
 comes to this, that the increase of consumption which is com- 
 monly counted as a clear gain to the community, is merely one 
 of the conditions of material progress. Even when it appears 
 to be fairly distributed over the whole population, not only 
 swelling the average by adding largely to the shares of a 
 minority, it is at least partly absorbed by an increase of average 
 appetite, so to speak, so that the individual need not derive 
 th-erefrom any increase of comfort. It carries with it even an 
 enhanced possibility of suffering, for while the awful fact of ab-
 
 26 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 solute want remains unmitigated, every advance of the standard 
 of comfort widens the distance between the ordinary and the 
 lowest possible state and implies the danger of a deeper fall for 
 the average man. To return to the instance adduced before, the 
 necessity of wearing dirty rags through want of means of obtain- 
 ing better raiment seems harder and more depressing now, when 
 the home-spun dress means poverty, and the silk, which meant 
 distinction formerly, confers on its wearer only an ordinary de- 
 gree of comfort. 
 
 If we give their due weight to these considerations, we shall 
 not feel disposed to boast of the results of material progress as 
 they appear in our present state. Whatever wealth it may have 
 conferred upon mankind, it does not appear to have carried with 
 it the wisdom required for making a reasonable use of it. Yet 
 only the manner of its application determines the real value of 
 material progress. If from its nature it must squander its results 
 upon a minority without improving the lot of the ordinary man, 
 then we had better devote all time and energy, remaining free 
 after the work for our own maintenance, to abstract study, to 
 art and literature alone. Then let us refrain from carrying the 
 results of invention and discovery into the practical life of the 
 people. Whether and how human exertions may be capable to 
 turn the results of material progress to a desirable use, will form 
 the real object of our research, for the present it is sufficient to 
 point out that under the prevailing system they have not been 
 utilized in a judicious manner. 
 
 There are of course improvements which, independently from 
 their influence upon the reward of labour, must be considered 
 gains to humanity. These are due to the progress of science and 
 art, and would be equally valuable and salutary, if they were 
 not allowed to have any influence upon commerce and industry. 
 Increased security of life and property brought about by improved
 
 J I 'NO PR OFITS MOS T BY PRO CRESS. 2 7 
 
 organization ; easy communication by person, letter, telegram, and 
 telephone ; improved methods of paving, lighting, drainage, and 
 water supply ; increased opportunities for curing illness, and 
 many other items of more or less importance unite to render life 
 on the whole easier or more enjoyable. But in these matters 
 too the opportunities are not evenly distributed, and the advance 
 of the standard of comfort for the poor has not kept pace with 
 that for the rich, nor with the rate of progress. The advantages 
 flow for the most part to the wealthier classes, and, the lower we 
 descend in the social scale, the less benefit we find accruing to 
 the individual from progress. Who saves most in money, trouble, 
 and anxiety by having the duty of personal protection transferred 
 from the individual to the state or the municipality ? Who takes 
 most advantage of steamers and railways for travelling ? Who 
 entertains a large private correspondence by post and telegraph } 
 Who enjoys the most improved methods of street-paving and 
 lighting } The wealthier men and the wealthier quarters derive 
 undoubtedly the most benefit from these and other improvements ; 
 the poor man's quarters are still badly lighted and badly paved, 
 his opportunities of travel are still very restricted, and the use which 
 he makes of post and telegraph for private purposes is as nothing 
 compared to that made of these appliances by the well-to-do. 
 A great point is made sometimes of the cheap railway trains which 
 enable the labourer to live at some distance from his work, but 
 this advantage is very problematical. Having been driven from 
 his domicile close to his work by the overgrowth of cities and the 
 increased value of the ground, he indeed must live at a distance ; 
 but it is at least doubtful, whether the labourers' cottages in the 
 suburbs are better in any sense than labourers' houses in the cities 
 were formerly, more especially when the different standards of 
 comfort are considered. That the dwellings in the cities have 
 now degenerated into real abominations, is only a consequence of
 
 28 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 material progress, without which no necessity for overcrowding 
 would have arisen, and which amongst other things poisons the 
 atmosphere and pollutes the drinking water of large towns. 
 Thus the increased facility and quickness of travelling created by 
 industrial progress is at the best only the antidote of the greater 
 necessity for travelling due to the same cause, not a gain in itself 
 as far as the poor are concerned. To the man of means on the 
 other hand it is certainly a gain that he can choose his abode at a 
 distance from his place of business, for although deprived of the 
 possibility of living quite close to it, he can now consult his tastes 
 and inclinations in his choice much more than he could under the 
 old circumstances. 
 
 One fact which proves that the reward of labour is inadequate 
 to production, is the growth of discontent all over the world. The 
 fact that labour claims a larger share than what it obtains under 
 the ruling system, goes far towards proving that its present 
 share is too small. If the claim was raised by groups of indi- 
 viduals, or in one particular place, it might be set down to special 
 causes, or to want of intelligence, or to pretentiousness. But when 
 all nations agree in the demand, it cannot be dismissed or ex- 
 plained on such grounds. The general standard of comfort has 
 risen to a point which cannot be maintained on the ordinary re- 
 ward of labour, and rather than reduce the former in the face of an 
 increasing production,\z}QO\xx will try by all means to obtain a larger 
 share of the latter. By the aid of progress, material and intel- 
 lectual, the communities have outgrown the state of childhood, 
 they have developed the wants and aspirations of the full-grown 
 man, and they may be trusted to try their hardest to find means 
 of satisfying them. Discontent is nothing new, it has existed and 
 shown itself frequently in former times, but then the possibilities 
 of production were not what they are now, and cases of an actual 
 insufficiency of production were not infrequent. Besides, the riots
 
 DISCONTENT A PROOF OF THE EVILS. 29 
 
 and upheavals of history are mostly traceable to some tyrannical 
 or oppressive act, or series of acts, or to an arbitrary interference 
 with the acknowledged rights of the people. Nothing of the kind 
 is at the root of the discontent which is spreading over the labour- 
 ing classes in all civilized countries, and which in most of them 
 has already got a very firm footing. Agitation does not create it, 
 it only accentuates and focuses the dispersed manifestations. In 
 the meanwhile the governing classes are trying everywhere to 
 conciliate the masses : they extend the franchise, they pass laws 
 for the labourer's protection in special cases, they raise funds to 
 help him tide over hard times, which in their short-sightedness 
 they consider exceptional and transitory. The interest shown by 
 the wealthy individually in the condition of the poorest is almost 
 unprecedented ; charitable institutions are not only springing up 
 everywhere, but are fully maintained by the exertions and con- 
 tributions of the rich. At the same time an abundant production 
 of all things fit for consumption is carried on, and might be in- 
 creased almost infinitely, if there was an efficient demand for more. 
 This is not a state of things to breed discontent, unless the people 
 feel and know that they are not receiving the full reward of their 
 labour. Ancient Greeks and Romans, or mediaeval Germans and 
 Englishmen would not have shown discontent under such con- 
 ditions. 
 
 Considering that during several generations the greater and 
 some of the best part of the genius and energy of mankind has 
 been devoted to the development of material interests, the thought, 
 that all our progress has not brought us nearer to a state of 
 universal material well-being is sufficiently humiliating. But the 
 most serious aspect of the problem is, that apparently the reward 
 of labour is growing less and less adequate as progress is made in 
 the arts of production and distribution. That it becomes ever 
 more difficult to earn a competency by ordinary labour, unsup-
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 ported by special advantages, is a matter of every-day experience, 
 and the necessity of taking more trouble in order to earn a living 
 than was required in old times is accepted almost as a truism. 
 The very ease of producing seems to render production inefficient, 
 overgrowth of power threatens to choke mankind. It is as though 
 the newly developed forces stood outside, free to help or to hurt, 
 independent of the wants and wishes of man, A vista opens of 
 a world given up to useless toil, starving in the midst of plenty, 
 driven hard and harder to produce ever larger store which — 
 Tantalus like — it is not allowed to touch. Yet large fortunes are 
 built up and maintained, whether times are called good or bad, 
 and a small minority enjoys by far the greater part of the ad- 
 vantages of progress without paying for them by harder work or 
 diminished security, whereas either or both of these penalties are 
 exacted from the majority in return for its small share. 
 
 Hard facts like the prevalence of poverty and the dependence of 
 common labour cannot be done away with by generalities. Every 
 one can easily ascertain for himself what the ordinary workman's 
 life and prospects are in this highly civilized country, and few will 
 be prepared to maintain that his condition reflects honour on the 
 work of our generation. But I must point out again, that it is not 
 only common manual labour which suffers, but nearly all kinds of 
 productive and distributive labour. The manufacturer and mer- 
 chant are affected, in their quality of labourers, equally with the 
 ordinary workman. They combine in themselves the characters 
 of capitalist and labourer, and they expect from their activity a 
 higher return than they could obtain by investing their capital in 
 funds and passing their life in idleness, free from the cares and 
 exertions implied in the conduct of business. But it has come to 
 pass, that in very many cases this surplus is not obtained, and that 
 those producers and dealers, who have not a large capital to help 
 them, cannot earn a sufficient income to maintain themselves and
 
 MANUAL LABOUR NOT THE ONLY SUFFERER. 31 
 
 their families. The want of profits of which commercial men 
 are complaining, the difficulty of getting on, are only the manifes- 
 tations of the insufficiency of the reward of labour in this branch 
 of activity. It is not, as is asserted frequently, the general fall of 
 prices which creates the unsatisfactory state of trade, but the fall 
 of profits, which is by no means a necessary consequence of reduced 
 prices. Nor is prosperity of trade due to an advance of general 
 prices, but to an increase of average profits, which conceivably may 
 take place as well in times when prices are tending downward. I 
 am speaking of course of general tendencies and movements. If 
 one particular branch of production or activity experiences a fall 
 or an advance of prices, it is evident that existing stocks and run- 
 ning contracts are affected thereby. But even in these cases the 
 change of price need not interfere with the normal profits of trade ; 
 and frequently the existing quantity is so widely distributed 
 amongst dealers and consumers, that the change exercises practi- 
 cally very little influence. 
 
 This curtailing of profits, which robs the smaller dealer and 
 producer of the means of subsistence and threatens, by becoming 
 chronic, to lead to the total extinction of all traders unsupported 
 by large capital, is frequently ascribed to the action of competition. 
 But this does not explain the difficulty, it merely removes it one 
 stage. It is just as difficult to explain, why competition should 
 develop to such an extent and assume such a shape, that it reduces 
 the reward of labour below the reasonable level. A certain 
 amount of competition is one of the essential conditions of com- 
 merce, being required as a check upon individual producers ; but 
 the chances are that a competition between only two parties, unless 
 there is some understanding between them, will already reduce 
 the profit to the ordinary level. An increase of the number of 
 competitors to three or four would bring it down to the level of 
 the less favourable occupations of a similar kind ; and there is no
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 inherent reason why a further increase of numbers should depress 
 it below that. A competition between five will in all probability 
 give the same result as one between seven of equal efficiency, and 
 the higher the number rises, the less difference a further increase of 
 numbers can make. The reason why more or less of competition 
 under our ruling system leads to an insufficient reward, is therefore 
 yet to be sought. 
 
 If the complaint of over-competition or over-crowding came from 
 one particular trade or profession, it might be explained easily. 
 Different branches of activity offer different degrees of attraction 
 and different measures of difficulty to the youth looking out for a 
 career, or to the parents and guardians who choose for him ; it is 
 therefore only a natural accompaniment of the individual right to 
 select one's walk in life, that into the apparently more pleasant 
 and more promising avenues more people may crowd than there 
 is room for. Then it is unavoidable that those who cannot trans- 
 fer their labour to other pursuits should suffer as a consequence 
 of the error of judgment committed in choosing an over-crowded 
 profession. A glut of barristers or actors or clerks or watch- 
 makers or of aspirants for any work which does not require 
 exceptional abilities, would admit of this explanation ; and there 
 can be no doubt that at present some branches are suffering from 
 this cause. But when we hear the same complaint arising from 
 almost every walk of life, when we can hardly find any opening for 
 a man of ordinary ability to exercise his labour with a reasonable 
 prospect of reward, when in every branch it requires an exceptional 
 amount of capacity and application to secure, not a brilliant re- 
 sult, but a mere living, — then I contend that the plea of over- 
 manning and competition does not offer a solution of the problem 
 and is merely another form of stating the fact of the insufficiency 
 of the reward of labour.
 
 A 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The Doctrine of Over-population. 
 
 N apparent explanation of poverty, which has been in fashion 
 during a long period, is afforded by the theory of over- 
 population. It seems extremely simple. There are so many 
 persons who want food and proper shelter, and cannot find it ; 
 there are so many more who cannot secure a sufficiency of 
 either or both : why, these people are simply de trap. If they 
 were not in existence, there would be no distress, and the remedy 
 for distress consists in reducing the population to the number 
 which, under our conditions, seems to be provided for. Humanity 
 and the criminal law prevent us from killing the superfluous 
 number right off; but if we succeed by all lawful means to keep 
 population down, we can save our present system, which of 
 course must not be touched, and every individual can secure 
 the necessaries of life for himself and his family. This is the 
 essence of that theory which has ruled supreme for decades and 
 which, in spite of a considerable loss of prestige, is still suffi- 
 ciently believed in to form a serious obstacle in the way of 
 reform. It is a dangerous argument in the hands of the un- 
 educated or the half-educated in social questions, in consequence 
 of its apparent simplicity. It has a fatal, deceiving look of 
 conclusiveness about it ; it seems to stop the questioner's mouth 
 once for all : but what it offers is a stone instead of bread. It 
 would serve as the explanation of famine in a besieged town ; 
 but in those cases where it applies, it is so obvious as to be 
 
 D
 
 34 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 a truism unworthy of expression. In those cases where an 
 explanation is needed, the theory of over-population does not 
 supply it. As well might we say, that "poverty comes from 
 the want of money," or "sickness comes from the want of health," 
 as to accept over-population as the final cause of poverty under 
 present conditions. It is nothing but a juggling with words, 
 which does not bring us one step nearer to the truth. 
 
 It is not necessary in this place to investigate at great length 
 the foundation of the doctrine, namely, that population increases 
 in a geometrical ratio, while the subsistence which can be ob- 
 tained from land could not possibly be made to increase faster 
 than in an arithmetical one. Even if this was conceded, it 
 would prove only that a state of absolute want may arise from 
 these causes, not that the present state of distress can be so 
 explained. Put the case of a community of i,ooo persons draw- 
 ing their subsistence from 2,000 acres of land. Let within a 
 certain time the population double itself, and put 3,000 acres 
 more under cultivation : would there be any cause for want and 
 poverty, although the population has increased in a geometrical 
 ratio and the subsistence in an arithmetical one .-^ The difficulty 
 foreseen by this theory arises only when population increases 
 fast, after the resources of land are demonstrably exhausted, 
 when every available nook and corner is already utilized to the 
 full extent of its capacity ; it lies in the fact that land is limited 
 in quantity and incapable of actual increase, whereas we can con- 
 ceive an infinite increase of human beings. 
 
 Such a state of things may occur after the lapse of many 
 thousands of years ; but if the human race should survive so 
 long, it may be safely assumed that it will have learnt by 
 then to regulate its numbers in an effectual and inobtrusive 
 manner. There is really no necessity to begin now already 
 preparing for a contingency which will probably never occur, and
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF OVER-POPULATION. 35 
 
 which cannot take place during the lives of hundreds of coming 
 generations. What we are concerned with, what we wish to 
 have explained, is the state prevalent in our world at present 
 and likely to prevail in the immediate future, under the conditions 
 which rule our life. Is there any ground to assume that a mis- 
 proportion exists or will arise between population and the means 
 of subsistence ? Looking at the fact that it requires an average 
 of two children to each two members of a generation in order 
 merely to keep up its numbers in the next, looking also at the 
 number of children in ordinary households and at the multitude 
 of childless households and individuals, the prospect of a rapid 
 increase seems very weak. Of course, if we compare the present 
 population of London or of the United States of America with 
 the figures of fifty years ago, we find a startling increase ; but 
 how many of the present inhabitants of London or of the United 
 States are descended from people who lived in that town or in 
 that country fifty years ago ? We have no means to ascertain 
 the growth of population all over the inhabited earth during 
 periods of any length. But facts like the dying out of the 
 indigenous races in the countries brought into contact with 
 European civilization seem to prove that one race merely super- 
 sedes the other, and that even an extraordinary increase of the 
 one might be compensated by a rapid decline of another weaker 
 one. As far as we are able to judge, the total number of the 
 inhabitants of the earth has not increased greatly during historical 
 times ; for in those periods when Europe was yet covered with 
 woods an4 sparsely populated, cities with millions of inhabitants 
 flourished in the East which have since disappeared and given 
 place to wildernesses. So much for the growth of population. 
 On the other hand, the area of cultivable land lying idle as 
 yet has not been estimated, and cannot even be guessed at with 
 any approach to accuracy, so long as we have only an outline
 
 36 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 knowledge of whole continents, which in all probability are 
 sparsely populated, and which, by the help of the powers which 
 science has placed at our disposal, we can utilize in the future, 
 if the necessity should arise. We have only touched the fringe 
 of Africa yet ; there is Australia, Canada ; there is Central Asia 
 only just being re-discovered ; there is Russia herself with Siberia, 
 which latter has proved herself better than her fame. Even the 
 United States of America do not carry anything like the number 
 of people which their soil could maintain with ease. At the 
 rate of increase of population which history justifies us in assum- 
 ing, there is room enough for the growth of uncounted generations. 
 We have found means to render life possible and even comfortable 
 in places where our forefathers could not have existed ; and we 
 may safely assume that medical art and the general science of 
 life will make further progress, so that, when the necessity arises, 
 our descendants shall be able to exist under climatic conditions 
 which would be deadly or injurious to us. Agriculture, under 
 the guidance of science, has learned to get comparatively more 
 out of the soil ; and further improvements, or, at the very least, 
 a more general application of improvements used as yet only 
 by a minority, may be expected with confidence. So that, taken 
 all in all, we may well say, that the ratio of increase of population 
 is not an alarming one, whereas that of the increase of subsis- 
 tence is practically unlimited. 
 
 Thus the ground is cut from under the feet of the over- 
 population theory ; for as long as there are unused sources of 
 supply, it is evident that the nearest remedy for short supplies 
 would be the utilization of these sources, not the diminution of 
 the number of applicants. But even in the limited sense that 
 the actual production is not sufficient for the maintenance of the 
 population, the contention is not borne out by facts. The only 
 fact which I have found adduced in its support is, that one
 
 FALSE PREMISSES. 37 
 
 has never heard of grain or meat rotthig for want of buyers, 
 that therefore distress cannot be caused by the impossibility of 
 the needy getting at their share of the food, although the quantity 
 required is in existence, but that there must be an actual short 
 supply of food in order to render distress possible. (Max Nordau, 
 "Die conventionellen Luegen der Kulturmenschheit.") But this 
 allegation is not proved. Although we may have never heard 
 of meat or grain rotting, this process may be taking place 
 continually, and even if, by new methods of preservation, this 
 form of waste is avoided, is it not a well-known fact that grain 
 suitable for human food has been utilized as food for cattle, when 
 there were surely hungry men enough in existence? Besides, 
 the greatest extension of agricultural production known to history 
 has only been effected during recent years, and the condition of 
 the poor has not become better since, but worse. We may yet 
 come to the experience of having grain rotting in the sight of 
 all, with all the poverty and misery of our time unabated, if 
 not heightened. As a matter of fact and of every-day knowledge, 
 which may be verified by a look upon the commercial reports 
 of all civilized nations, there is as much produced of the first 
 necessaries of life as would be sufficient to sweep away absolute 
 want and to improve materially the condition of those classes 
 which are just one step beyond the reach of destitution. The 
 cry is everywhere, that there is too much produced, not too little. 
 We all know that want does not usually mean the non-existence 
 of things to eat, to clothe, to warm, but the want of means to 
 get them. There is a plethora of commodities, the things required 
 by the needy are all there, but they are hoarded up and well 
 guarded, the gates are closed upon them, and the wretched poor 
 are standing hungry and shivering on the other side. The great 
 exertions made by producers to effect the sale of their produce, 
 in some cases at prices at which they can scarcely hope to
 
 38 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 replace them, prove clearly that scarcity of commodities is not 
 at the bottom of the existing poverty. As long as there is a 
 glut of some objects of wealth and at the same time a large 
 area of cultivable land insufficiently or not at all cultivated, even 
 an absolute scarcity of food-stuffs would only prove a want of 
 organization, not the impossibility to supply the elementary 
 necessaries of life to all people in existence ; for, if the labour 
 spent upon those other objects had been employed upon the 
 uncultivated land, the necessary food would have been produced. 
 
 So we see that the so-called pressure of population upon 
 subsistence cannot be the reason of the unsatisfactory state of 
 affairs in our time, whatever may be its relevancy in a remote 
 period with which we have no concern, and the conditions of 
 which neither Malthus nor any one else could gauge properly. 
 And yet the cry of over-population is sustained, yet some of 
 those who wish to throw the additional burden of the guilt oi 
 their misery upon the shoulders of the miserable, would make 
 us believe that the hoards do not exist, that supplies cannot be 
 procured, and that the people outside the gates have no business 
 to live. They cannot and dare not kill them, they do not even 
 dare to propose energetic means for the diminution of their 
 numbers, so they take refuge in denying the possibility of satisfy- 
 insf their demands and leave them to starve in honour of the 
 theory of over-population. 
 
 Under our system the struggle of the poor to obtain means 
 of subsistence takes the shape of competition for work. The 
 pass-words to a share of the world's wealth are land, capital, 
 and labour. Of these three the great majority have only the 
 last to offer, and their chief endeavour is to find an opportunity 
 of employing it. The theory of over-population advises us to 
 reduce the number of applicants. If there were fewer workmen, 
 it says, there would be work enough for all. But this contention
 
 CONFUSION OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE FACTS. 39 
 
 rests upon the erroneous assumption that the amount of work 
 to be performed in the world is fixed. It leaves out of view 
 the fact that every producer is also a consumer. To every pair 
 of hands willing to work there belongs a mouth to be fed, a 
 back to be clothed. Every human being requires the performance 
 of work for its maintenance, and only in exceptional cases does 
 its own activity provide directly those objects which it requires. 
 An English workman may be employed in the manufacture of 
 cotton goods for the Indian market or in the porterage of goods 
 on board of foreign steamers for exportation, but somebody else 
 must be employed on the production of the food, the raiment, 
 and the other necessaries of life which this English labourer 
 buys with the reward of his labour. Why then should an in- 
 crease of labourers lead to such a fearful competition and even 
 to downright distress .-' The supply of labour and the demand 
 for commodities may be assumed to balance each other quite 
 as well in twenty millions of people as in ten millions. The 
 theory of over-population leaves the question exactly where it 
 was before. 
 
 One of the facts which are popularly pointed to as a proof of 
 the theory is the difficulty which the father of a large family finds 
 in getting on, compared with the man who has only himself or a 
 small family to support. It is easy to see that a man can main- 
 tain himself, a wife, and one child with comparative comfort, where 
 he would hardly be able to provide the bare necessaries for six 
 children, and therefrom the easy inference is drawn that all could 
 manage equally well, if no one had a large family. As it requires 
 considerably more than two children to the average household (in 
 order to compensate for childless individuals and to counteract the 
 agencies which cut people off from life before their children are 
 able to help in production) merely to keep up the labour power 
 of the world, I believe that the average number of children in our
 
 4Q SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 times is not much in excess of this minimum. But even if, for the 
 sake of argument, we conceded that it might be restricted without 
 reducing the numbers of the next generation below those of the 
 present, we shall find that the inference is thoroughly false. The 
 man with two children is getting on comparatively well now, only 
 because his neighbours have more. Let us assume that the 
 average at a certain period is four. Roughly speaking, a labourer 
 would then earn enough on an average to maintain a man, a 
 woman, and four children. The father of six would find it hard 
 work to manage and would have to pinch himself; the father of 
 two would be able to save something or to allow himself some 
 comforts beyond those enjoyed by the ordinary workman. Now 
 let the average be reduced to two. The competition for work would 
 not decrease, but a new margin would have been created for the 
 depression of wages. In their anxiety to secure employment the 
 labourers would be content with an average reward which per- 
 mitted them to maintain themselves, their wives, and two children. 
 The man with two would have lost his advantage, the father of four 
 would have stepped into the precarious position held formerly by 
 the father of six, and in order to be able to save or to spend more 
 freely, the labourer would now be obliged to restrict his family to 
 one child or to remain childless. The advocates of restriction of 
 population commit the mistake of accepting a relative fact as an 
 absolute one. If a philanthropist, in order to aid a labouring man, 
 takes some of his children off his hands, he improves the man's 
 position by enabling him to reduce his expenditure without interfer- 
 ing with his wages. But if the state or a wide-spread society of 
 benevolent and wealthy men undertook the bringing up at their 
 expense of all children which might be beyond the number of two 
 in any workman's household, the only certain result would be 
 that increase of population would go on at a quicker pace. The 
 material condition of the labourer would not be improved, wages
 
 THE ENDLESS SCREW. 41 
 
 would fall to the lowest point compatible with the maintenance of 
 a family of two children. 
 
 The special remedy is mistaken for the universal. If any one dis- 
 covered a method of converting coal into diamonds, he would have 
 a source of almost illimited wealth before him. But if he wants to 
 draw a pecuniary profit from his discovery, he knows better than 
 to explain the process from the housetops. He knows very well 
 that at the same moment when every one is able to make diamonds 
 out of coal, diamonds will be worth only the price of coal, plus the 
 cost of the conversion and the ordinary manufacturing profit. We 
 all see this plainly enough in private affairs, but somehow many 
 people are slow to acknowledge the principle in public matters. I 
 wish to lay stress upon this error of judgment, as we shall meet it 
 again more than once. 
 
 I will now go a step farther by proving that the theory of over- 
 population does not only not supply an explanation of the existing 
 distress and poverty, but that its principle is self-destroying and 
 therefore impracticable in the true sense of the term. In order not 
 to introduce debatable matter into the argument, we will assume 
 that under the present system an ordinary labourer in full work 
 receives in the shape of his wages a full share of wealth. The 
 miserable are then only those who cannot find sufficient employ- 
 ment. Now let us put the case that by some coincidence or some 
 cleverly devised system the advocates of restriction succeeded in 
 getting rid of the so-called surplus population, and in securing to 
 every survivor regular wages in return for average work. Alas, 
 before our friends would have had time to ascertain the effects of 
 their measure, the equilibrium would be disturbed again. Some 
 one makes an invention or introduces an improved method of 
 production, which reduces the amount of work required by the 
 community more than the demand can be stimulated, and hey 
 presto ! some people are thrown out of work again, and it would
 
 42 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 require a new slaughter of the innocents in order to give to every 
 survivor again a fair share of work and wages. Each progress in 
 the arts of production and distribution, every improvement in the 
 science and arts of life, would necessitate a corresponding reduction 
 of the numbers of the population. If medical science combined 
 with intellectual and moral development succeeded in adding ten 
 per cent, to the average length of human life, the rate of reproduc- 
 tion would have to be checked by ten per cent, in order to save the 
 ratio between work and workmen, unless indeed it was considered 
 a corollary of the precious theory to kill people at a certain age. 
 As long as the capacity of progress and the wish to exercise it 
 remain to the human race, a steady diminution of the population 
 would have to be carried on. In this way the human race would 
 be actually refined and civilized off the face of the earth, unless it 
 saved itself by opposing and repudiating all progress whatsoever. 
 Surely this cannot be the saving doctrine, which leads us gradually 
 to certain extinction by the very capacities which enable us, and 
 by the pains which we take to render life easier, more comfortable, 
 and more secure. Looking at the economical problems of life in 
 such a light, means simply throwing up the sponge. No necessity 
 then to discuss the question, whether life is worth living or not ; 
 the wisest thing would be to light a conflagration and to destroy 
 suddenly a race which otherwise is doomed to drift slowly towards 
 a painful end, without the consoling hope of a better future in 
 store for mankind. 
 
 If this is life and life's future, we had better commit suicide at 
 once. But the advocates of restriction do not commit it, nor do 
 they recommend it to others, for the simple reason that they do not 
 follow out their principle to its last consequences. They accept it 
 as an excuse for leaving things as they are, as a new and improved 
 edition of the old reverent feeling of resignation — the death of 
 which they are mourning. It accords well with the fashionable
 
 JVNV THE THEORY HAS BEEN SO POPULAR. 43 
 
 pessimism, but whatever conclusions a purely philosophical con- 
 templation of life may lead us to — and they are not the worst men 
 whom it has led to pessimism — the theory of over-population, 
 being founded upon fallacies, does not afford any support to these 
 conclusions. Until we have proved our perception of the unworthi- 
 ness of life by throwing it from us, we keep the power of increasing 
 or lessening its undeniably heavy burdens, and it cannot seem 
 doubtful in which direction our energies should be exercised. The 
 plea of over-population would justify us in folding our arms and 
 letting things go as they may. If people must starve, this won- 
 derful doctrine consoles us, they were superfluous, there was no 
 house-room or no bread or no work for them, best for them and for 
 us that they perish. It is this sanctioning of the power of the 
 powerful and of the wealth of the wealthy which has made it so 
 popular in the past, and which I hope will make it extremely 
 unpopular in the future. It is an exploded fallacy which ought to 
 be buried amongst the other superstitions of former generations, a 
 broken platform which precipitates the man who trusts it into the 
 abyss of despair. No compromise with it is possible, nothing but 
 rejection of premisses and conclusions, for the facts are plain and 
 admit of plain proof. Holding out a prospect of conciliation to 
 this theory would be like compromising with the contention that 
 two and two make five, by agreeing that they make four and a half. 
 Before parting from this subject, I wish to point out once more 
 that, as a means of improving their prospects in life, prudence in 
 reproduction on the part of the poor is evidently advisable, but 
 that the efficacy of this remedy ceases as soon as it is applied 
 universally, so as to produce a marked alteration of the ordinary 
 rate. As things are, it may be necessary to restrict the increase of 
 the population or even actually to reduce the population in some 
 towns or some districts, but this can at the best only be a special 
 remedy, a mere makeshift in extreme cases, after things have been
 
 44 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 mismanaged or gone wrong. It is sufficient to point to the vast 
 area of unoccupied land and to the unexhausted resources of 
 emigration, in order to show that over-population cannot be the 
 root of poverty in our time. To find its real cause we must look 
 elsewhere, and therewith I am glad to take leave of this subject.
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The Moral Condition of the People. — Extravagance^ Drink, Idleness. 
 
 A NY one who follows with interest the social movements of 
 •■^^- our time must be struck by the earnest endeavours which 
 are directed to the moral improvement of the people. It is one 
 of the most consolatory signs of the period that so many of the 
 best men and women are devoting their energy and their money, 
 in some instances one might almost say their lives, to this task, 
 leaving the leisure and pleasure which wealth can procure them for 
 the hardships, anxieties, and disappointments connected with work 
 amongst the poor. These men and women, whose intentions 
 and actions deserve the highest appreciation, are not as a rule 
 led to this activity by reflections upon the deeper social problems, 
 but by the promptings of a generous nature which revolts at 
 the scenes of misery enacted on all sides in public and traceable 
 in many cases to vice or excess of some description. They see 
 the drunkard fuddling himself with intoxicating drink, they see 
 his haggard wife and starving children deprived of the first 
 necessaries and driven to careers of shame and crime by the 
 bread-winner's intemperance. They find men steeped in poverty 
 and held there by the chains of their own idleness, who might 
 emerge from the slough of despond, if they could summon the 
 energy for an effort. They note these facts with rage and pity, 
 and they determine to do what in them lies to diminish the 
 amount of suffering by curing the vice from which they see it 
 flowing. An immense field of useful activity opens before them ;
 
 46 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 the closer they survey the area, the farther it seems to extend. 
 They hear the magistrates declaring that nine-tenths of the 
 crimes committed in the land are due to the influence of drink, 
 and they get into the habit of thinking that by putting a stop 
 to vice they would stop effectually the sources, not only of crime, 
 but also of misery. No one can wonder at this. If they enter 
 upon their self-appointed duties with earnest devotion and 
 thorough-going zeal, they find their hands so full of immediate 
 work requiring all their energy, that they cannot afford to look 
 beyond the effects of their particular efforts. 
 
 This is a very different doctrine from that of over-population, 
 and ought to be treated in quite another spirit. It differs 
 essentially from the latter in so far as it demands constant 
 sacrifices from its advocates ; that, instead of sanctioning the 
 barrier erected by civilization between rich and poor, it induces 
 the former to mix with the latter and to learn to appreciate 
 their wants and failings, together with their virtues ; and lastly 
 that, except where it passes into exaggeration, as any effort 
 may do, its results are a clear gain to the community and to 
 the individuals concerned. In fact, the theory that misery 
 arises from vice and can be abolished by the suppression of 
 vice, is directly at war with that of over-population, although 
 both are not unfrequently combined in the same mind ; for, if 
 it is desirable in the true interest of the community to reduce 
 the numbers of the population, or at least to prevent their in- 
 crease, it would be culpable weakness to do away with a powerful 
 agent like vice, which is working steadily in the desired direction. 
 If, on the other hand, the condition of the masses can be 
 improved materially by the elevation of public morality, what 
 necessity can there be to restrict their numbers? 
 
 That such an elevation is desirable, even if it has no influence 
 upon the material condition of the poor, no one will deny and
 
 THE LEADING VICES. 47 
 
 every one who has the well-being of the human race at heart 
 will be glad to give all help and honour to the men and women 
 engaged in this cause. But the problem of the insufficiency of 
 the reward of labour will not be solved by these means. I 
 maintain even, that the lot of the ordinary labourer will be 
 hardly affected thereby. 
 
 The leading vices of the masses are alleged extravagance, 
 drink, and idleness. There is a continuous and only too often 
 a well-deserved outcry against the spendthrift artisan, the drunken 
 poor, and the idle workman. All minor vices, by which I mean 
 here vices of less extensiveness, will be found to follow the same 
 conditions as the above-named, or to be the outcome of particular 
 circumstances against which society cannot provide, and which 
 need not be taken into account here. 
 
 The vice which attracts public attention most, and against 
 which the most serious efforts are directed, is drunkenness. 
 There are those who condemn intoxicating drink in any form 
 or quantity, but my concern is not with them. It has not 
 been proved that a moderate indulgence in alcoholic liquor is 
 injurious to either mind or body ; and even if it could be proved 
 that the use of alcohol must in all cases tend to shorten the 
 duration of life by a trifle, there remains still the individual's 
 right to buy a source of daily enjoyment by the sacrifice of 
 a fraction of his life. After all, any kind of excitement, of 
 violent sensation, must absorb a certain amount of vitality, 
 which, if stored up, would help to prolong life, but yet our ideal 
 is not vegetation, and we measure the value of life not by its 
 length alone. There can be no doubt that a judicious use of 
 alcohol confers upon many persons the faculty of enjoying life 
 in a higher degree than they could without it ; that in many 
 cases it even brings to light capacities which require a stimulus 
 of such a kind. Why should this opportunity be taken from
 
 48 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 the ordinary man ? If the intention is to prevent the abuse of 
 alcohol on the part of the minority likely to indulge in it ex- 
 cessively by withholding it altogether from the temperate majority, 
 I maintain that this is an overstepping of the rights of the 
 community. A thing which is harmless in itself cannot be pro- 
 hibited because its abuse would be injurious to the abuser. 
 We should next have to forbid the eating of salmon or lobster, 
 because there are a good many people with whom they disagree. 
 The fact often adduced in commendation of total abstinence, 
 that companies insure the lives of teetotalers at a lower rate 
 than those of moderate consumers of alcohol, does not prove 
 much ; for one thing few people will call themselves drunkards, 
 or be called so by their friends, unless they are in the habit of 
 exceeding, not only frequently, but also conspicuously. It is 
 therefore to be assumed, that the list of alleged moderate 
 drinkers includes many intemperate individuals who indulge 
 in drink to such an extent as to really shorten their lives. 
 Secondly, there is a piinia facie case in favour of the assumption 
 that the man who abstains from drinking altogether is of an 
 abstemious and cautious turn of mind, which will induce him to 
 avoid risks and temptations in general, and thereby give him 
 the chance of a longer life. After due allowance for these 
 considerations, I believe that very little, if anything, of the 
 alleged longer duration of life of total abstainers can be put 
 down to their absolute abstention from alcohol. 
 
 But, as I said before, my concern is not with this movement 
 except in so far as it tends to combat the excess. What I 
 have to consider is, what difference it would make in the material 
 condition of labourers, if intemperance was abolished. It is 
 obvious enough that the condition of the men addicted to in- 
 temperance at present would be greatly improved, if they could 
 divest themselves of their habit ; but before we can accept this
 
 INTEMPERANCE QUA EXTRAVAGANCE. 49 
 
 vice as the universal cause of poverty, we require the proof that 
 it is also responsible for the poverty of the sober poor. It is 
 an undisputed fact that hundreds of thousands of labourers are 
 living in constant poverty, on the verge of absolute starvation, 
 although they are not afflicted with intemperate habits, although 
 they have been willing to work all their lives, and although 
 they have not had more than an ordinary share of elementary 
 impediments like illness, accidents, etc., to contend with. Is 
 drink the cause of their miserable state also ? And what about 
 those millions who, although not suffering actual want, are 
 condemned to unceasing joyless toil and to everlasting anxiety .'' 
 Have they too to blame intemperance for the insufficient reward 
 of their labour .'' 
 
 Under this aspect intemperance is essentially a form of ex- 
 travagance and may be treated as part of the latter. It is the 
 craving of ordinary human nature to escape from the range of 
 the regular occupation, the desire for something of a different 
 and more exciting character than the dull routine of common 
 work. The wealthy have discovered a thousand different outlets 
 for this desire, and yet they are always searching' eagerly for 
 new ones. The poor man of average education in contemporary 
 England has little beside the public-house to fly to for the 
 satisfaction of his craving for company, variety, and a; certain 
 amount of excitement. These things have been sought after 
 and preached against at all times, and it is therefore a mistake, 
 and a most misleading one, to look upon the evil of intemperance 
 as an accident. The old Romans were moderate in drink, but 
 they asked for the exciting spectacles of the arena in the same 
 breath with their demand for bread. " Panem et circenses," bread 
 and circus-games, asked they from their rulers. The Chinese, 
 free from the affliction of alcohol, are under the spell of the 
 not less potent craving for opium. Wherever a community pro- 
 
 E
 
 so SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 duces more than the most absolute necessaries, we find the 
 masses possessed by apparent extravagance or intemperance of 
 some form. We may call it accidental, into which channel the 
 tendency may flow, or, at least, it is sufficient for the present 
 purpose to comprise under the term "accident" all the deter- 
 mining climatic, racial, and other differences which combine to 
 make, for instance, alcohol the staple extravagance of the 
 Englishman, and opium that of the Chinese, but the tendency 
 itself we must accept as inseparable from civilized humanity. 
 
 Essentially it comes to this, that a very large amount is spent 
 on alcoholic drinks which, if spent on the first necessaries of 
 life, would go a long way towards alleviating the sufferings of 
 the poor. Yes, and a deal more might be saved, if we cancelled 
 also the meat-bill of the labouring classes. If they would only 
 be satisfied to live upon potatoes and water, how comfortable 
 they might be ! But they will not be satisfied with such a 
 mode of living, because they can see plainly that there is no 
 want of material for the supply of necessaries, and because the 
 well-to-do classes, far from setting an example by denying them- 
 selves the accustomed luxuries, are increasing their consumption 
 — with occasional interruptions — from year to year. There must 
 be something radically wrong with a state of things which should 
 force the labourer to give up part of the comforts to which he 
 has become used, when the area and facilities of production are 
 increasing continually. 
 
 As a matter of fact, a further reduction of the labourers' ex- 
 penditure would — under our system — bring them no advantage. 
 If a certain extravagance is the rule amongst the working classes, 
 the reward of labour must be on the whole adapted to the ex- 
 penditure involved in it, wages must therefore be high enough 
 to leave a margin to the thrifty, sober man. In this manner 
 the temperate man reaps actually a reward, not through his
 
 GENERAL ABSTINENCE NO CURE OF POVERTY. 51 
 
 temperance, but through his competitors' intemperance, and it 
 seems therefore almost absurd to put down the misery prevailing 
 amongst so many temperate people to the spread of intemperance. 
 By a universal conversion to temperance they would actually 
 lose the advantage which they hold under present circumstances. 
 We will put the theory to the test by assuming, that all at once 
 all workmen abjured extravagance of any kind, that the publicans 
 were provided for or compensated without expense to the working 
 classes, and that the workmen managed to pass in sleep the 
 time which they used formerly to devote to drinking or other 
 forms of extravagance. What would be the position then ? Apart 
 from the moral advantage, which is undeniably great, the con- 
 verted drunkards and spendthrifts would at first gain by the 
 change, as the money squandered before would now be devoted 
 to the satisfaction of their more pressing and reasonable wants. 
 The thrifty and sober man would neither gain nor lose in money, 
 only his temperance would not be to him a special advantage 
 as before, and by being reduced to the common level he would 
 suffer a relative loss. But, after the general reign of temperance 
 which would in no way diminish the competition for work, had 
 lasted for some time, the employers of labour would find out 
 that the labourers could do with somewhat lower wages than 
 were necessary under the reign of intemperance to keep body 
 and soul together, and how long would it take then to reduce 
 the average of wages to such a point that the money saved in 
 the labourers' expenditure went either to the cheapening of the 
 article produced, or remained in the pockets of the wage-payer ? 
 In the former case the present condition would be rehabilitated 
 but not improved, in the latter the sober man would be a loser 
 not only relatively, but absolutely, whilst the converted drunkard 
 would be a gainer — apart from his moral improvement — in the 
 exact ratio of his former drunkenness.
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 It may be useful to reduce the proposition to figures. Let 
 us say that it requires four shillings daily to defray the cost of 
 an average household, and that the ordinary workman spends 
 sixpence daily on drink. Under normal circumstances wages 
 will then average four shillings and sixpence. The temperate 
 man is consequently able to save up to sixpence daily, the 
 drunkard, who spends one and sixpence on drink, will have to 
 stint himself and his family of necessaries to the extent of one 
 shilling daily. If temperance becomes universal, every one can 
 save up to sixpence a day. But as soon as the principle is 
 firmly established and the average rate of expenditure per- 
 manently reduced to four shillings, the competition for work will 
 insure a corresponding fall of wages. The converted drunkard 
 will still be a gainer, and the more so, the more drunkard he 
 has been, but the sober man finds his income reduced to the 
 exact cost of his household, and his opportunity for saving is 
 gone. He has lost his advantage which he may gain back, if 
 the reduction of wages is followed by a corresponding fall in 
 the prices of necessaries. The gain cannot be any greater than 
 it would be, if the drunkards of to-day were simply induced to 
 restrict themselves to ordinary moderation. The chances have 
 been equalized, but the stakes have not been increased, no new 
 element has been introduced to insure a better reward of labour, 
 and there is no more security in this direction than there was 
 before the great conversion to sobriety. 
 
 Here we find again, that the thing which may help one man 
 in life's competition with others, is accepted as a remedy for 
 the general evil, as though by universal application it did not 
 lose its saving power, its character of exceptionality. 
 
 But in working out the problem so far I have been forced 
 to assume an attitude of the working classes which is quite in- 
 compatible with human nature. Nobody expects, that drink and
 
 UNIVERSAL THRIFT A SOLECISM. 53 
 
 the other forms of extravagance prevailing amongst the lower 
 classes can be simply eliminated without the substitution of some- 
 thing else in compensation, and this something, whatever shape 
 it may take, is certain to cost money too. It is therefore evi- 
 dent, that only a moral gain can be derived from temperance, 
 but the highest degree of individual virtue would not keep the 
 poor from starving. 
 
 Our very language should teach us, that thrift cannot improve ■ 
 the general condition of the population. It is an advantage, 
 like an exceptionally small family or an exceptionally large 
 amount of mental or physical power, just in so far as it is 
 exceptional. In fact, in speaking of a thrifty man we understand 
 already a man thrifty beyond the average, and in commending 
 thrift we commend unconsciously the power or habit of saving 
 beyond the ordinary power and habit. We do not consider a 
 workman thrifty because he refrains from drinking champagne 
 and from patronising expensive places of amusement, although 
 the self-denial involved therein may be even greater than that 
 exercised in the abstinence from beer and tobacco. As workmen 
 are not in the habit of spending money on the first-named 
 objects, the denial of them does not constitute a claim to thrift, 
 whereas the abstinence from beer and tobacco constitutes one, 
 because the ordinary workman does spend a part of his income 
 on these. In order to benefit the whole population by increased 
 habits of thrift, we should have to make the masses thrifty beyond 
 the average, which is manifestly absurd. A general spread of 
 this virtue is impossible, because there is no standard of expen- 
 diture beyond the ever-changing habits of the people. There 
 is no sure sign by which one can know the spendthrift at all 
 times and places, as we know the drunkard by his intoxication. 
 We may find, that one class lives extravagantly as compared 
 with others, that some individuals spend more than others of
 
 54 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 their class and standing, but the world as a whole cannot improve 
 or deteriorate in this respect, as the standard can only be taken 
 from its actual doings. Civilized nations which spend millions 
 upon clothes need not be more extravagant than savages who 
 manage to do without them. A son of the nineteenth century 
 is not more extravagant than one of the sixteenth, although 
 he employs in his household and upon his person hundreds of 
 things which would have seemed luxuries to his ancestor. 
 
 This reflection does not merely apply to the moral aspect 
 of thrift, but just as much to the practical question of the 
 actual consumption of commodities, which is evidently subject 
 to increase and decrease. If it was to be considered a virtue 
 in itself to restrict consumption to the lowest possible amount, 
 we should not be justified in going beyond the things absolutely 
 required for the maintenance of life. It would be necessary to 
 fix the maximum by law subject only to alterations rendered 
 imperative by changes in physical conditions. Diogenes was 
 the apostle of this doctrine, but his example has not been 
 followed by any considerable community, nothing is known of 
 his disciples, and we may presume, that the world has not lost 
 much by the silence of history upon this point, for under the 
 rule of this doctrine mankind could never emerge from the 
 lowest state of culture, as the very first step in civilization 
 brings material demands unknown to the savage. Surely this 
 is not the ideal of the people who preach salvation by thrift ! 
 And if not, is it not clear, that the actual consumption of com- 
 modities does not supply the standard of thrift ? We can reach 
 the same conclusion by another road. It is evident, that even 
 with the utmost extravagance the world cannot consume and 
 go on consuming more than it produces. By labour it must get 
 out of the land what it determines to its consumption. Who 
 then can deny its right to consume in proportion to its pro-
 
 IVHAT GOOD COULD MORE EXERTION DO? 55 
 
 duction ? Why should it produce, unless it wishes to consume? 
 The increasing capability of production justifies an increasing con- 
 sumption, hence we find again, that the standard of thrift cannot 
 be supplied by the actual amount of commodities consumed. 
 
 This leads us directly to the reproach of idleness and the 
 attempts to improve the condition of the people by increase of 
 work. Universal idleness is not, like universal extravagance, an 
 impossibility, for, whilst it is impossible to go on consuming more 
 than is produced, it is not impossible to produce less than might 
 be consumed if it had been produced. But in a world where 
 production is carried on almost exclusively for gain, and where a 
 sharp look out is kept upon the prospects of consumption for years 
 in advance, such an event is highly improbable. The difficulty is 
 rather to find markets for the products of labour, and this certainly 
 does not look as though the world was guilty of idleness. Besides, 
 is not an enormous amount of willing labour unemployed ? And 
 as long as this is the case, the necessity for increasing every man's 
 share of work is not apparent. What good could it do, if every 
 workman in existence resolved to work double hours henceforth 
 or to put twice as much energy into his task as he has been spend- 
 ing upon it up to now .? If the resolution could be carried through, 
 it would become still harder for the unemployed to find work, 
 and after a short time it would even be found necessary to dismiss 
 half the number of labourers or to check the unreasonable ardour. 
 Nature has no normal working day, in every case the maximum 
 is determined by physical causes, and the minimum by the desire 
 of the labourer to obtain what he wants with the least possible 
 expenditure of time and labour. According to circumstances a 
 working day of ten hours may not be long enough or one of six 
 hours too long. Two men, navigating a bark lost on the high 
 seas, must try to work through all the twenty-four hours of the 
 day, but, when they are taking their rest and their whole endea-
 
 56 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 vour should be directed upon the saving of energy for future exer- 
 tion, every hour spent in work is mis-spent. It is with the vice 
 of idleness exactly as with the other vices. It hampers the man 
 afflicted by it in an exceptional degree, just as unusual and well- 
 directed activity confers a special advantage upon the individual 
 possessing it. By rousing the energies of the former and inducing 
 them to more strenuous exertions we may improve their prospects 
 in life, but no one else derives a benefit from the change. And 
 as manual work is by no means such a clear good under all cir- 
 cumstances as temperance, the moral gain to the community in 
 this case would be much less sure and pronounced than in the 
 other. The idea, that the men of our time are working too much 
 already, is spreading in wider circles and accepted by other people 
 beside professed philanthropists. Men begin to understand that 
 in the interest of the work itself a certain proportion ought to be 
 maintained between work and recreation, and that the share as- 
 signed to the latter in the common man's life is too small. Most 
 people know from experience, that an occasional escape from pro- 
 fessional activity, which according to their dispositions they may 
 find in a change of occupation, in the pursuit of instruction or of 
 pleasure, or even in mere idleness, keeps them more fit for their 
 life's work than the uninterrupted toil exhausting the total capa- 
 city for work, which is the rule in far too many instances. As to 
 increased intensity of work, this would involve a gain to the work- 
 men, if the time saved thereby remained to them for disposal 
 according to their own wishes. But we know only too well, that 
 under our system the improvement would lead to a dismissal of 
 labourers or a reduction of wages, the extra profit going either 
 to the employer or to the consumers, — so that the labourers could 
 at the best only maintain their present condition. 
 
 As through modern material progress the nations of the earth 
 have been brought so near to each other, that every one of them
 
 IS MANKIND REALL V IDLE ? S7 
 
 must feel the influence of the conditions governing any one of the 
 others, there is an apparent possibility, that one may secure an 
 advantage over its competitors by superior activity and temper- 
 ance. In fact this supposition forms mostly the basis of the 
 incitements to abstinence and increased diligence. Labourers are 
 asked to look to Belgium where the average of working time is 
 two hours longer per day than in England, or to France and 
 Germany, where the standard of comfort amongst the working 
 classes is said to be lower. But in spite of these alleged advan- 
 tages recent occurrences have proved beyond doubt, that the 
 condition of labour is not b^ter there than here. Discontent 
 is spreading on the continent at least as fast as in England, it has 
 found unmistakable expression lately in France and in Belgium, 
 and, as a matter of fact, it has reached the most acute stage in 
 those countries where the standard of living is lowest, in Russia 
 and Ireland. The reason is not far to seek. It is not to be sup- 
 posed, that anywhere in the world people are working many hours 
 daily and denying themselves everything beyond the coarsest 
 necessaries for any other reason but that they are forced to do so. 
 The natural, industrial and political conditions are different every- 
 where, and the average working time and standard of living are 
 the direct outcome of these conditions, and therefore necessarily 
 different in various countries. A weak man has to work longer 
 than a strong one in order to produce the same thing, and every 
 advantage — natural or artificial — tells in competition fully as much 
 as physical strength. England possesses obvious advantages over 
 most other countries in her vast colonial possessions, her insular 
 position, her unrivalled maritime trade, her wealth of coal and 
 iron, her accumulated capital. These advantages must be equalized 
 by those nations which have to enter into competition with her, 
 by increased application, or lower demands on life, or both. It 
 may happen occasionally, that by such sacrifices the competing
 
 5S SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 countries do more than balance the advantages enjoyed by Eng- 
 land ; just as at other times they find it almost impossible to 
 handicap English industry effectively. But the tendency is always 
 towards a level of efficiency, and the balance is much too fine to 
 permit of large discrepancies for any length of time. If Belgium 
 and England are competitors in the open markets and the con- 
 ditions of their industries are such, that Belgium can only produce 
 by ten hours' labour, what England produces by an application of 
 eight hours, this proportion must be kept up, whatever may be 
 the average working time in England. An increase of working 
 time and lowering of the standard of living in the more favoured 
 country would be followed by a corresponding move in the less 
 favoured competing nations. They all must live and all must 
 make up in some way for the greater strength or fertility or 
 security of their more favourably situated competitor. If, by put- 
 ing forth its full power, the strongest and best situated nation 
 forces the demand upon labour to such a point, that the less 
 favoured countries cannot compete with it by any possible increase 
 of application or reduction of claims on life, the latter resort to 
 the artificial means of protective tariffs, bounties on export and 
 the like, and, when these, as they invariably will, prove inefficient, 
 the ultima ratio, war, is resorted to. Most modern wars are in 
 the last instance waged for the purpose of redressing the differences 
 of industry and production generally, when they are found to tell 
 too heavily against one particular nation which feels itself strong 
 enough to appeal to force. 
 
 Whoever looks upon the demand of English labourers for shorter 
 working time and more material comforts than what continental 
 labourers are putting up with, as accidental or personal, takes a 
 far too narrow view of the matter. By reducing their pretensions 
 they might easily depress the average condition of German or 
 French or Belgian labourers below the present level, which is
 
 DIFFERENCES IN WORKING TIME. 
 
 59 
 
 low enough in all truth, they might ultimately drive the whole 
 civilized world into a war, which would merely upset the condi- 
 tions of the problem, without in the least tending to its explanation 
 or solution, but they could not improve their own position by one 
 iota.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 IVork and producimi for their own sake. — Increase of production as a 
 
 remedy. 
 
 DURING the thousands of years that it has been preached to 
 the masses, that their destination is work, it has come to 
 be generally accepted, that any kind of exertion is a good thing, 
 either in itself or for the sake of the produce in which it finds 
 tangible shape. This notion has taken such root in the public 
 consciousness, that many people look to an increase of production 
 as the only sure remedy for the evil of poverty. 
 
 The fact, that the vast majority of people must work in order to 
 earn the right to live, and that in most cases it is difficult enough 
 to obtain the opportunity of remunerative work, has lent colour to 
 the assertion. The man who is always on the look out for employ- 
 ment and who welcomes the prospect of more exertion, when it 
 brings the promise of a somewhat larger reward, gets accustomed 
 to think of work as of something desirable in itself and to forget, 
 that after all he only desires it for the return which he expects 
 from it. Still, by the common appreciation of those branches of 
 activity which require more skill and less physical exertion, by the 
 general craving for shorter working-time and by similar appear- 
 ances it is proved, that in the people's innermost soul there 
 survives the knowledge, that hard manual work is not the summum 
 bomim, not the beatific influence which helps a human being to 
 reach the highest point of development and renders it happy by
 
 INDISCRIMINATE WORK AND PRODUCTION. 61 
 
 the consciousness of having done its best towards attaining that 
 height. 
 
 Yet it is true enough, that only by work we can live. We must 
 work and are prepared to do so for our maintenance and our 
 progress, but we should acknowledge our aims, not create a cult 
 of indiscriminate work and production for their own sake, which 
 leads us to assume a false attitude, and in which we do not fully 
 believe in spite of our lip-service. 
 
 If a radical change of physical conditions permitted the human 
 race to supply itself with the necessaries and ordinary comforts of 
 life without work, what would be the consequence ? 
 
 An ideal community would derive an immense advantage from 
 such a change. With the necessaries of life secured to it, it would 
 train its inherent possibilities of usefulness and thereby enjoy an 
 increased sense of power. It would cultivate the finer sides of its 
 nature and thereby increase the individual resources of intellectual 
 and moral usefulness and enjoyment. It would devote its best 
 energies to the abolition or alleviation of the failings belonging to 
 its nature, and endeavour to create a state of universal material 
 comfort, high morality, and intellectual activity. 
 
 But, if into the changed conditions it carried the present notions 
 — I refrain from calling them ideals— of work and production, the 
 effect would be widely different. 
 
 The community would then agree at once to despise those material 
 goods which nature provided for every one without labour. Only 
 the weak and unambitious would be content with their share of 
 comforts, the average man would train his capabilities of useful- 
 ness, not to hold them in reserve, but to transfer them at once to 
 actual production. The standard of living would be raised to an 
 insensate height. It might become the fashion to wear a new suit 
 of clothes every day and to set up a new carriage every week, and 
 the man who could only afford a npw suit every second day and a
 
 62 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 new carriage every fortnight (and much more yet the woman so 
 afflicted) would feel himself at a disadvantage and be unhappy. 
 The difference between rich and poor would re-establish itself on 
 the same lines as before. True, there would be the advantage, 
 that no one need starve, but the provision made by nature, 
 however bountiful it might appear to us who have to produce 
 everything required for our maintenance, would then only be 
 equal in common estimation to that made by the community at 
 present, the workhouse. Thus, even supposing impossibly favour- 
 able conditions, the gain to mankind would be trifling, if the 
 notion of the desirability of work and production for their own 
 sake was imported into them. 
 
 The idealization of indiscriminate work and production is on 
 a par with the commendation of eating for eating's sake irrespec- 
 tive of the health, appetite and capacity of digestion of the eater. 
 We might as well see a merit in an extraordinary performance of 
 this kind as in an exceptional amount of exertion, if we look 
 merely at the facts, not at their motives and effects. 
 
 With all its professed admiration of unbounded work and pro- 
 duction society pays its tribute to truth by meting out the rewards 
 to different kinds of labour not according to their hardship, but 
 to their relative desirability. It pays a better rev/ard to the man 
 who, with ever so little exertion, produces a thing desired by 
 the community than to him who, by the exercise of much hard 
 work and ingenuity, has produced something that is not wanted. 
 Thereby it testifies, that the value of work and production does 
 not lie in the action or exertion implied, but in their results, in 
 the degree of usefulness inherent to the objects produced and the 
 services rendered. I need hardly point out, that usefulness is 
 understood here in the widest sense and includes everything 
 desirable to the individual or the community, whether of a 
 material character or not. A good musician draws a much larger
 
 THE VALUE OF CAPACITY. 63 
 
 reward from his work than a dock-labourer from his, although the 
 physical exertion and direct usefulness implied in the activity of 
 the latter is so much larger than in the former case. 
 
 I consider myself justified in discarding the theory and contend- 
 ing that the value of work and production is determined by its 
 desirability for the maintenance and progress of the community 
 which includes— within the limitations imposed by solidarity— the 
 maintenance and progress of the individual worker. For this 
 purpose and in this sense work and production are good things 
 and, considering that the growth of the capacity of consumption 
 is incalculable, it is evidently an advantage to raise the capacity 
 of production to the highest point compatible with the general 
 conditions. Average work must be not only weighed, but also 
 measured. A cabinet-maker who can make in one day a number 
 of chairs which other men of his trade cannot make in less than 
 two days, the blacksmith who can shoe a horse in ten minutes, 
 whereas other blacksmiths require half an hour for the purpose, 
 are distinctly more valuable members of the community than 
 average workmen. But the very wording of this self-evident 
 proposition should make it clear, that the increased value of the 
 quickest and most skilful worker lies only in his capacity — com- 
 bined with his willingness— of performance. Until the desires of 
 the community call out the full power of work, its exercise is in 
 no way an advantage. If that phenomenal cabinet-maker insisted 
 upon turning out chairs as fast as he could, although he could not 
 find users for the whole number, he would render no service either 
 to himself or to the public, and if his capacity was of such a kind, 
 that it could not be transferred to any other object, he would 
 certainly do better to restrict his work to the ordinary rate of 
 performance. Nevertheless he would remain an exceptionally 
 useful member thanks to his ability of service. A great general 
 is a valuable acquisition to any state exposed to the possibility of
 
 64 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 war, even if he finds no occasion to exercise his military talents. 
 The big guns in the arsenals of all nations are not paid for so 
 dearly and valued so highly on account of the work they do, but 
 of the work which they can do when called into action. To take 
 another instance, it may be desirable to keep a revolver handy in 
 order to provide against an emergency, but it is not necessary or 
 desirable to keep firing it, before danger has arisen. It is a great 
 mistake to underrate the latent forces and only to reckon with 
 those which have the opportunity of manifestation by per- 
 formance. 
 
 Yet this mistake runs through most of our estimates of indi- 
 vidual, and more yet of national value and efficiency. We are in 
 the habit of asking: "What has he done .?" instead of : "What 
 can he do ? " Most of all does this appear with regard to indus- 
 trial facts. We restrict ourselves to the comparison of the actual 
 amounts produced by different nations or by the same nation at 
 different periods, without consideration of the circumstances which 
 give to production its real utility and value. Thus we have be- 
 come accustomed to look upon production as a thing to be de- 
 sired in itself, to regard as beneficent anything which stimulates 
 it, and as pernicious anything tending to check it. In consequence 
 of this feeling prevailing amongst all civilized nations every nerve 
 is strained everywhere to carry production to and maintain it at 
 the highest pitch, until one after the other of the competitors finds 
 out to his own cost that, whatever may be the good of unbounded 
 production in the abstract, the practical application of the principle 
 in his case has led to industrial and commercial disaster. 
 
 The only apparent exception is the work of genius, work which 
 none but the one favoured individual can perform. It is indeed 
 acknowledged, that the proper value of this class of work lies 
 entirely in its perfection, that Raphael would have been as great 
 a painter, if he had painted nothing but the Sistine Madonna,
 
 THE WORK OF GENIUS. 65 
 
 Shakespeare as great a poet, if he had produced Hamlet alone. 
 The task of genius is to mark heights of attainment unattainable 
 to the ordinary man by any expenditure of labour, to raise the 
 aims of human endeavour by proving the possibility of reaching a 
 higher point. Once the higher level has been attained, it seems of 
 little consequence, how often the performance is repeated. An 
 increased production can only increase the sources of pleasure for 
 the human race, which is by no means the discriminating gift of 
 genius, or it may tend to popularize the new attainment, which 
 is really the task of the public. Yet there is undoubtedly the 
 opinion prevalent, that of men of equal genius he is the best who 
 has produced most, whether use was found for his work at his. time 
 or not. 
 
 But this exception is only apparent. If it is desirable, that 
 genius should exercise its powers in the face of the disapproval or 
 neglect of contemporaries, the explanation is, that the majority 
 may not be able to perceive or to understand the higher attainment. 
 Genius has therefore the right and the duty to produce and to 
 work in order to satisfy its own demands which are sometimes 
 above the level comprehensible by its contemporaries, but may 
 be a source of the highest usefulness or enjoyment to a future 
 more developed community. These considerations do not apply 
 to common work. The world knows better than any individual, 
 how many chairs it requires, and a manufacture of common 
 chairs for the use of future generations does not commend itself 
 to common sense, because these may be trusted to produce as 
 good ordinary artisans as any previous generation. 
 
 There is yet another difference between the v/ork of genius 
 and common work. Every work of genius is original in some 
 way and unlike anything produced before by the same or any 
 other mind. If Shakespeare, after having written one masterpiece, 
 had produced a great number of mediocre dramas, if Raphael, 
 
 F
 
 66 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 after giving to the world one of his immortal works, had sunk 
 to the production of ordinary pot-boilers, there would indeed have 
 been no reason to treat their later work in a different manner 
 from that of ordinary workers. But in creating dramas and 
 pictures of equal .value to their former productions and yet 
 different from them in many respects, they performed a new 
 manifestation of genius in each instance, equal in importance to 
 the first. The level of attainment is higher, when we have 
 Hamlet, Macbeth and Othello before us, than though we had only 
 one of them. They are incommensurable as to their intrinsic 
 value, each of them denoting a special height of excellence, and 
 the production of the three by one mind marks a power of obser- 
 vation, invention and expression far in excess of that which the 
 production of one of them would have proved. 
 
 It appears therefore, that not even in the case of genius the 
 mere exercise of work or the mere fact of production implies an 
 advantage to the community, but that here also the value of 
 work and production depends upon their purposes and effects. 
 
 But the fact, that the opposite principle has taken firm root in 
 public opinion and acts almost like an instinct, is too obvious to 
 be denied. And yet there is hardly the man living who would 
 not rather earn his livelihood by working five hours daily and 
 pass the remainder of the day in leisure, than he would work 
 ten hours daily for the same wages. The general opinion in 
 favour of a huge production can only be explained by the assump- 
 tion of the same fallacy which makes people believe, that they 
 can improve the average condition of the labourers materially by 
 the extirpation of drunkenness or a reduction of ordinary expen- 
 diture. Every one sees, that, of two or more people working 
 under the same conditions, mostly that one is getting on best 
 who produces most, and therefrom the conclusion is drawn, that 
 the average man would be a gainer by an increase of the average
 
 ' PRACTICAL MISCHIEF. 67 
 
 production. It is overlooked, that the advantage of the man who 
 produces most 'lies in the fact, that his competitors produce less, 
 that if — ccEteris paribus — all would increase their output in the same 
 proportion, the position of them all and the relations between 
 them could not be influenced by the change at all. 
 
 This fallacy is not only accepted theoretically, but also acted 
 upon largely in practical life, otherwise vve should not have so 
 many factories standing idle, so many ships unemployed and so 
 many railways unable to find sufficient goods to carry. When 
 it becomes known — and in our times such things get known very 
 quickly, — that some branch of industry or trade affords a reason- 
 able return, competing concerns are opened at the earliest possible 
 moment, if only the capital required is not too large. Every 
 new establishment is started upon the principle, that, the more 
 it turns out, the better it will pay, and with the intention of 
 out-doing its competitors in point of output if possible. What- 
 ever may ultimately become of them, they have certainly increased 
 the production of the country, and their founders are therefore 
 considered by economists as deserving of a reward. On account 
 of the interchangeability of wealth the saying, that he who makes 
 two blades of grass grow where one grew formerly, is a benefactor 
 of mankind, has been applied to all branches of activity, although 
 it is true evidently only of objects or under conditions which 
 exclude the possibility of over-production. Even in its original 
 application it is not absolutely true, as any one would find out, 
 if he increased the production of grass by sowing it in the public 
 road, but to imagine, that it must be a beneficent action to pro- 
 duce shoddy or night-caps or picture-frames, no matter whether 
 these objects are wanted or not, trenches so hard upon the domain 
 of absurdity, that I for one do not pretend to be able to draw 
 the dividing line accurately. 
 
 There is no more saving virtue in the absolute idea of a large
 
 68 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 production than in that of an enormous consumption, the essential 
 thing is the maintenance of a reasonable proportion between 
 both. If we base ourselves upon the desire for consumption, 
 there must be at any given moment a certain point, beyond 
 which production should not be carried and behind which it 
 should not lag, in order to serve the interest of the community 
 best. This point is naturally shifted by every change in popula- 
 tion, in habits, every progress or stoppage of civilization, but it 
 exists as the natural outcome of the relation between production 
 and consumption with due regard to the possibilities of both, 
 it exists like natural value, subject to change and indeed under- 
 going change at every moment, but fixed for the moment being. 
 We are suffering constantly from our neglect or inability to keep 
 close to this point, and immoderate, inconsiderate production can 
 only lead us farther from it. With the resources gained by the 
 material progress of modern times the world's capacity of pro- 
 duction has become so large, that we need not be afraid of any 
 probable development of consumption. In fact the present con- 
 dition of trade shows, that in many branches consumption can 
 actually not keep pace with the growth of production. 
 
 Production should be adapted to the appetite of the community, 
 just as an hotel -keeper adapts his purchases of provisions to the 
 appetites of his customers. If he is well up to his work, he will 
 understand not only to satisfy, but also to stimulate them to 
 some extent by supplying dishes for which his guests have a 
 predilection. In this way he may reasonably expect to place 
 at a profit a certain quantity of things of different degrees ,of 
 value, he will find buyers for small beer and for champagne, for 
 radishes and pine-apples, for beef and poultry, for bread and 
 cake. But what should we think of him, if with an average 
 custom of hundred people daily, he would lay in a stock of bread 
 for two hundred, of beef for five hundred or of oysters for a
 
 THE BALANCE OF PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION. 69 
 
 thousand ? We know, that he would lose heavily and find little 
 sympathy. Some people would profit by his mistake or foolish- 
 ness, when he is obliged to sell his surplus stock at nominal 
 prices, but this is no more a gain to the community than the 
 low prices obtained for stolen goods. Now, that problematical 
 hotel-keeper's improvident purchases correspond to the world's 
 production. We are urged and urging others to go on increasing 
 supplies of whatever we produce and to trust to the common 
 experience, that commodities are rarely allowed to rot. I must 
 leave for later consideration the ways and means by which a 
 reasonable proportion between supply and demand could be 
 maintained, my purpose for the present having been only to show, 
 that a mere increase of production does not offer a remedy for 
 the social evils of modern times. 
 
 Before leaving this subject I must yet allude to the commenda- 
 tion of work on the plea, that it keeps the labourer from evil 
 courses. But this is based upon the assumption, that for the 
 common man there exists only the alternative between physical 
 fatigue and crime or vice. If some other kind of passing the 
 time was found, not less harmless and more pleasant than manual 
 labour, this would evidently deserve the preference in this regard. 
 Now it may be, that in a population brutalised by physical 
 sufferings, mean surroundings and an almost unceasing round 
 of manual exertion relieved only by fitful recreations of the 
 coarsest kind and anxious periods of enforced idleness, a certain 
 number of individuals is reduced to the terrible alternative of 
 physical exhaustion or downright depravity. Even the arts of 
 enjoyment must be cultivated, and it cannot be denied, that by 
 their manner of passing their scanty leisure some people afford 
 the plainest proof, that they are incapable of appreciating any 
 but the most brutal pleasures. Yet it admits of no doubt, that 
 these people form after all only a very small minority. We must
 
 70 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 distinguish between vicious courses, like heavy drinking, wife- 
 beating and rowdyism of all sorts, and those ordinary, if un- 
 cultured, manners of passing the time, which are harmless in 
 themselves and in a moral and intellectual sense not much 
 inferior to those employed by the majority of the upper classes. 
 A chat in a public house, even if conducted in a somewhat louder 
 "tone than good manner warrants, is not a very degrading thing, 
 and even the idle standing about in the street is essentially about 
 as good, if not so comfortable, as the idle sitting about in a 
 drawing-room to exchange inanities. A great deal may be done 
 in this direction by opening to the masses sources of rational 
 and decent amusement, of which they will not be slow to avail 
 themselves. Education may be trusted to work such a change, 
 that in the course of another generation only the naturally 
 vicious will have to be kept out of mischief by hard physical 
 work. Something may also be expected from a general lessening 
 of the burden of labour, for, whatever view we may take of future 
 developments, the plain fact cannot be gainsaid, that a great 
 number of the poorest classi are not only underpaid, but also 
 over-worked and over-worried, and even a superficial observation 
 shows, that — after due allowance is made for specially brutalising 
 occupations — the ranks of the conspicuously brutal are recruited 
 mostly from this stratum. 
 
 Work will and must always be the task of mankind. Even 
 under the most favourable conditions which we can conceive, there 
 will be ample scope for work in its true sense, for the exercise 
 of any gifts or energies to the real benefit of one's self and others. 
 Not only noble above everything, but necessary above everything 
 is work. But this is not the idea of work held before the people 
 by those who see salvation in the harder driving of industrial 
 slaves, or of those who of their own accord bow their necks under 
 the yoke of an over-grown and all-absorbing Mammonism. The
 
 IVOJ^AT NOBLE AND NECESSARY. -ji 
 
 work recommended by them is only one special kind of work 
 which, taken in over-doses, hurts the social organism, just as a 
 double'ration of one particular medicine may destroy an organism, 
 where a single dose of some other medicine might have saved it. 
 Indiscriminate work and production are as much nonsense as 
 indiscriminate physic, both must be adapted to special require- 
 ments and then they will not fail to prove gains and blessings.
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Education. — Skill and Culture. 
 
 t 
 
 ON entering upon the very wide question, how far education 
 may be expected to influence the reward of labour, it is 
 necessary to distinguish between the different branches of education 
 according to their purposes. There is on one hand the special 
 training intended to enable its recipient to turn his faculties to 
 use, to give him a thorough knowledge of some particular kind 
 of labour and an understanding of its nature beyond that possessed 
 by the average member of the community, so that he can supply 
 something desirable which everybody cannot supply himself with 
 and thereby earn the means of a livelihood for himself On the 
 other hand there is the general education which aims at opening 
 and preparing the mind for anything which life may bring, at 
 supplying an interest in and a perception of the relations of things, 
 a sense of beauty and appropriateness, at strengthening the 
 character, increasing the resources of enjoyment and fostering or 
 regulating the natural instincts and aspirations. We call the result 
 of the former branch " skill," that of the latter " culture." 
 
 We will turn to skill first. It seems indisputable, that the intro- 
 duction of machinery and the minute division of labour, which are 
 characteristic of modern industry, have lowered the average skill 
 of common labour. The great bulk of labour has been brought 
 very near to the level of the machine itself. The man who under 
 old conditions would have learned to make a pair of boots entirely 
 by himself out of the raw material, fulfils his destiny now in pro-
 
 TECHNICAL SKILL. 72, 
 
 ducing one particular part of a boot or in putting together the 
 several pieces prepared by different other labourers. Perhaps he 
 has only to turn a handle, the machine doing all the rest. The 
 blacksmith buys his horse-shoes ready made from one of the large 
 factories, where they are turned out by the thousand without any 
 considerable expenditure of skill on behalf of the labourer. There 
 are still a good many branches of industry left which require a 
 special skill, such as the trades of the mason, the carpenter, the 
 engineer, the butcher and baker, but even there the tendency of 
 the division of labour is making itself felt, the scope and initiative 
 left to the individual labourer are restricted more and more, and 
 each one is urged to concentrate his attention upon one small act 
 of production, so that even the possibility of an increase of skill 
 is taken from the ordinary workman. The comparative skill 
 brought to bear upon the production or perfection of one thing, or 
 rather mostly one part of a thing, is of value to its possessor, but 
 the ordinary amount required is so low, that any healthy pair of 
 hands and any brains except an idiot's may acquire it in a short 
 time. Wherever industrial progress has stretched its iron hand, 
 it has dragged the common labourer down. Skill, where it comes 
 into competition with machine-work, does not pay, and this is — 
 roughly speaking — the kind of competition which the whole labour- 
 ing class has to sustain. Is not the desire of buyers in most cases 
 directed upon cheapness .'' Cheapness implies the expenditure 
 of the smallest possible amount of labour and personal skill and 
 therefore tends directly to render skill unmarketable. 
 
 That an increase of individual skill all over the world, even 
 if there was scope for it, could not increase the reward of labour, 
 does not require a detailed argument. It is the old story of the 
 drunkard and the spendthrift over again, in this case no more than 
 in the other will the special remedy serve as a universal one. But 
 there is one awkward circumstance connected with the idea of
 
 74 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 increasing reward by increasing skill which we cannot leave un- 
 noticed. If education can effect anything in this respect, each 
 generation will know more about its work and possess more 
 technical skill than the previous one. Now, if this is really to lead 
 to an increased reward of labour, it follows, that the younger work- 
 men would receive on the average higher wages than the old 
 hands. The quicker the pace of progress, the sooner labourers 
 would find themselves antiquated and put at a disadvantage 
 against younger men, for our industrial system leaves no time 
 to the ordinary workman to follow theoretically the progress of 
 industry. This difficulty does not arise with regard to the moral 
 deficiencies of which we treated in a former chapter, as by com- 
 mon consent a man is expected to suffer for his vice or crime. 
 If a drunkard, a spendthrift, an idler is thrown back in the race in 
 consequence of his failing, the public conscience approves of the 
 fact. But, that men should lose their standing and be thrown into 
 the background for the reason, that they have not been in advance 
 of their times ; that labourers should be comparatively worse paid 
 because they are older than their sons and have not had an 
 opportunity of acquiring the knowledge which has only become 
 accessible since their youth, this certainly involves an outrage 
 upon public feeling. But these observations are merely theoretical, 
 for as a matter of fact I do not see the slightest chance of an 
 improvement in the workman's material condition from increased 
 average skill. 
 
 How impotent such an increase is to raise the reward of labour, 
 appears very clearly in those instances, where skill forms the chief 
 'value of labour. Take the case of commercial clerks whose 
 physical labour is of the slightest. Fifty years ago a man who 
 could keep accounts and correspond decently in his native lan- 
 guage, obtained a moderate salary. One who could correspond in 
 one or two foreign languages besides, was in a position to com-
 
 UNIVERSAL INCREASE OF SKILL. 75 
 
 mand an exceptional reward. Now-a-days a knowledge of 
 accounts and the faculty of corresponding in two or three lan- 
 guages have become common amongst clerks, but the condition of 
 commercial clerks has not improved in consequence. In order to 
 obtain the advantage conferred formerly by the knowledge of three 
 languages, they must now command five or possess other special 
 powers, and this process of screwing up the standard of proficiency 
 in order merely to keep up the average condition, would go on 
 into eternity, if there was not a limit set by the ordinary capacity 
 on one side and by the commercial prevalence of a few languages 
 on the other, which renders the acquisition of minor languages 
 comparatively unimportant. Here we see very plainly the ten- 
 dency of progress to reduce the value of skill. Let us put the 
 case, that the commercial world agreed to use one language in 
 international commerce, as the French language is used at present 
 in diplomacy, and the advantages and opportunities of the polyglot 
 correspondent are lost irretrievably without any compensation. 
 
 It seems a hard and bitter conclusion, that no improvement in 
 the condition of labour can be expected from a general advance of 
 skill. The striving after perfection in whatever one has to do is 
 desirable in itself, independently of its influence upon the material 
 condition, just as the moral elevation is worth striving for to which 
 it conduces. It may help to pave the way for an improvement, 
 but it cannot effect it, so long as the other conditions of industry 
 and labour remain unchanged. Under our system the height of 
 the average reward of common labour is independent of the actual 
 performance, labour obtaining at the best only the strict neces- 
 saries of life, whatever its produce may be. 
 
 But, if an increase of skill all over the world must be ineffectual, 
 there remains the possibility, that such progress on the part of one 
 nation may improve its position by rendering it better able to hold 
 its own in competition with other nations. It is an indisputable
 
 76 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 fact, that the skill of labourers is to all intents and purposes a 
 national asset and that therefore every country has an interest 
 in keeping the level as high as possible. Perhaps England has 
 lagged a little behind the foremost of her competitors in following 
 and utilizing the progress of science. But the evil of the insuf- 
 ficient reward of labour with its consequent sufferings is just as 
 manifest in any other industrial country as here, and can therefore 
 not be explained by a national deficiency in skill. I must here 
 refer again to the difference in the natural and industrial condi- 
 tions of different nations which forces the less favoured to exact 
 odds from the more favoured one, but, as the desirability of skill 
 is manifest on its own account, it is true, that the odds should 
 take almost any other form in preference. It appears to me, 
 however, that under the rule of machinery the differences in skill 
 between the common labourers of different countries cannot be 
 considerable. The Englishman can turn his handle, carry his 
 burden, or stoke his oven fully as well as his German or Belgian 
 competitor, and no amount of technical education will teach him 
 to do it better. It is the manager, the employer of labour, who 
 has to develop the skill necessary to compete with other nations. 
 Modern division of labour has brought it about, that the manage- 
 ment of industrial concerns is in the hands of an entirely different 
 class from that which supplies the common labour. The managers 
 are men of special education and belong mostly to a higher social 
 class. Only by dint of exceptional force of intellect and character 
 can an ordinary labourer succeed in working up his way to a 
 position where technical education has its full practical value, the 
 vast majority would never find an opportunity of deriving a 
 material advantage from an increase of skill which they shared 
 with their co-workers. It is possible, that by an increase of skill 
 on the part of employers and managers England might gain a 
 temporary advantage, but it could only be a short-lived one, as it
 
 NATIONAL INCREASE OF SKILL. 77 
 
 would lead immediately to enhanced exertions by other nations. 
 There is no possibility in these times of one country keeping much 
 ahead of other civilized nations in this respect. All important 
 improvements become universal as soon as they have become 
 national, and minor advantages, which are not considered worth 
 the trouble of taking out a patent, are in all probability distributed 
 pretty evenly amongst the competing nations. For these reasons 
 I am reluctantly compelled to deny the possibility of a lasting 
 improvement in the material condition of English labourers by 
 progress of technical education. 
 
 We come now to the other great branch of intellectual educa- 
 tion, that which aims at culture. How far are we justified in 
 looking upon the spread of culture as a means of raising the 
 reward of labour? As an element of competition in life's 
 struggles culture does not appear to be of much importance. 
 Some of the asperities of work-a-day life may be smoothed away 
 by it, manners may become gentler on the whole in the time 
 when every workman will possess some of the graces of culture, 
 but yet hard manual labour will have to be performed in spite of 
 the highest artistic aspirations, and, with incomes which scarcely 
 secure the satisfaction of the most elementary desires, a great deal 
 of roughness must necessarily remain. When it comes to want, 
 the scruples and considerations nurtured by culture drop off one 
 by one, men will hustle each other, and nations will fight, highly 
 cultured though they may be. Some other changes are required, 
 before culture can show its power in improving the material con- 
 dition of labour. 
 
 Still it is not for nothing, that the best men of all nations join 
 in laying such a tremendous stress upon education, and not only 
 education of the technical order. Free education has been intro- 
 duced into several continental countries and its adoption by 
 England seems only a question of time. There is even an in-
 
 78 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 fluential movement on foot for supplying the children of the 
 poorest class with free dinners in order to enable them to endure 
 the stress of compulsory education physically and mentally. This 
 is a long way from the standpoint asserted so strenuously in other 
 matters, that State intervention must be avoided at all risks, that 
 State help is a pernicious way of pauperising the recipients, that 
 the so called laws of political economy (which for a great part are 
 only the manifestations of those laws under our own artificial and 
 quite special conditions) may and must be trusted to regulate all 
 social relations without help or interference. And it is a notice- 
 able fact, that this preference for compulsory education appears 
 not only in the direct representatives of the lower classes or in 
 philosophical radicals who might be suspected of following an 
 abstract idea beyond the limits of immediate necessity, but that 
 practical politicians of the most divergent shades of opinion are 
 finding common ground in the endeavour to make the education of 
 the people a living reality. 
 
 It is not my purpose in this place to investigate, whether the 
 training offered to the people is of the most desirable kind in its 
 best interest. There is much force in the contention of many high- 
 thinking men, that too much stress is laid upon the form and not 
 enough upon the spirit of knowledge and culture, that the people 
 are advised or even forced to gnaw the dry bones of mechanical 
 accomplishments, without being taught the proper use of the 
 powers conferred upon them by the lessons, that they are taught 
 to spell, not to read. There is also ground for complaint in the 
 want of provision for cheap and efficient education of a higher order. 
 But the movement is young, and some false steps must be expected. 
 According to its lights, the State tries to educate the masses, and 
 according to general intellectual improvement the educational 
 scheme will be improved. The great fact is, that the community 
 has recognised its duty in this respect and taken pains to fulfil it.
 
 THE COMMON RIGHT TO CULTURE. 79 
 
 The explanation of the remarkable consensus of opinion is, that 
 here a deeper vein has been struck than in the ordinary questions 
 of politics. For a certain part unwillingly, for a greater part 
 unconsciously, the community has been driven to the recognition 
 of the universal right to education. We need not inquire too 
 narrowly, to what extent fear may have contributed to the 
 willingness of the governing classes to meet and almost to anti- 
 cipate the people's wishes. As the political power of the lower 
 strata of society is growing, it is reasonable to assume that the 
 upper classes would rather have to deal with an antagonist suf- 
 ficiently educated to listen to reason and moderation, than with 
 a rough and presumably violent mass unable to know its own 
 mind and therefore swayed by whoever happens to make most 
 noise at the time. But these considerations can have influenced 
 only a small minority, public-opinion in all classes is in favour of 
 universal education, because it has arrived at the perception, that 
 knowledge is a good thing in itself and that no human being ought 
 to be kept out of a share of the common stock, which is not dimi- 
 nished by any increase in the number of participators. The doubt, 
 whether there are really enough mat&rial goods in the world for 
 the satisfaction of all reasonable desires, prevents timid people 
 from the acknowledgment of the universal right to a competency, 
 but, as this apprehension does not apply to the treasures of the 
 mind, the community has admitted the universal right to education. 
 
 Upon this I take my stand. Culture is a desirable thing, one of 
 the best things with which mankind can supply itself. It may be 
 applied in the wrong place, in wrong quantities and of a wrong 
 kind, but an average growth of culture is a consummation to be 
 striven for most earnestly, whatever may be its immediate in- 
 fluence upon the reward of labour. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to dwell upon the power of culture to 
 render Hfe supportable under circumstances when, without its
 
 8o SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 support, it would appear a mere burden, to be cast off at the 
 first opportunity. With a shelf full of good books, an interest 
 in political, literary or artistic subjects, which only culture can 
 supply, an individual possesses sources of independent enjoyment 
 far beyond those possessed by the uneducated. There will be 
 no necessity for the cultured workman of the future to resort 
 to the intemperate use of alcohol or to brutal pastimes in order 
 to fill that void which the monotony of life and labour creates 
 in the breast of the common labourer. 
 
 Ultimately, after some arrangement has been effected to secure 
 the ordinary means of subsistence to every labourer, the real 
 and definite solution of the social question will probably be 
 found in general culture. Community of knowledge is one of 
 the greatest equalizers, and an equal standard of taste has the 
 power of drawing people wonderfully close to each other and 
 making them forget the difference of external circumstances. If 
 the danger of actual want was eliminated so that every one had 
 a fair chance of rising to eminence according to his abilities, 
 every one might settle down peaceably in that position to which 
 his abilities have carried him, without the galling reflection that, 
 but for the unequal start, he must have attained better things. 
 The possession of culture would not then carry with it the desire 
 to escape from manual labour into other branches of activity, 
 labour would regain its natural dignity and take its due social 
 position. Very different this state from that in which we are 
 living, where a man's position is determined not by the worth of 
 his work, but by unreasoning prejudice in favour of some kinds 
 of labour, and where " not to work at all " confers a claim to 
 distinction almost equal to that earned by the performance of 
 the highest and best kind of work. In this manner the spread 
 of culture works towards a settlement of social conditions, it 
 contains a message of ultimate peace which is much needed, if
 
 WHAT CULTURE WILL DO FOR MANKIND. 
 
 we consider, that strife might involve mankind in self-destroying 
 exertions until the extinction of the race. But I am afraid, 
 that for practical purposes this view of the advantages of culture 
 must be left out of account. We are too far yet from the point 
 where this tendency can assert itself strongly, we have first to 
 find the remedy for the insufficiency of the reward of labour. 
 
 Luckily culture, although not supplying the remedy, will be 
 a strong ally in the search for it. The understanding of social 
 problems requires a cultured mind, a knowledge of historical 
 and scientific facts, and a capacity of sifting them and drawing 
 conclusions from them. Even the mere interest in questions 
 beyond the limits of personal experience demands a certain 
 amount of culture, and the objectivity required for the formation 
 of a sound opinion is far beyond what can be expected from the 
 ordinary workmen of our time. But some improvement is already 
 noticeable, for dozens of men who were able to take such an 
 interest a generation ago, there are hundreds now, there will be 
 thousands soon, and it is only fair to expect a better result 
 from the exertions of the vastly increased number than that 
 attained by the few in former times. In fact a great many 
 people have already formed the conception of a society without 
 poverty and distress, they begin to understand, that the existing 
 social order is not a natural necessity, and that it may be altered 
 without a violent revolution. What used to be the solitary 
 thinker's domain, is now searched eagerly by a thousand intelligent 
 minds. Things which seemed wrong and absurd in their startling 
 novelty, have been found right and practicable on closer acquain- 
 tance and have been brought within the range of practical politics. 
 By the spread of education this process is accelerated and will 
 certainly not come to a stop, until the question of poverty has 
 been carried to a solution. This present movement is greatly 
 different from any former one which we have the means of 
 
 G
 
 82 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 gauging accurately. In former revolutions (under which term I 
 wish to comprise all changes of the first national importance, 
 whether carried by violent or by peaceful means) we can observe, 
 how the ideas of liberty and progress are taking their rise in 
 the minds of a few gifted men, mostly highly cultured members 
 of the governing classes. These men become the leaders of the 
 masses which they intend to benefit and which follow them 
 blindly without control, as far as their ideas — mostly based upon 
 insufficient experience — may carry them. But now the order of 
 things is changed. Ideas emanate from the masses themselves 
 or are made their property by discussion in the press and on 
 the platform, before they have the slightest prospect of being 
 adopted or acted upon. When they are found worthy of support, 
 it is not necessarily the originator of the idea who is entrusted 
 with the leadership for its practical application, but he will be 
 selected for the purpose, whom the people deem the most trust- 
 worthy and the most likely to succeed. The revolutions of the 
 future are destined to be in fact what those of the past were 
 only in appearance, thoroughly democratic. Up to the latest 
 period the people have never been able to formulate their aspira- 
 tions for themselves, but now trades-unions, political clubs, and 
 above all a public press which finds its way into everybody's 
 hands, are performing the practical part of the political education 
 of the masses, and in the extending area of the franchise they 
 will find the means of giving effective shape to their demands. 
 
 Thus for the present I anticipate and hope, that increase of 
 culture will lead to increased interest in social questions. This 
 will go on at a very quick pace, as the new acquirements will 
 create new wants and bring out the general wish for a heightened 
 standard of comfort. Even taking the lowest view of the case, 
 we cannot blink the fact, that the cultured workman will have 
 many desires of which the uneducated did not think. The
 
 HOPEFUL DISCONTENT. 83 
 
 improved appearance of his home, the increased cleanliness and 
 decency of his mode of living, the very accessories of culture 
 like books and musical instruments, imply an increased expen- 
 diture. As I have explained in a former chapter, such things 
 come gradually to be considered as necessaries of life by the 
 labourer, as they are regarded by the wealthier classes now. But 
 this increased demand is the necessary outgrowth of progress 
 which we have to accept, unless we are willing to see mankind 
 slide back into a state of savagery. The social question must 
 become more and more acute, the better the people are able 
 to work towards its solution, and this narrowing of the struggle 
 by raising in a natural and legitimate manner the demand and 
 at the same time increasing the possibility of its satisfaction is 
 to my mind one of the strongest points in favour of increased 
 culture, one of its most promising features. 
 
 Discontent will therefore be a characteristic of the cultured 
 workman, but a discontent tempered by the knowledge, that he 
 himself holds the power to apply the remedy as soon as it is 
 found, and resulting therefrom a burning desire to find the long- 
 sought remedy, which education in itself does not furnish. Only 
 by this road can mankind reach that high sense of solidarity, 
 that clear conception of the rights and duties of the whole and 
 the parts, which may ultimately solve the problem of poverty 
 without recourse to any State action.
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Iiiiernatio7ialism — Federatioti — Emigration — Export Trade — Frotectioii. 
 
 A S sanguine people insist upon expecting a lasting revival of 
 ■^ ^ trade and an improvement of social relations, as expressed 
 in an increased reward of labour, from an extension of inter- 
 national intercourse, it is necessary for us to devote some attention 
 to this subject. 
 
 There is indeed a great germ of hope in the idea of inter- 
 nationalism, a hope akin to that roused by the idea of universal 
 education. The chances of finding the right solution would be 
 multiplied and brought much nearer without doubt, if the civilized 
 nations could agree amongst themselves upon some of the most 
 important matters of universal interest. An enormous amount 
 of the best mental power would be set free for the consideration 
 of social questions, if there was no unnecessary rivalry between 
 nations, if they were not actuated by fear and mistrust of each 
 other to spend a great part of their energies upon the maintenance 
 of a shadowy national prestige, if no intrigues were planned, and 
 none to be provided against. Besides, if only the greater part 
 of the power spent on the naval and military establishments, which 
 every nation regards necessary as a means of insurance against 
 possible disagreement with the others, could be saved and directed 
 to useful purposes, the material gain would result in such an 
 improvement in the condition of the communities, that the 
 questions pressing for an answer now could be safely deferred for 
 some time. The peace and arbitration societies, although they 
 
 84
 
 INTERNATIONALISM, A DREAM OF THE FUTURE. 85 
 
 may seem visionary to the observer who is nothing but practical, — 
 which means in most cases, who will or can take only short and 
 conventional views, — contain in themselves the elements of a great 
 development and are quite certain to obtain more and more 
 practical results in the future. But it must be admitted, that for 
 the moment the idea of internationalism has been thrown into the 
 background by that of nationalism, and it appears destined to 
 remain under the cloud for some time. The world has been taught 
 by experience, that the conditions are not ripe yet for a full 
 internationalism. A more perfect development of nationalities is 
 necessary as a preparation. England is finding out, how difficult 
 it is to act upon common principles even with colonies founded 
 by herself and peopled by her own sons, and public opinion is 
 prepared to make heavy sacrifices to the idea of solidarity by the 
 assumption of increased responsibilities. How much more difficult 
 must be the task of linking together peoples of different blood and 
 origin, with diffisrent traditions, and in many cases with different 
 standards of morals and manners ! Yet, though difficult, the task 
 does not seem impossible, if only every nation represents a full 
 individuality the vitality of which has been proved, and the right 
 to existence of which is admitted by all the others. But to attain 
 this, nations must have found and consolidated themselves first. 
 Populations belonging together by those bonds which lend a 
 sufficient consistency to national relations, must form the political 
 units of an international concert. A proper understanding for 
 social purposes between different states is only possible, if every 
 constituent can show well-defined rights and interests and finds 
 the rights and interests of the others equally well-defined. Mere 
 agglomerations of individuals do not fulfil this condition, and to 
 this circumstance we may trace those wars and revolutions of the 
 last generation which have led to the formation of natural and 
 the severance of arbitrary connections between races and peoples.
 
 86 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 This is the only possible road towards that internationalism which 
 has been the dream of advanced thinkers in the past and will 
 be the aim of popular aspirations in the future. Such an inter- 
 nationalism (or cosmopolitanism) will no more interfere with the 
 love of country, than patriotism does with the love of home or 
 family, but it will regulate the notions of duty towards the whole 
 of mankind which — in part unconsciously — are even now enter- 
 tained by men and women capable of independent thought and 
 fine feeling. Whoever has fully grasped the idea of country and 
 the rights and duties belonging to citizenship, will be able to 
 apply the principle to all mankind. Once the consolidation of 
 nations has been completed and the habit of national self-govern- 
 ment become universal, some kind of international understanding 
 will follow as an obvious consequence. There will then be no 
 valid reason to keep all civilized nations from combining for the 
 purpose of preventing and adjusting quarrels, devising means for 
 the alleviation of wrongs or sufferings, undertaking and maintain- 
 ing works of universal utility and helping each other in the pursuit 
 of right and happiness as much as they have mostly made it their 
 ambition in the past to thwart each other's aspirations. Then 
 there would be the grand opportunity of having the social problems 
 illumined by an amount of experience and wisdom which no single 
 individual and no single nation can bring to bear upon them, and 
 of putting into practice ideas which every single country is some- 
 what shy of trying for fear of impairing its position relatively to 
 the others. It is to be hoped by every well-wisher of humanity, 
 that internationalism of this kind may ripen quickly, so that the 
 great social experiments, which will have to be made in any case, 
 may be tried by universal consent and without danger to nations 
 and individuals, instead of being forced on by the irresistible 
 demand of the most advanced nations, when they may possibly 
 cause disturbance and even a temporary stoppage of civilization.
 
 LA BO URERS' FED ERA TIONS A T PRESENT IMPRACTICA BLE. 87 
 
 But beyond this the federation of civilized nations for social 
 purposes would not go. It would only improve the opportunities 
 of finding a solution, but by itself it would neither effect nor 
 indicate it. The relief afforded by the reduction of military 
 establishments could only be temporary, as wages would regulate 
 themselves gradually so as to give the profit to the employer or 
 the consumer. Besides it is to be noticed, that at present the 
 different nations are not suffering in proportion to the cost of their 
 armaments. 
 
 An international combination of labourers, although naturally 
 less efficient than a federation of states, would be able to do some- 
 thing for the interest of the labouring classes, but offers almost 
 more difficulties than the latter. In the present state of political 
 affairs not even an organized co-operation between the labourers 
 of the most civilized European nations can be arranged, as the 
 fate of the International Society, which collapsed after some years' 
 existence, shows clearly enough. But there are other difficulties 
 besides this. A combination of states, if sufficiently important, 
 could impose its laws upon the remainder of the world, but 
 labourers could at the best only make laws for their own order 
 and would hardly possess the means of enforcing them in a time, 
 where the standards of education and comfort vary so widely in 
 the different nations. The instance of America proves, that even 
 now Chinese labour must be taken into account, and it is not 
 too much to assume, that the competition of China, who has to 
 make up arrears and finds all the materials of western civilization 
 ready to her hand, will in the future be rather more than less 
 formidable. It is by no means improbable, that before the lapse 
 of another generation its influence will make itself felt strongly 
 in Europe. There are also the teeming millions of half-civilized 
 Russians who are not yet, but will be soon capable of labour, which 
 they can offer in competition with that of the most advanced
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 countries. To draw all these into the net of international co- 
 operation, is a task beyond the power of any combination of 
 labourers, and any combination which did not embrace them 
 would leave the employer ultimately master of the situation. A 
 league of labourers would also suffer under the drawback, that 
 its decisions would be in many cases, and would be suspected 
 of being in all cases based upon the interests of manual labour 
 alone without consideration of those of the community. On the 
 whole therefore I expect less from an international federation of 
 labourers than from a federation of states. But as the latter can 
 also only be the fruit of a development which may require genera- 
 tions yet, the pressing social problems must be considered, and 
 if possible solved, before such a consummation takes place. 
 
 A direct improvement of social conditions is expected from the 
 international movements of population and trade. Emigration 
 and an extension of foreign trade are .thought of as efificient 
 remedies for insufficient employment, low wages, shrinking of 
 profits. Both emigration and international trade are indispensable 
 accessories of civilization which consists to a large extent in the 
 drawing nearer of distant countries, in the ease of change of abode 
 and in the exchange of desirable products between all. But it 
 is a very different question, whether transfers of population and 
 increase in the amount of exchanges between nations can be 
 counted upon to give stability to social relations and to improve 
 definitely the reward of labour. 
 
 As a remedy for congestion of population, emigration is un- 
 surpassed in many cases. When in the large towns of old 
 countries people are crowded and huddled together to the point 
 of physical discomfort and prejudice to health and morality, 
 whilst new countries are opening their arms and offering plenty 
 of elbow-room to each comer, there is clearly something to be 
 gained by utilizing the resources of the new country and reducing
 
 EMIGRATION MERELY A PALLIATIVE. 
 
 thereby the pressure on the old. But then congestion, as we 
 have seen, is merely one of the symptoms of the evil, and its 
 mitigation need not therefore produce any more lasting effect 
 upon the social organism than the clipping of a wild horse's 
 mane would upon its character. In order to form an idea of 
 the value of emigration as a radical cure for poverty, we must 
 see, how it affects not only the emigrants, but also the country 
 which they leave and that which they adopt. 
 
 With regard to the emigrants themselves the experience of all 
 nations teaches, that the process of emigration, in order to be 
 efficient, must be as unlike the shooting of rubbish as human 
 foresight can make it, that in fact a most careful selection is 
 required. The altered conditions of climate and of existence 
 generally and the physical hard work connected with the start 
 in a new country presuppose much more valuable moral qualities 
 and much more stamina, than the passive hardships of an un- 
 employed labourer's life at home. Emigration is therefore an 
 appropriate resource only for the young, the strong, the steady 
 and enterprising. At the same time the intending emigrant must 
 be not only able, but also willing to "rough it" for some time 
 and to put up during many years with a standard of comfort 
 below that ruling in his native country. This condition fulfils 
 itself as a matter of course, because common people emigrate 
 rarely while they can find the means for a decent life at home. 
 That in recent times so many people able and willing to work 
 are allured to foreign parts by the prospect of a mere crust of 
 bread, is a sad sign. From all this it follows, that exactly those 
 people are likely to succeed by emigration who are fit to succeed 
 at home. The really miserable, the weak, the incapable, the 
 hopeless have no more chance in one country than in another. 
 If it is remembered further, that the openings in new countries 
 apply chiefly to the more primitive kinds of labour, whilst the
 
 90 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 older and more civilized countries are all suffering under the 
 same difficulties with regard to labour of all descriptions, which 
 beset England at the present hour, it will be conceded, that 
 emigration can afford a remedy only to a comparatively small 
 and picked part of the population. 
 
 In the country left by the emigrants the competition for labour 
 will naturally be somewhat relieved by their withdrawal, but in 
 order to produce a marked effect upon the proportion, it would 
 be necessary to promote emigration upon a scale never yet 
 contemplated during modern times. Nothing on a sufficiently 
 comprehensive scale has been attempted since the migration 
 of nations in the early centuries of the Christian era. But, con- 
 sidering that only the best elements of the population are 
 available for successful emigration, it is very evident, that it 
 involves a heavy national loss. By the abstraction of a portion 
 of the strong the average quality of the remaining population 
 must deteriorate, and the struggle for life rendered more severe 
 for them. And this is not the only drawback ; for, when 
 emio-ration has proved successful, what becomes of the emigrants ? 
 What has become of the men, who left England and Germany 
 for the United States of America .? They are the competitors of 
 the lands of their origin in every open market. Was not there 
 a time — only a few years ago — when America prospered in a 
 remarkable degree by underselling European producers in Europe 
 herself, and has not the lot of the English and German workman 
 become harder thereby in proportion as their Americanised 
 relations have improved theirs ? Thus we find, that the advan- 
 tao-es derived from emigration by the community left behind are 
 extremely problematical, and that after all it is only congestion 
 which can be remedied thereby. 
 
 Its effects upon the adopted country do not call for special 
 investio-ation, as they are identical — under ordinary circumstances
 
 THE AREA NARROWING CONSTANTLY. 91 
 
 — with those upon the emigrants themselves. When the latter 
 find scope for their labour and reasonable reward, they are a 
 source of gain and security to their new country ; when they are 
 forced to go idle or to starve, they are a burden and a danger. 
 
 In speaking of emigration we think naturally of new countries. 
 Even the United States of America, which offered such great 
 inducements to emigrants twenty or even ten years ago, are, so 
 to speak, out of the run at present. They have become an old 
 country to all intents and purposes — at least for the time being. 
 They have developed their own industries and their own pauper 
 class and they are suffering under the same distress which 
 oppresses European nations. The immense area of cultivable 
 land at their disposal has not saved them from the troubles which 
 beset the more thickly populated parts of the earth. It is curious 
 to observe in this instance, how quickly countries reach full 
 maturity under modern conditions. Railways are built with the 
 intention and hope of creating themselves a demand for their 
 use, cities spring up on the lines with marvellous rapidity, objects 
 of luxury are brought within the reach of the settlers, the 
 standard of comfort advances, and the consumption of articles 
 of secondary necessity becomes important. Then factories spring 
 from the ground, the imports decrease, the manufacturers can 
 produce more than they can sell at a profit, and the labour 
 question, the question of poverty arises in full glory. 
 
 But if it is evident, that only new countries offer a reasonable 
 prospect of success to emigration, the issue becomes narrower 
 with every year. For, not only is the area of undiscovered and 
 unexplored land diminishing steadily under the restless activity 
 of scientific and commercial adventurers, but also, with our 
 improved means of communication, the cosmopolitan character 
 of capital and the spread of practical intelligence amongst the 
 masses, countries are not likely to remain new even so long as
 
 92 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 they did a generation ago. We must therefore look forward to 
 a time, when emigration — under normal circumstances — cannot 
 even be alleged as a solution of the problem. In order to prevent 
 misunderstandings, it may be useful to remark, that this has 
 nothing to do with the question of over-population, as the difficulty 
 does not lie in the proportion between population and cultivable 
 area, but in the fact, that the increase of available land, however 
 much in excess of any possible increase of population, does not 
 supply a remedy, if the other conditions of work and distribution 
 ruling at present are allowed to continue. 
 
 As a matter of fact emigration is looked upon as an exceptional 
 measure by many who expect a steady improvement of the general 
 economic situation from a further extension of international trade. 
 Considering the habits and principles which rule industry and 
 commerce in our times, the expectation is natural enough. It 
 is a necessary outcome of the general tendency to unbounded 
 production and to dealings in large amounts which is a character- 
 istic of modern trade, and the consequences of which are by no 
 means uniformly beneficial. In the eager straining for increased 
 production it has been long forgotten, that the real value and 
 advantage of a foreign trade consists in the imports, that is, in 
 the opportunities afforded by it to the trading countries of obtain- 
 ing objects which they cannot produce at all or only with a 
 greater expenditure of labour. Traders and manufacturers alike 
 are reckoning upon an extension of export trade and seem rather 
 surprised, that it does not take place yet or can only be forced 
 by sacrifices, instead of preparing for the contraction which must 
 inevitably come to pass, unless the unexpected opening of some 
 great new country, or some unforeseen serious political disturbance 
 puts it off again for some time. 
 
 In the economist's view it is the aim and advantage of inter- 
 national trade to concentrate special branches of industry in those
 
 INTERNATIONAL TRADE. 93 
 
 parts where they can be carried on with the smallest comparative 
 expense. It is, properly speaking, only a branch of that division 
 of labour, which forms one of the most prominent points in the 
 programme of modern progress. If we assume, that England can 
 produce iron and steel, Germany linen, Italy silk cheaper as 
 compared to other articles than any other country, it would be to 
 the advantage of all three to let England provide iron and steel, 
 Germany linen and Italy silk for them all. Thus all would be 
 able to enjoy the advantages of all the favourable conditions 
 possessed by each country separately. The arrangement sounds 
 so easy and self-evident and holds out such immense prospects 
 of saving labour, that it is not difficult to understand and 
 appreciate the fascination which the idea has exercised upon 
 economists. It is a well-established fact, that international 
 exchange does not depend upon the absolute cost of production, 
 but upon the relative. In order to be able to export a certain 
 article, a country need not produce it with a smaller absolute 
 expenditure of labour and capital than another country. All 
 that is required is, that the difference in the cost of production 
 between the objects destined for exchange should be greater in 
 one country than in the other. 
 
 I am far from underrating the value and importance of inter- 
 national trade and the advantages which it has conferred upon 
 mankind and upon some nations in particular. I am not indis- 
 criminately enthusiastic about the blessings showered by it upon 
 races which we are in the habit of regarding as savage, because 
 their ideas and habits are so widely divergent from ours, that we 
 cannot judge them properly by our ordinary standard of civiliza- 
 tion. I am not of opinion, that the contact with European or 
 American alleged superiority must eo ipso be an advantage to 
 other races, or that the things superseded must always be so very 
 much inferior to the superseding ones as is commonly believed.
 
 94 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 But what we are concerned with here, is the gain derived from 
 international trade by the civilized nations, and this has certainly 
 been very great and will remain so, even after its exuberant 
 growth has been curtailed. Only do not let us expect, that the 
 advantage will be multiplied, if the trade can be multiplied. 
 Because it does a man good to eat one pound of beef a day, do 
 not let him suppose, that it will be ten times as good for him 
 to eat ten pounds. Because one week's rain fructifies the fields, 
 it does not follow, that ten weeks' rain will improve the harvest 
 tenfold. The great advantage of international relations is 
 gained by their opening, whatever new benefit is derived from 
 them, after the connection has been fully established, is com- 
 paratively unimportant. If a big country, like the Soudan, pro- 
 ducing ivory, ostrich-feathers and gum, was opened to trade, the 
 industry and trade of civilized countries like England and 
 Germany would without doubt receive a considerable impetus. 
 They would find opportunities to get rid of some of their manu- 
 factures in exchange for objects of which they stand in need and 
 which they cannot produce themselves. But, when in consequence 
 ivory, gum and ostrich-feathers are brought into commerce in 
 unheard-of quantities, some older countries which used to rely 
 upon the exportation of these articles in return for European 
 goods, will be unable to exchange them any more at a rate which 
 allows them to maintain their former standard of comfort. They 
 are forced to economize or, if they are sufficiently civilized, to 
 manufacture themselves some of the articles which they used to 
 buy from Europe, and in either case the latter loses an outlet 
 for its products. Or, if the conditions of their soil permit it, the 
 countries which have lost the trade in their special products, will 
 proceed to the production of staple articles like wheat or sugar 
 or cotton and thereby cut out either European producers or some 
 other customers of Europe, thus saving themselves and their
 
 ITS CHIEF GAIN IN THE BEGINNINGS. 95 
 
 connection with the most civilized nations by transferring to some 
 other country the disadvantage imposed upon them by the 
 opening of the new country. Then this other country must cease 
 to be a buyer of European goods or at least restrict its consump- 
 tion. It appears therefore, that the opening of new markets is 
 not always a full and lasting gain to exporting countries, and 
 we observe in practice, that in spite of the enormous and rapid 
 extension of international relations the striking effect of foreign 
 trade seems to be at present, that the civilized countries send out 
 goods which the other party declines to absorb, in order to 
 receive back other commodities which the receivers would rather 
 be without. 
 
 Still, this process of the opening up of new countries is in- 
 dissolubly connected with the march of progress and must be 
 accepted as one of the factors of modern development. As long 
 as there are parts of the habitable earth undiscovered by the civi- 
 lized world, the resources of science and of capital will be strained 
 towards further discoveries. But, as the experience and the means 
 of enterprise are increasing continually under the influence of 
 progress, we may expect that before long no habitable part of 
 the globe will remain undiscovered. Then the game of opening 
 new countries to trade will have been played out equally with 
 that of emigration to fresh parts. It is obvious, that a system 
 dependent for its support upon new markets of that description 
 can at the best only supply a palliative and cannot be relied 
 on even for the maintenance, much less for the improvement of 
 the actual conditions. 
 
 As to the trade between civilized nations, that tends to decrease 
 in consequence of industrial development. If it is admitted, that, 
 in order to maintain a profitable foreign trade, marked differences 
 in the relative costs of production of different commodities are 
 required, it is evident, that the palmy days of international trade
 
 96 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 of this description are past, for where are those differences to 
 arise from under our conditions ? It is one of the principal results 
 of material progress to equalize the resources of the different 
 nations for production, to bring the proper materials and the best 
 appliances and opportunities equally within the reach of all. 
 Most branches of manufacture require less highly trained labour 
 how than in pre-machinery times, and those countries which are 
 not sufficiently advanced in the arts of machine building, obtain 
 the machinery required for manufactures from more advanced 
 countries at such a slight extra expenditure of freight etc., that 
 the difference need not enter into the calculation of the cost of 
 production. There are of course, as there will always be, 
 differences in the absolute average cost. England may have an 
 advantage of 5% over Germany, and Germany one of 5% over 
 France, but with the exception of special articles, which form only 
 a small part of the whole production, the proportion holds good 
 for all branches of industry. The only appreciable difference con- 
 sists in the rates of wages and refers therefore to the whole level 
 of production, as the proportion between the remunerations of 
 the different branches of labour is approximately the same every- 
 where. The slight variations which naturally remain, are in nine 
 cases out of ten not worth the attention and trouble involved in 
 the maintenance of international trade. As a plain proof of this 
 contention serves the fact, that almost in every year we see some 
 country emancipating itself in some branch of industry from its 
 former purveyors, and soon after becoming a competitor of the 
 nation from which it used to buy its manufactured goods. I have 
 already alluded to the striking instance of the United States of 
 America which within a very short time have grown from cus- 
 tomers of England into exporters of manufactures of the most 
 varied descriptions into England herself The same process is 
 going on in all countries where consumption is important enough
 
 EMANCIPATION OF FORMER CUSTOMERS. 97 
 
 to promise a reasonable rentability to native enterprise, as most 
 English manufacturers working for foreign markets know to their 
 cost. There are few things in industry now-a-days which could 
 not be done in Australia or in Canada almost as well as in Europe, 
 and they all will be done there, as soon as the inhabitants begin to 
 find, that it would pay them better to manufacture goods than to 
 import them in exchange for natural products. By a wise scheme 
 of federation England may preserve her colonial markets some- 
 what longer than the purely financial interest of the colonies 
 warrants, but the process of industrial emancipation — particularly 
 of those colonies which lie under the temperate zone — can only be 
 retarded, not prevented for ever. In the times of difficult com- 
 munications it was comparatively easy for an old country to 
 maintain the start in industry, but it is part of the nature of 
 modern progress, that for the former great differences in efficiency 
 between the advanced and the more backward nations it sub- 
 stitutes a minutely graduated scale of national efficiency. If 
 England for instance still maintains her predominance in some 
 branches of industry, one or more of her competitors are so close 
 at her heels, that their van is already in advance of the rear of 
 English industry, and they, in their turn, are followed quite as 
 closely by other competitors. Under such circumstances it 
 appears impossible for any one country to monopolise a market, 
 and even the opening of new countries can only bring a share of 
 its trade to any particular nation, whilst the number of competitors 
 eager for a share increases unceasingly. 
 
 Some people think, that a more satisfactory condition of trade 
 could be created by the abolition of the protective tariffs by which 
 some countries have thought fit to surround their own industries, 
 or by the introduction of retaliatory duties on the part of England. 
 Our present experience shows, that trade may be as bad and dis- 
 tress as rampant under a system of protection as under the rule 
 
 H
 
 98 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 of free trade, that therefore neither of them can be considered as 
 a panacea. Without denying, that protection may have a great 
 political value under certain circumstances in order to foster 
 native industry, I cannot look upon it as necessary under the 
 present conditions of industrial equality. If there is any virtue in 
 protection, it must appear when the weak are protected, but to 
 extend special protection to full-grown and strong branches of 
 industry seems at least superfluous. That protection could not 
 succour a nation, although it may and does enrich individuals, is 
 too evident to require an extended argument. It has never yet 
 been proposed to protect all industries and trades to the same 
 extent, the very essence of all projects of protection is differen- 
 tiation, the conferring of an advantage upon some branch of pro- 
 duction at the expense of the remainder of the population. It 
 has been asserted, that the duties are borne by importing coun- 
 tries, but, if this was true, measures of protection could never have 
 fulfilled their immediate purpose of succouring the industry which 
 they are intended to benefit, whereas in reality they effect this 
 always for some time, although the advantages are most unjustly 
 distributed. One look at the highly protected countries of America 
 should suffice to refute that fallacy. The usual effect of the protec- 
 tion of one branch of industry is, that this particular branch is 
 enabled to levy a contribution for its support from the consuming 
 masses. If the duty is important, its pressure will be felt soon, 
 and other branches, which were only a trifle less depressed than the 
 newly protected one, take up the cry for protection. After this has 
 gone round once, the branch protected in the first place finds, that 
 the advantage conferred on it by the duty does not suffice any 
 more to keep it going, an increase is asked for, and so the merry 
 game is carried on, every citizen paying about as much towards 
 the support of all others as he receives back from the community 
 for his own support, and wages regulating themselves on the whole
 
 PROTECTIVE TARIFFS INEFFICIENT AND MOSTLY UNJUST. 99 
 
 upon the prices enhanced by duties. If the rates of the protective 
 duties for the different articles could be determined with perfect 
 justice and based upon a thorough knowledge of facts and forces, 
 such a system might be carried out for some time without much 
 material damage to the community and might help to foster 
 national industry, but the utmost which it could do for the-material 
 improvement of the people would be to equalize to a certain 
 extent the rewards of different branches of industry. Even this 
 \vould be done in a very unscientific and haphazard way, and it 
 would be better in every sense to succour depressed branches or 
 encourage growing ones, where it is thought advisable to do so 
 by direct grants from the State levied by taxation. There would 
 then at least be no mistake possible about the nature of protection, 
 and' as to who has to pay for it. 
 
 But at present neither perfect justice nor thorough knowledge 
 are brought to bear upon these matters in most countries. The 
 interest which is best represented in those places where tariffs are 
 proposed and voted, obtains the most favourable conditions for 
 itself. The unavoidable result is, that by protective tariffs in- 
 equalities are rather created than abolished. Small branches 
 which might be maintained to ulterior advantage and rendered 
 self-supporting by a judicious protection, are suffered to decay, 
 whilst powerful industries, represented through nunjerous and in- 
 fluential friends, obtain the means of exacting from the community 
 sacrifices which put them into a far better position than the 
 average. Thereby the community is made a loser in a double 
 sense. Firstly it must pay for the pleasure of using goods pro- 
 duced at home, although for palpable reasons it may be better to 
 buy these from some other country and transfer the labour and 
 capital devoted to their production to other »fields. Secondly the 
 tariff causes the protected branches to screw up their rate of pro- 
 duction to the highest pitch and to throw the quantity which they
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 cannot sell at home into foreign markets, where they are sold 
 frequently without a profit or even at a loss. Thus a state, by 
 protecting industries which are strong enough for exportation, 
 makes actually a present of a part of the amount of the duties 
 to foreign states and impairs its own position as a competitor in 
 neutral markets. Let us put the case, that German ironmasters, 
 . being protected by a high tariff, sell their surplus production to 
 England at cost price. The English buyer obtains then their iron 
 on better terms than the German buyer can and is enabled to offer 
 goods manufactured from it at lower prices in neutral markets 
 thap his German competitor, unless a highly complicated and 
 expensive system of drawbacks and bounties is established in 
 Germany for the express purpose of counteracting the effects of 
 protection. 
 
 This circumstance is worth noting — apart from its value for the 
 appreciation of a policy of protective tariffs — as showing, that the 
 so-called closing of an industrial country by high import duties 
 does not by any means remove it from international commerce, 
 but only causes it to alter the objects of exchange, the foreign 
 state receiving in many cases a larger profit from it now than -it 
 could obtain before the establishment of the tariff. One might 
 have thought, that industries which require special protection 
 would have enough to do to secure the home markets, but ex- 
 perience teaches, that one of the consequences of protective duties 
 is always a strong development of the exports of the protected 
 article. It is not to be expected, that this is carried on generally 
 at a reasonable profit. As a rule the producers use the export 
 chiefly to maintain production at high pressure and throw the 
 quantity which they cannot place profitably at home, upon foreign 
 markets without profit or even at a loss, for which they recuperate 
 themselves from their countrymen under the aegis of protection. 
 Wonderful instances of the action of a protective policy will occur
 
 UNIVERSAL FREE TRADE NO PANACEA. loi 
 
 to any one who has had an opportunity of comparing prices 
 quoted for American produce and manufactures in New York and 
 in Europe. By such a policy it comes to pass, that so many 
 countries are trying simultaneously to shoot their rubbish, namely 
 their surplus productions into neutral markets, and that inter- 
 national competition rages with a fierceness which can only be 
 explained by the firm resolution of men, who have their backs 
 covered by the forced contributions and helpless condition of their 
 countrymen, to produce as much as possible and to get rid of the 
 surplus at any price. It would therefore not be correct to regard 
 the protective tariffs of the United States, Germany and other 
 countries as an effective barrier to international trade or to expect 
 a great revival — at least one of a lasting character — from their 
 removal. If these nations were to abolish protective duties at 
 once, they would import and export different articles than they 
 do now, but there is no reason to assume, that they would import 
 or export more. 
 
 As to the custom of non-manufacturing countries which is 
 apparently appropriated in part by the manufacturers of pro- 
 tecting countries to the disadvantage of English producers, 
 England could not claim more than a share of it even if free trade 
 ruled the whole world, as other nations have become nearly, if 
 not quite, her equals in the arts of manufacture. But, that she 
 obtains the lion's share of this trade under the present conditions, 
 cannot be denied, and I cannot therefore see, that she could expect 
 a great development of her international commerce from a general 
 adoption of free trade. 
 
 I must now refer to the current fallacy, that a trade is profitable 
 as long as it leaves a profit to the manufacturer or producer. 
 This is only true from the point of view of the capitalist, but not 
 from that of the national interest. To make an export trade pro- 
 fitable, it is necessary, that not only should the employer receive a
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 fair reward for his capital and labour, but also that the labourers 
 employed in it should enjoy wages in accordance with the 
 standard of comfort ruling in their time and country. To make a 
 trade pay by starving the labourers, means simply stealing part of 
 the labour and appropriating it or, as must happen in the great 
 majority of cases, making a present of it to the foreign buyer. It 
 is economically speaking no better than stealing the material and 
 morally at least as bad as adulteration of the goods. The proper 
 level of wages cannot be left out of view any more than the proper 
 amount of material required for manufacture. It is downright 
 absurd to say, that an export trade can be rendered profitable 
 by reducing wages below the reasonable level or unprofitable by 
 bringing them up to it. Except under peculiar conditions which 
 can never be lasting, as for instance when it is a question of intro- 
 ducing a new object the taste for which has yet to be created, 
 trade based upon an insufficient reward of labour cannot be com- 
 mended. The extinction of profits affords the clearest proof, that 
 there is no adequate demand to be supplied. A lowering of 
 prices below the cost of production (meaning not the cost at which 
 the article has actually been produced, but that at which it can 
 be produced with reasonable wages and interest) may induce 
 dealers and speculators to invest in it, and consumers may also 
 be persuaded to forestall their requirements, but, if the production 
 • for export is kept up, this buying in advance will not improve 
 the producer's position beyond the moment. On the contrary, he 
 will have to encounter the competition of the second hand in 
 addition to his former difficulties and be forced to make further 
 concessions, until he is reduced to work at an actual loss in spite 
 of wages screwed down so far as not to allow any margin for further 
 reduction. 
 
 Such a state of things is bad enough in all conscience, whether 
 applying to home or to foreign trade. But in the former case the
 
 INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE CONTRACTING. 103 
 
 benefit of the low prices remains at least to the country. If one 
 set of labourers is paid insufficient wages, the share of wealth with- 
 held from them is distributed over the whole population, and in 
 their quality as consumers they obtain themselves a small share of 
 the difference. But when commodities are exported at unprofit- 
 able prices, the advantage flows out of the country to foreign 
 buyers, who are thereby enabled — to the extent of the advantage 
 obtained — to make themselves more and more independent of 
 their former purveyors. This cannot be right. The very essence 
 of exchange is, that it benefits both parties, giving to each what it 
 wants more, and taking from each what it can spare better than 
 the other. But a policy of fostering a trade which strengthens one 
 and weakens the other, without any compensation to the latter, 
 cannot lead to satisfactory ends, however the effects may be veiled. 
 The fact is so evident, that it would be generally acted upon 
 without doubt, if the producers had not got into the habit of pro- 
 ducing at haphazard and at the highest possible rate, trusting to 
 the chapter of accidents for the sale of their products, and for a 
 balance on the right side at the end of the year. Not that any 
 blame attaches to producers individually. They are under the 
 bane of the ruling system which drives them to trade for trade's 
 sake, to produce as much as they can on penalty of being left 
 behind in the race for wealth, which it has made the normal and 
 legitimate' aim of every human being which cannot prove an 
 ostensible vocation for something different and exceptional. But, 
 whether culpable or not, the forcing of industry to export in 
 excess of imports required can only have disastrous consequences, 
 and, with the growing equalization or approximation of material 
 resources all over the world, I look forward to a contraction of 
 international trade far in excess of any increase which may be 
 caused by the opening of new markets.
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 The condition of the land. Tenant-right. Peasant-proprietorship. 
 Nationalization of the land. 
 
 THE phenomena of agricultural depression observed during 
 recent years have been the means of directing a great share 
 of public attention upon the conditions under which agriculture 
 is carried on, and many are the suggestions made with reference to 
 this subject which by their promoters are expected not only to 
 make agriculture again a paying industry, but also to improve the 
 condition of the non-agricultural labourers and to raise the average 
 reward of labour to a fair height. We will pass in review those 
 propositions which are most prominently before the public, and try 
 to form an idea of their probable effects. 
 
 Most of them are novelties only in this country. For instance, 
 peasant-proprietorship, which is considered rather a radical insti- 
 tution, has been the rule during long periods in parts of Ger- 
 many, France, Switzerland and other civilized countries. To 
 judge by the general condition of labour in those parts and by 
 the demand for protection raised by agriculture there, peasant- 
 proprietorship can hardly claim to be regarded as offering a secure 
 basis to labour. Still it is worth while to take a close view of the 
 various propositions, if only to find in what direction they may be 
 expected to work. 
 
 What has been done in Ireland and will probably be done before 
 long in parts of Scotland, can only be considered at the best as
 
 THE LAND. TENANT-RIGHT, ETC. 105 
 
 a relief afforded to one class. Tenant-right, judicial rents, com- 
 pensation for improvement must undoubtedly strengthen the 
 position of the man on whom they are conferred, and, in so far 
 as the tenant is generally at a disadvantage against the landlord 
 without these safeguards, their introduction tends to a better 
 division of the rewards of land and capital between the two. It is 
 certainly just and to the interest of the community, that the man 
 who tills the ground should not be subject to the caprice of an 
 individual land-owner, it is evidently fair, that on leaving a farm 
 he should be compensated for unexhausted improvements effected 
 by his labour and capital, it is also likely, that with sufficient 
 security of tenure he will endeavour and contrive to get more 
 out of the soil than under the old system. But it is not to be 
 supposed, that the gain obtained by such measures will extend 
 beyond the tenants' class, and we have already had ominous 
 warnings, that the condition of the Irish agricultural labourer has 
 not been improved thereby. It would be expecting altogether too 
 much, that the influence should be felt to any appreciable extent 
 in the non-agricultural classes. There may follow some improve- 
 ment of general trade in Ireland, because there the tenants will 
 spend within the country a certain amount which the landlords 
 used to spend elsewhere, but this condition of things is excep- 
 tional. In England for instance the expenditure of the landlords 
 would decrease by approximately the same amount by which that 
 of the tenants would increase, and although some branches of 
 industry would gain by the transfer, this would be effected by 
 a loss in other branches, which may or may not be better able to 
 bear it. 
 
 The proposition of peasant-proprietorship goes a long step 
 further, because it aims at the breaking up of large estates where 
 their existence is not rendered necessary by special circumstances, 
 and at giving the man of small means a chance to become the
 
 io6 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 proprietor of a piece of land. I cannot believe that a peasant- 
 proprietary could be created by the mere introduction of free trade 
 in land. Of course the present cost of transfer in England is dis- 
 graceful, and measures for the abolition of such a state of things 
 cannot be taken too soon, but even if the transfer of land was made 
 as easy as that of stocks and shares, the small capitalist would not 
 enjoy a better chance of obtaining land than the large one. When 
 a good demand ruled for land, the big man would always be able 
 to outbid the small man, and in times like the present, when land 
 cannot be sold for want of buyers, it is certainly not the cost of the 
 transfer that deters them. I admit, that there must be many ex- 
 ceptions from this rule owing to special conditions, but in order to 
 be effective, the measure must be applicable under average condi- 
 tions, which is not the case. . Something more than free trade in 
 land would be required to create a peasant-proprietary, and every- 
 thing would depend upon the terms on which the change would 
 be effected. If the community took it upon itself to force the pre- 
 sent land-owners to sell land to small capitalists at anything like 
 the capitalized value of the present rent, the buyers could not be 
 expected to make a better living out of it than farmers are doing 
 now, as interest would swallow the exact amount saved in the 
 shape of rent. If on the other hand the price was fixed much 
 below the present value, the sellers would lose what the buyers 
 gain, and the advantage to the community would be just as pro- 
 blematical as in the case of tenant-right etc. which we have 
 considered previo.usly. The only real difference between the two 
 systems would be, that the peasant-proprietor would have for ever 
 the chance of profit from increase of value, together with the risk 
 of loss from decrease, whereas the tenant would be liable to have 
 his rent regulated according to the varying state of the land 
 market. 
 
 Any change in the methods of cultivation would be independent
 
 PEASANT-PROPRIETORSHIP. 107 
 
 of the altered conditions of tenancy. As long as the general 
 opinion was in favour of devoting the bulk of the soil of England 
 to the production of the staple articles, the small proprietors would 
 carry on this production just as the great landlords are doing now 
 for the most part. Numbers of them would combine for the pur- 
 pose of conducting their industry on a large scale and reducing 
 the expenses of bringing to market and distributing. They might 
 succeed thereby in doing their business as economically as it is 
 done under the present system, but I fail to see, in what way an 
 advantage could be expected. Large companies would take the 
 place of the present large land-owners, the individual partners 
 would perhaps be somewhat better off than tenant farmers are now, 
 but the improvement would be neither certain nor considerable, it 
 could affect no one beside the proprietors, and the community 
 would reap no benefit from the change. 
 
 To enable the agricultural labourer to take advantage of the 
 possibilities of purchase, yet another measure would be required. 
 To buy land, be it ever so little and be the terms ever so easy, 
 must require more capital than to rent it. Therefore the prospect 
 of a labourer becoming a proprietor would be at least as remote 
 as his prospect of becoming a farmer under the present system. 
 Knowing what agricultural wages have been and are, we are 
 justified in setting down the prospect of the ordinary labourer 
 as )iil. Without help from the community in the shape of an 
 advance of capital agricultural labourers could not profit by the 
 change of system. Such help would mean a kind of protection for 
 agriculture to which it has no more claim than any other legiti- 
 mate occupation. I for one cannot see, how advances could be 
 denied to groups of labourers intending to start a cotton-mill or 
 an iron-foundry, if they are accorded to agriculturists wishing to 
 cultivate the soil for tlieir own profit. This is not the place for 
 investigating, whether such a universal State-supply of capital is
 
 io8 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 desirable or possible, I only wish to point out, that the demand for 
 it would be the inevitable consequence of any measure intended to 
 provide agricultural labourers with the requisite capital to convert 
 them into peasant-proprietors. But even if, out of peculiar con- 
 sideration for the trade of agriculture, the people consented to 
 confer upon it this exceptional boon, if we succeeded in turning 
 the agricultural labourers of our generation into owners by minute 
 division of the soil, how would it fare with the next generation ? 
 It is not to be expected, that the unit appropriated to a labourer 
 would do more than maintain one family. The eldest son would 
 inherit it, and the younger sons would be forced to flock into the 
 cities to seek work, just as the young agriculturists are doing now. 
 In those countries where peasant-proprietorship' is universal, it 
 is a frequent, and by no means a pleasant spectacle to see the 
 younger sons of a peasant trying to eke out a scanty living as helps 
 upon the elder brother's farm, condemned to celibacy and to a 
 joyless, prospectless life, unless they possess sufficient energy to 
 face the struggle for work in the manufacturing towns. 
 
 This is the state of things which obtains in France and Germany 
 under the system of peasant-proprietorship, although the men and 
 women there are working and faring at least as hard as the corre- 
 sponding classes in this country, and I can see no reason to 
 suppose, that this system would produce more desirable results 
 here. 
 
 The schemes which we have just considered, although they may 
 seem radical enough to a mind 'trained under and used to the 
 present system, aim after all only at the regulation and improve- 
 ment of the relations between special classes of the population, 
 namely those occupied with the cultivation of the ground. They 
 leave the principle of private property in land untouched, their 
 tendency is even to foster it by distributing the land in such a 
 manner, that a personal interest attaches to every little bit of
 
 NATIONALIZATION. ABOLITION OF RENT. 109 
 
 ground. It is evident, that a thousand occupying owners of ten 
 acres each are Hkely to keep a tighter grip on the land than one 
 owner of ten thousand acres. The latter will in many cases care 
 for the greater part of his estate only as a source of revenue, which 
 on convenient terms he would exchange readily enough against 
 other property, whereas the smaller occupiers would gain a living 
 interest in the soil and identify themselves with it to such an 
 extent, that a separation from it would involve a radical change 
 in their whole way of living and perhaps of thinking. We come 
 now to a more sweeping proposition, one which attacks the 
 groundwork of the system ruling in civilized countries, namely 
 nationalization of the land. This scheme has in so far an advan- 
 tage over those which we have considered, that it has not been 
 tried yet on a large scale, and that it is therefore impossible to 
 point to its failure elsewhere. 
 
 In view of the wild talk about "abolition of rent" which is 
 frequently heard in connexion with propositions of this kind, it 
 may be useful to point out, that none of the schemes before the 
 public proposes to abolish rent, which is in fact impossible. Rent 
 being the factor which equalizes the returns from different qualities 
 of land, it cannot be dispensed with under any system short of 
 absolute communism, where it would be merged into the idea of 
 general returns. Under any other system we may change its 
 name and alter its form, but it will continue to exist. In a state 
 of peasant-proprietorship it will appear in the difference of the 
 prices paid for the same area of different degrees of productive- 
 ness. Under the metayer system it is expressed by the difference 
 of the share going to the land-owner according to the quality of the 
 soil. Anything produced from land beyond the return from the 
 lowest quality under cultivation is, properly speaking, rent, and the 
 question is naturally not, whether differences of return shall be 
 allowed, but, what shall become of the surplus. The land-nationa-
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 Hzers contend that it shall go to the community and that for the 
 future the State should take possession of the land. 
 
 One of the principal supports of their theory is afforded by the 
 character of land as a fixed quantity and strengthened by the con- 
 centration of landed property in comparatively few hands. It 
 seems certainly most singular, that a minority should possess the 
 power to exile as many of the population as it may think advis- 
 able. Things in Ireland and some parts of Scotland have been 
 managed badly enough under the ruling system, but there is 
 nothing or little except self-interest and personal consideration 
 to prevent the land-owners from going much farther, if they have 
 a mind to do so. Public opinion may prove an obstacle to the 
 abuse of legal power, but its expression comes frequently too late 
 to save the victim, though it is mostly in time to punish the 
 abuser. Besides, if we admit public opinion as a force which has 
 a claim to interfere in cases where legal rights are exercised to the 
 damage of public interests, why should it not be heard just as well, 
 when it demands measures for the prevention of such abuses } Of 
 course there is a limit to human endurance. The instance of 
 Ireland and of the Scotch crofters shows, that already this limit 
 has sometimes been over-stepped, and the equipoise to the abuse 
 of the law is found in resistance to the law, which may take many 
 more or less violent shapes. But why should the community, with 
 its eyes open to the danger, expose itself to the possibility of 
 disturbances, when it possesses the means of preventing them ? 
 These are not cases of exceptional oppression or cruelty, no 
 one maintains, that Irish landlords as a class are worse or more 
 rapacious than other classes of the population. It is our vicious 
 system of giving them unreasonable power, which the struggle of 
 life in the service of Mammonism forces or tempts them to use and 
 even to strain. Is it .right, that such a system should endure ? 
 And, in conceding, that the landlords as a class are not worse than
 
 UNREASONABLE RIGHTS OF LAND-OWNERS. iii 
 
 other classes, we must also keep in view, that we have no reason to 
 expect them to be better. Now, if only one in twenty or even one 
 in fifty should prove capricious, self-seeking and oblivious of moral 
 obligations, only imagine, what an amount of misery this small 
 minority may cause, what mischief it may do ! It might plunge 
 the nation into the most violent convulsions, render thousands of 
 families homeless and destitute. It is against common sense, it 
 is obviously against common policy, that such powers should be 
 entrusted to or left in the hands of individuals, not chosen for their 
 superior intelligence or their merits or the confidence which they 
 inspire, but put into their places by the accident of birth. From 
 this point of view even the feudal system was preferable to the 
 present state of things, for there was then certainly a better pro- 
 spect of the land coming into the possession of men of conspicuous 
 power and ability, who had at least done something to mark them 
 out and who had a personal reputation to maintain as well as an 
 acknowledged duty to perform. 
 
 In so far as land-nationalization is intended to abolish the 
 absolute power of the land-owner over the remainder of the popu- 
 lation, I think the endeavour deserving of all sympathy. But for 
 this purpose something short of nationalization would suffice. 
 Peasant-proprietorship or tenant-right would diminish the danger 
 by distributing the power amongst a large number of people, who 
 could hardly have an interest in expelling the remainder and who 
 would also find much difficulty in combining for action of such 
 kind, but neither would do away with the danger altogether. 
 Some right of interference on the part of the whole people is 
 required, which might be vested either in the State or in the 
 municipal or communal authorities, and this might be effected 
 by conferring upon them the power of expropriating — at a fair 
 valuation — any land-owner who insists upon using his land in such 
 a manner as to disturb improperly the interests of the community.
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 That the rights of entail and primogeniture would be incom- 
 patible with such a plan, is evident, but as they are doomed in 
 any case, it is not to be assumed, that they would be allowed to 
 stand in the way of any measure considered just and necessary. 
 
 The promoters of nationalization make a great point of the 
 prospect of abolishing the tenure of land for speculation, because 
 no private individual could make a profit on rent, and therefore 
 it would be to no one's interest to let land lie unoccupied in the 
 hope of selling or letting it at a large profit after some time. But 
 this could also be prevented without disturbing the system of 
 private ownership, by the simple device of taxing land according 
 to its capacity instead of according to its actual return. One need 
 not be an ardent reformer in order to feel and understand, that 
 it cannot be advisable to let land lie fallow, when there is some- 
 body willing to cultivate or utilize it at his own risk and to pay 
 something for the chance. The obvious injustice of leaving these 
 possible sources of revenue untaxed, when they are left unused by 
 the free will of the owner, is manifest to men of very moderate 
 opinions. It cannot be very difficult to discern between those 
 cases, where the land is uncultivated in consequence of the failure 
 of opportunity and those, where the wish of the owner is the sole 
 reason. A notice in the newspapers would elicit buyers or tenants 
 or by its failure to do so prove, that there is really no demand for 
 the land in question. 
 
 We have now seen, that some of the principal aims of nationali- 
 zation can be reached by simpler means and without an overthrow 
 of the principle of private ownership in land. At the same time 
 I contend, that some measures of this kind, namely a guarantee 
 of the interest of the community in the land, and the taxation of 
 land according to its capacity, are absolutely necessary for the 
 safety and in the interest of the whole and must form part of the 
 programme of every social reformer.
 
 GREAT EXPECTATIONS. 113 
 
 But, in justice to the land-nationalizers — whose views have been 
 put before the public in a most able manner by Mr. A. R. Wallace 
 and especially by Mr. Henry George, it must be admitted, that 
 they expect much more important results from the measure which 
 they advocate. In their opinion nationalization of the land would 
 really solve the social question, give to every one a reasonable 
 scope for the exercise of his labour, do away with the sources 
 of unequal distribution and raise the reward of labour to a fair 
 height. It is represented as the short cut to the realization of every- 
 thing which reformers are striving for with regard to the material 
 condition of the community. In order to avoid misunderstandings, 
 I observe, that under " land " here not only agricultural land 
 is understood, but that the term is intended to comprise the soil 
 of town and country with all its natural resources, and to exclude 
 the products of labour and capital as far as they are definable in 
 separation from the soil. It includes the ground on which cities 
 stand, but not the buildings of which they are composed, it includes 
 the area occupied by a mine, but not the shaft and the appliances 
 for its use. In a time when so many schemes are afloat which 
 apply the term land to agricultural land exclusively, this definition 
 may not be quite superfluous. 
 
 If, as proposed by one branch of the nationalizers, compensation 
 is given to the present holders in the shape of annuities for two or 
 three generations, a great deal would depend upon the rate of com- 
 pensation. If this is based upon the actuarial value of the land at 
 its present rental, the community would be burdened with a debt 
 for interest equal in amount to what it pays at present as rent and 
 would only profit by an eventual further increase of value, for the 
 present it would only secure those advantages which, as I have 
 shown before, may be obtained by less sweeping measures. In 
 order to find out what nationalization can really do, we will 
 consider it under the most favourable circumstances, we will accept 
 
 I
 
 114 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 for the purpose of investigation Mr. George's scheme of taking 
 possession of the land without compensation to the present holders, 
 by means of confiscating rent. 
 
 It cannot be denied, that in this case an enormous advantage 
 would be conferred on those who have the misfortune of not being 
 land-owners, whereas those who are enjoying that position now 
 would find their incomes very seriously reduced. All income 
 derived from agricultural and ground rents, with the exception of 
 that part which is traceable to the landlords' own improvements, 
 all royalties on mines, fisheries etc. would flow into the public 
 treasury instead of into the pockets of private individuals. The 
 amount, Mr. George contends, would be sufficient to defray the 
 entire expense of government so that taxation of every other 
 description might be abolished. In one of his lectures he even 
 calculated, that an enormous surplus would remain, which he pro- 
 posed to apply partly in giving annuities to all widows. It is hard 
 to see whence he has taken his figures. To me it seems almost 
 impossible to form any approximate idea of what may be the 
 ao-o-recfate amount of rent for the United Kingdom. The late 
 Mr. Arnold Toynbee valued the whole agricultural rent for the 
 year 1883 at ^69,000,000 and after deducting the reductions 
 on Irish rents which are effected through the land courts and 
 ;^ 1 0,000,000 for rent on corporate property which for the greater 
 part is already directed to public uses, he thought it fair to put the 
 amount at not exceeding about ;^6o,ooo,ooo. By estimating, that 
 half of this is to be considered as the return from land independent 
 of improvements, and in taking the ground rents of the United 
 Kingdom as ;^30,ooo,ooo, he arrived at the conclusion that the 
 sum obtainable by the confiscation of rent without compensation 
 would be equal to about .^60,000,000 a year. Now considering that 
 the total public expenditure of the United Kingdom was between 
 ;^87,ooo,ooo and ^^89,000,000 in 1883 and 1884, the sum named
 
 EFFECTS OF NATIONALIZATION IN ENGLAND. 115 
 
 by Mr. Toynbee would be evidently inadequate to effect the great 
 things predicted by Mr, George. But in view of the extreme 
 difficulty of forming a correct estimate I am ready to admit, that 
 the actual amount may exceed the stated figure considerably. I 
 will assume that the confiscated rent would be sufficient to cover 
 the whole public expenditure increased by the cost of free education, 
 free libraries, free public baths and wash-houses and perhaps some 
 other free institutions for the common use. Henceforth every 
 inhabitant would be free from State taxation of any description. 
 No income-tax to trouble the capitalist and the professional man, 
 no duties on beer, tobacco, spirits etc., a free breakfast table for all 
 classes. No doubt this is a pleasant picture, a smiling prospect for 
 the poor over-burdened taxpayer. But when we come to examine 
 it closely, I doubt whether we shall find the advantage so great and 
 so certain as it appears to the first superficial view. 
 
 In a country like England, where income-tax is only levied from 
 incomes which are supposed to leave a certain margin after the 
 provision of the first necessaries of life, and where the import duties 
 fall almost exclusively on articles of comparative luxury, the 
 relief to the common labourer would not be very great. The first 
 consequence of the abolition of duties would be that the articles 
 subject to them at present would become enormously cheaper. 
 A workman would therefore be a gainer in the exact proportion as 
 he had been a user or an abuser before. The total abstainer would 
 gain nothing, the temperate man little, only the drunkard would 
 derive an important advantage from the change. He would be 
 enabled to indulge his intemperate habits without the necessity 
 of making his family suffer directly by his vice. Even this would 
 only be the case under the assumption, that wages are not 
 influenced by the abolition of general taxation, which is possible 
 in England just because the measure would make such a slight 
 difference to the ordinary workman. But then the danger arises,
 
 Ii6 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 that the possibility of obtaining drink cheaper than before, while 
 the prices of most other things remain unchanged, would tempt 
 many weak people to an abuse in which they do not indulge with 
 the present high prices. This is not a consummation to be striven 
 for and to be put into practice by sweeping measures. 
 
 The position is somewhat different in a country like the United 
 States of America, where almost every article of consumption is 
 taxed heavily, and where the smallest consumer finds himself 
 hampered by the shackles of protective duties. There it seems 
 a great thing to throw the whole burden of taxation upon one 
 class which is clearly able to bear it, and to relieve the struggling 
 masses by reducing their cost of living by 40, 50 per cent, or even 
 more. And so it might be, if the former rate of wages could be 
 maintained. But does any one believe, that the average rate 
 of wages would not suffer a reduction under such circumstances } 
 Is there anything in nationalization of the land, which sets a limit 
 to the gains of capital, and would there not be the competition 
 of men, nay of women and children, for work at any rate of wages 
 which will keep them alive .'' Even if American labourers suc- 
 ceeded by combination to maintain the average wages in face of 
 a relief of taxation which reduced the cost of living by one half, 
 there v/ould be such a rush of immigrants from other countries 
 eager to share in the blessings of the new dispensation, that before 
 long the employers would have the pick of labourers at, if not 
 below, half the former wages. 
 
 There is yet another aspect of the case, which must not 
 be neglected. Mr. George's conclusions are based on the idea, 
 that the interests of labour and capital are identical, not only in 
 opposition to those of land, but absolutely, a position the exami- 
 nation of which will occupy us later on. He would therefore con- 
 sider the shifting of the taxation from the capitalist to the land- 
 owner which is involved in the confiscation of rent and abolition
 
 YOU CANNOT EAT YOUR CAKE AND KEEP IT. 117 
 
 of all other taxation as a direct benefit to the community. But 
 looking at the power wielded already by capital and the abuses, 
 which are manifest enough in many instances, J cannot agree with 
 the endeavour to strengthen the position of capitalists. It would 
 be better to hoard a surplus in the hands of the State than 
 to increase the power of accumulation and of oppression, which 
 belongs to capital already, by relieving it of its burden. The limit 
 at which income-tax begins to be levied might be raised so far, 
 that ordinary professional or other incomes, which may be earned 
 without the help of capital, are exempt from it, but why in all the 
 world should we give the great capitalist an increased chance^ 
 which would be practically a certainty, of hastening his accumula- 
 tions } In so far the abolition of taxation except that from land 
 is by no means desirable, as it would increase the power of capital 
 without strengthening the position of labour in a corresponding 
 degree. 
 
 Mr. George admits himself, that relief from taxation under the 
 present system of land-tenure would not improve the condition of 
 labour, but from the change of system, he expects such an altera- 
 tion in the power of labour, that it will be able to appropriate 
 all possible advantages. To me the idea, that by confiscating rent 
 you can relieve the people of the burden of taxation and at the 
 same time secure to every individual an area for the exercise of his 
 labour on better terms than can be obtained now, appears remark- 
 ably like an attempt at the old problem to eat your cake and 
 keep it. Whatever you do about the ownership of land, as long 
 as capital remains in its present position, it will require capital to 
 cultivate the land and, as things are going, it may require large 
 capital to cultivate it to the best advantage. You appropriate rent 
 to the community — well and good, this may be made a gain to the 
 whole by being spent on works of public utility, on canals, rail- 
 ways, free libraries etc., but by this process the cake is eaten, and
 
 ii8 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 I cannot see, what more you can expect. We cannot do away with 
 the unequal distribution of wealth and of opportunities by con- 
 fiscating rent. The struggle for the necessaries of life will go on 
 between labour and capital with undiminished vigour and will then 
 as now apply to those things which are not supplied free for the 
 asking. 
 
 One great result expected is a considerable stimulation of pro- 
 duction. A large area held at present in an unproductive state by 
 private owners will be thrown open for cultivation. But, as the 
 unsatisfactory condition of industry, agricultural and otherwise, 
 does not by any means arise from scarcity of produce, it does not 
 appear, that the increase would supply a remedy. If we bear in 
 mind, that rent cannot be abolished, but only appropriated by the 
 State, and look at the large reductions made lately in agricultural 
 rents, we can hardly assume, that, with the probable competition 
 between farmers, the average rate would be greatly reduced. Now, 
 the complaint on all sides is, that agriculture cannot be made to 
 pay in England, because too much foreign produce is brought to 
 market and sold at prices, at which the English farmer cannot 
 produce it. The question of rent is really a secondary considera- 
 tion, as even with no rent at all to pay competition is impossible 
 in many cases. In what way would an increase of the area under 
 cultivation improve the position ? More wheat would be brought 
 to market and help to depress the price, more labour would be 
 wasted. If, on the other hand, in consequence of a continued 
 depression of agriculture rents should fall considerably below 
 the present level, the amount going to the State would be so 
 much smaller. The tenants might be benefited, but the non- 
 agricultural part of the population might have to submit to 
 taxation again. Whichever way we may turn it, the profit can 
 be had only once. 
 
 Up to now I have applied myself chiefly to an analysis of the
 
 NATIONALIZATION AND PEASANT PROPRIETORS. 119 
 
 results to be expected from nationalization of the land in the 
 United Kingdom, which in consequence of the concentration of 
 landed property in comparatively {q.\^ hands seems to offer the 
 fairest field for such a measure. With regard to countries, where 
 the land is held by small owners, the vast majority of whom 
 cultivate the ground themselves, I cannot even see as much ad- 
 vantage as might accrue under the system ruling here. In France 
 and Germany the agricultural industry is asking for protection, 
 because it cannot hold its own against foreign competition even 
 where it has no rent to pay. If the whole taxation was levied 
 from the land, it would have to be made up to the agriculturists, 
 so that it would only amount to a matter of form, as far as the 
 material condition of the country was concerned. I am quite at 
 a loss to understand, where the gain is to come in. Mr. George 
 maintains, that the release from taxes "upon his house and 
 improvements, upon his furniture and personal property, upon all 
 that he and his family eat, drink and wear, while his earnings 
 will be largely increased by the rise of wages, the constant 
 employment and the increased briskness of trade" will fully 
 compensate the peasant-proprietor for the increased taxation of 
 his land. But herein some results are pre-supposed, which we 
 have no right to expect from nationalization, and some changes, 
 which apply only to America. In France, Germany and most 
 other countries where a peasant-proprietary exists, the taxation 
 of the lower classes is not so exorbitant as in America, and the 
 relief afforded by its abolition is consequently much smaller. 
 Constant employment is eo ipso secured to the peasant-proprietor, 
 although of course it may prove more or less renunerative accord J 
 ing to circumstances which nationalization will leave untouched. 
 To judge from Mr. George's argument, one should think, that the 
 American farmer has to ask somebody else's permission before 
 proceeding to the cultivation of his land. How those agriculturists
 
 I20 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 who are actually unable to make a living by their labour should 
 be enabled by nationalization to make a better living, besides 
 undertaking the burden of the whole taxation, is a problem which 
 I do not find solved in Mr. George's expositions. We must also 
 remember the well-known fact, that only too many small land- 
 owners are indebted to capitalists. The money obtained has 
 gone to the cultivation of the soil or to the maintenance of the 
 cultivators and their families. If only the return from land is 
 interfered with, these debts would remain in force, but could 
 hardly be allowed to be a burden on the peasant who will have 
 to bear the whole taxation. I suppose, they would have to be 
 taken over by the State and the return to the community would 
 be lessened by the amount of the interest and amortization. 
 
 Much to my regret I am driven to the conclusion, that nationali- 
 zation of the land is not the short cut to the radical improvement 
 of our social state, that it would be quite unable to remove the 
 great grievance, the general insufficiency of the reward of labour. 
 It is not easy to see, on what grounds ^its advocates assume such 
 wide-spread and radical consequences. Perhaps the notion, that 
 by making the land national property something to fall back upon 
 is secured to labour which it requires to maintain its dignity and 
 independence, has led to the enormous over-estimate of the 
 importance of the measure. But this something is not secured to 
 the individual by nationalization of the land any more than it 
 is under present circumstances. Whether rent was taken by the 
 State or by private owners, may be of some importance to the 
 farmer in so far as the State may prove a wiser and juster landlord 
 than the average private owner, but not even to the agricultural 
 labourer would it make any difference. In order to rent a piece 
 of land from the State, the labourer would be forced to outbid the 
 large farmer, and his chance of getting it at a low rent would 
 be no better than it is now. Capital would be required for the
 
 INADEQUACY OF THE CONFISCATION OF RENT. 121 
 
 profitable cultivation of the soil and would be no more at the poor 
 man's command then than it is now. Prices of produce would 
 still be largely regulated by the whole world's competition, and 
 there is no reason to assume, that the farmers would be able to 
 pay their labourers enhanced wages. If, on the other hand, rent 
 is only to be exacted, after reasonable wages and interest on the 
 capital invested have been distributed, the return to the com- 
 munity would be reduced to nothing in times of depression, and 
 nationalization would dissolve itself into a measure of relief for 
 the agricultural classes, on a par with protective duties on agri- 
 cultural produce and inferior to peasant-proprietorship, because 
 State-farmers would be less independent than proprietors. 
 
 Even such an improvement would not endure, for, whilst other 
 industries are left free to grind down the reward of labour, it 
 stands to reason, that a high standard of wages for agricultural 
 labour cannot be maintained. The reverse of the process which 
 we are deploring at present would take place, the towns would 
 pour out their poor into the country, and agricultural wages would 
 necessarily fall to the ordinary level. Then perhaps rent would 
 go up in consequence of an increased demand for land, the com- 
 munity would gain by a corresponding increase of the expenditure 
 on public works, but the general state of labourers would not have 
 been improved in any way. The inevitability of this course of 
 events will become evident, if we remember, that even under the 
 most favourable circumstances only a small proportion of the 
 population of the United Kingdom can be employed in direct 
 connexion with the land. According to the census of 1881 out 
 of nearly 11,000,000 labourers about 1,400,000 were employed in 
 agriculture. Adding to these about 500,000 miners, we arrive at 
 the conclusion that about one-sixth part of the working population 
 make their living by direct application to the soil. Can it be 
 seriously maintained that any improvement in the condition of
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 this one-sixth can be of duration, whilst that of the remaining five- 
 sixths is unchanged ? All experience and all reason speak against 
 such an assertion. Much less then can we hope, that the advance 
 of the one-sixth should be able to raise the level of the remainder. 
 
 In the preceding pages I have illustrated my argument by 
 reference to agriculture, because this is by far the most important 
 industry employing itself upon the land directly. Naturally the 
 same conclusions apply to the mining and all other industries 
 which would be influenced by the transfer of the land from private 
 ownership to that of the State, 
 
 One branch of the nationalizers which has been pushed some- 
 what into the background by the more vigorous propaganda of 
 Mr. George, seems to have felt, that the mere confiscation of rent 
 is not sufficient to give to labour the support which it needs in 
 the struggle for wealth. Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace in his " Land- 
 nationalization, its Necessity and Aims " makes the proposition 
 that every citizen should have the option once in his life to take up 
 a plot of ground of not less than one acre and not more than five 
 acres for personal occupation, rent being payable to the State. 
 In attempting to prove the feasibility of this scheme he urges, 
 that, roughly speaking, only the agricultural classes could or would 
 avail themselves of this right, which fact alone is sufficient to 
 prove, that a radical improvement of the condition of the whole 
 working population cannot be expected from it. But besides this 
 we find ourselves here opposite the same difficulties which spoiled 
 the smiling prospects of peasant-proprietorship. Either the 
 labourer has to find the capital necessary for building his house 
 and tilling the ground, or the State must supply him with it on 
 exceptionally easy terms. In the former case we have no right 
 to expect, that many labourers would be in a position to avail 
 themselves of their right of selection, as nationalization of the land 
 would leave the relations between labour and capital unchanged.
 
 THE RIGHT OF SELECTION. 123 
 
 In the second case the man who takes up a lot receives a direct 
 benefit from the State the cost of which is naturally borne by the 
 community. It would be tantamount to putting a premium upon 
 agricultural pursuits, by which labourers in other fields of industry 
 would be prejudiced. But they would not remain so for long, 
 when five acres of land are to be had by any one for the asking. 
 All those people who found it hard to earn a living in manufacture 
 and commerce would flock into the country and exercise their 
 right of selection. The majority would fail lamentably, but almost 
 any one with little to risk would consider the experiment worth 
 trying. An immense useless expenditure would have been 
 incurred with the only result of raising the competition for agri- 
 cultural work to an unreasonable height. 
 
 Unless the acquisition is made so easy as to render it almost 
 certainly mischievous, the right of selection does not supply that 
 support to labour of which it stands in need, and I cannot there- 
 fore look upon this method of nationalization as more efficient 
 than that advocated by Mr. George. I admit, that the idea is an 
 enticing one, but regret, that on closer investigation it is found 
 entirely inadequate to the great purpose which it is intended to 
 fulfil. Mischievous as the present land laws undoubtedly are, I 
 cannot find in them the ultimate cause of the insufficiency of the 
 reward of labour and the unequal distribution of wealth, nor in 
 their abolition the promise of a radical improvement. 
 
 Yet the investigation has led us to some positive results by 
 making it clear, that a certain restriction of the rights of private 
 property in land and an alteration of the taxation are required in 
 the interest of the community. 
 
 I cannot close this chapter without recurring to the attitude 
 taken up by the land-nationalizers with reference to capital. It is 
 quite intelligible, that in their strenuous opposition to the claims 
 of land they range labour and capital together on the same side,
 
 124 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 but I must object to the attempt to represent the interests of the 
 two as wholly identical. The fact, that they have to share the 
 whole reward of production with the third factor, land, does not 
 determine the relations between themselves. Nor does the cir- 
 cumstance, that capital is stored labour, give us the right to treat 
 both, as though there was no essential difference between them. 
 The same influence which is most beneficial to the stored fruit, 
 may be detrimental to the tree which bore it. We have not to 
 deal with the original state of things, but with a complex state of 
 civilization, where plenty of capital and of wealth capable of being 
 converted into such is in existence and in the possession of a 
 small minority. If the opportunities were evenly distributed, if 
 every one was free to store the fruits of his labour for his own use, 
 there would indeed be no antagonism between labour and capital. 
 But, as long as the majority is compelled to give up the surplus 
 of its production to the owners of capital, it is idle to talk of an 
 identity of interests which does not exist, and the absence of wliich 
 obtrudes itself only too forcibly upon the unprejudiced observer. 
 As well might we form rules for the political guidance of modern 
 States by taking up historical evolution at the times of the 
 patriarchs, as to eliminate the fact of the separate existence of 
 capital from the present social conditions. Such a lumping 
 together of labour and capital can only obscure the issue and lead 
 to one-sided conclusions.
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The 7tew centre of gravity. Progress inherent in capital, not in labour. 
 Position of capital and labour at different stages of civilization. 
 Modern monopoly of large capital. 
 
 T HAVE previously referred to the universal experience, that 
 -■- it is becoming ever more difficult to earn a competency by 
 labour unsupported by special advantages, and that the newly 
 developed forces of industry, instead of being the servants, as 
 commonly asserted, appear rather as the masters of the human 
 race. It looks indeed, as though we had become the bond-slaves 
 of some mischievous demon who profits by our toil and mocks 
 at our sufferings. We are kept busy forging chains for our own 
 limbs, furthering material progress at the expense of our own 
 comfort and happiness. Some pitiless monster holds us in thrall, 
 rousing our desires and turning our efforts towards their gratifi- 
 cation into horrible failures. Let us try to understand where its 
 strength lies, perchance then we may spy the weak place in its 
 armour. 
 
 If we survey the various fields of human activity, we observe, 
 that by no means all kinds of labour are affected by inadequacy 
 of reward to the same extent. I do not speak of individuals who 
 by special capacity, by being able to do something desirable for 
 the community, which no one else, or only a small minority, can 
 do equally well, secure an exceptional reward. A great statesman, 
 writer, soldier, artist, inventor, engineer, actor or singer, who fills 
 a place which in the belief of the community no one else can fill
 
 126 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 quite so well, commands of course any reasonable remuneration 
 for his work. His difficulty consists in convincing the world of 
 his exceptional capacity ; as soon as he has succeeded in this, the 
 exceptional reward is secured to him. These cases of the mono- 
 poly of ability do not enter into the question. But there are 
 whole professions and trades, requiring merely ordinary ability, 
 the members of which receive decent wages and are not afflicted 
 with the constant apprehension of loss of employment. Take for 
 instance literary men, journalists or schoolmasters. Their incomes 
 are better than at any previous time. Amongst manual labourers, 
 butchers, bakers, bricklayers, carpenters do not seem to be 
 suffering materially from the general contraction of the reward of 
 labour. Of course none of these trades and professions are 
 exempt from temporary troubles and difficulties, but in most cases 
 these are traceable to special causes. If, allured by the unselfish 
 advice of Mr. James Payn, an unreasonable number of people 
 decides upon devoting its energies to the production of novels, 
 the emoluments of novel-writing will probably fall off, but the 
 fact is accounted for and partly compensated by the chance — 
 however remote — of fame and social standing implied in the 
 success of work of this kind. If after a period of over-building 
 masons and carpenters find work slack, they have enjoyed pre- 
 viously a corresponding advantage in the shape of exceptionally 
 high wages. If attempts are made to depress the wages of 
 journeymen bakers by the importation of foreign labour, it may be 
 fairly assumed, that the rate is considerably above the average. 
 Otherwise the employers could not make it worth the while of 
 foreign skilled labourers to leave their homes. Even the revolution 
 in the meat-trade caused by the introduction of Australian and 
 American meat into English markets has not led to a reduction 
 of butchers' wages, however it may have curtailed the profits — 
 probably improperly high before — of some meat-sellers. Dis-
 
 WHICH BRANCHES OF LABOUR SUFFER MOST TO-DAY. 127 
 
 turbances of this kind would arise under any conditions, in a 
 stationary state as well as in a progressive one. It is even likely, 
 that the very prosperity of a special branch of trade would lead to 
 its being over-run by more people than can be profitably employed 
 in it. Such troubles can only be local or special and may be 
 trusted to carry their remedies in themselves, so that, with the 
 exercise of common sense and prudence, a satisfactory state of 
 affairs would soon be restored. 
 
 But, taking all these detractions at their full value, it appears yet 
 at a glance, that there is much less ground for complaint about the 
 condition of labour in the branches enumerated above than in 
 most of the staple industries like mining, weaving, agriculture and 
 commerce. In these latter employment is becoming less secure 
 and less renumerative from year to year, whilst new methods of 
 production are invented, fresh sources of raw material and new 
 outlets for produce discovered with startling and ever increasing 
 rapidity. 
 
 It appears therefore, that the condition of labour deteriorates 
 most in those branches which owe most to material progress. It 
 is not what one would expect at a first glance, but the apparent 
 paradox may serve us as a clue to the whole intricate problem. 
 
 We are in the habit of speaking of an increased productiveness of 
 labour and to base thereon the expectation of labour to obtain an 
 increased share of the reward. But is it really labour, which has 
 been rendered more productive by all our improvements, our 
 inventions and discoveries ? 
 
 I maintain that this is not the case. It is not labour, but 
 capital, the power, efiftciency and productiveness of which has 
 been increased manifold during recent times. As a matter of fact 
 material progress consists essentially in the saving of labour by 
 the increased productiveness of capital. 
 
 The labourer of to-day does not and cannot perform more by
 
 128 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 his unaided labour than the workman of a hundred years ago. 
 The same amount of exertion which exhausted his ancestor, 
 exhausts him, the weight which the ordinary man of former days 
 could not lift, will prove too heavy for the man of this day. We 
 cannot afford to spend more muscular or more brain power in one 
 hour, one day or one year than our forefathers could. If now by 
 one turn of a handle we effect and produce more than could be 
 effected and produced in old times by many minutes' work, if by 
 working a screw we can lift with slight exertion a weight which 
 our predecessor would have had to divide into ten lots, if in one 
 hour we cover by railway the extent of a whole day's foot travel, 
 the growth of power is evidently not in ourselves, in labour, but in 
 the instruments which we use, in capital. Whoever owns and com- 
 mands the instruments, owns and commands the increase of power. 
 The capitalist supplies something better and more efficient now 
 than the capitalist could supply formerly, the labourer brings to 
 the partnership no more than what was brought by labour at any 
 previous time. Labour's share in the process of production gets 
 smaller, that of capital larger, and capital, being free to make the 
 best terms for itself, can claim and obtain the whole surplus due 
 to progress. The discrepancy is yet widened by the steady and 
 inevitable advance of the standard of comfort. With its growing 
 needs and its lessening opportunities labour thus finds itself 
 between the upper and nether stones of the industrial mill and 
 would run a great risk of being ground to' powder, were it not 
 for the fact, that a large, though decreasing, amount of labour is 
 still indispensable to the working of the machine. 
 
 In order to prove the correctness of our conclusions, let us re- 
 verse for a moment the conditions of material progress. Let us 
 suppose a world, where raw material existed in practically un- 
 limited quantity and was within every one's reach, whereas labour 
 could only be supplied by a small minority. Say for instance, that
 
 DEPRECIATION OF LABOUR THROUGH PROGRESS. 129 
 
 only one child in twenty was born with hands, but that wheat grew 
 wild without culture, so that labour was merely required for col- 
 lecting it and turning it into bread. If now means were found to 
 make bread with a smaller expenditure of wheat, should we not be 
 safe in expecting, that the working minority would be the gainers 
 by this progressive step ? Wheat would be depreciated and 
 labour appreciated. Just as surely we must expect the opposite 
 effects under the actual circumstances, namely an appreciation of 
 capital, and a depreciation of labour, and a glance at the social 
 conditions of our time shows clearly enough, that this is really tak- 
 ing place. In those branches which do not offer to capital much 
 opportunity to apply the results of material progress, labour can 
 maintain its position fairly, whereas in those, where capital is able 
 
 to utilize inventions and discoveries to a considerable extent 
 
 > 
 
 labour loses in comparative importance what capital gains, and 
 must therefore be content with a smaller share of the reward than 
 it obtained before. 
 
 Thus it is explained, why literary men, teachers and others who 
 earn their living without the application of much capital, can com- 
 mand reasonable rewards. However high the efficiency of their 
 performances may rise, the advance lies in labour itself, and its 
 reward goes to the labourer. Of course these classes like all others 
 draw the ordinary advantages from modern progress in increased 
 security of life, improved opportunities of education, travel and 
 correspondence and so on, but the capital spent in utilizing these 
 opportunities is assimilated by the individual in such a manner, 
 that it actually increases the efficiency of his labour. It does not 
 survive in a separate shape and cannot claim a share of the reward. 
 
 In the same fact we find the explanation of the comparative 
 prosperity of bakers, butchers, masons, carpenters, and workers at 
 all those trades, where machinery does not play an all-important 
 part, and where therefore capital is not able to exercise its full 
 
 K
 
 I30 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 power. Any progress which may have been made in these 
 branches of industry, is due chiefly to the increased power of the 
 hands and brains of the workman. The proportion between the 
 performances of labour and those of capital has not been altered 
 materially during recent times, and consequently the distribution 
 of the reward has continued on the old basis. 
 
 Another instance of this kind is afforded by the position of 
 domestic servants, which has certainly not deteriorated. The finer 
 division of labour which may have taken place in this branch, 
 implies and produces a higher standard of efficiency in the indi- 
 vidual itself and is not forced upon it by the improvement of the 
 tools employed. Wages for domestic service have risen, and at the 
 same time the mode of living has \t!\'^xqv^6. pari passu — although a 
 long way off — with that of the employers. It is true, that there 
 is something in the idea of domestic service and in the usual re- 
 lations between master or mistress and servant which renders the 
 occupation somewhat distasteful to a generation, which has lost 
 the patriarchal sentiment of former ages and not yet learnt to 
 appreciate under all forms the innate dignity of labour. But, 
 although this may account in part for the constant advance of 
 wages and the difficulty of finding good servants, it does not ex- 
 plain the whole fact, and it does not require a very lively fancy to 
 imagine, how different the case would be, if the bulk of domestic 
 service could be performed by machinery. 
 
 Now let us turn to those branches of activity where modern 
 improvements play a vital part. We will assume for argument's 
 sake, that at a given period before the introduction of complicated 
 machinery labour received a fair and full reward. This is of course 
 a mere assumption, but for the present purpose we need only a 
 starting-point which may be supplied by this supposition as well 
 as by any other. Let us assume then, that the employer intro- 
 duces gradually machinery which enables him to turn out by the
 
 PROGRESS AND INDUSTRIAL LABOUR. 
 
 same number of hands a much larger quantity of commodities 
 than before. What will happen ? As long as he possesses a close 
 monopoly of the improvement, he is enabled to reap an exceptional 
 profit. This he may hoard or waste or spend upon useful purposes 
 or share with his labourers, as inclination guides and conscience 
 advises him. Those cases, in which the labourers are made par- 
 ticipators to a considerable degree in the profits won by monopoly, 
 must be counted all the more creditable to the employers, as their 
 action would be quite voluntary and prompted only by benevo- 
 lence or an unusually high conception of duty. But, however the 
 first owner of an improvement may dispose of its fruits, its full 
 effect is only felt after it has passed out of his hands and become 
 the property of any one who possesses sufificient capital to utilize 
 it. Then competition between the different users depresses the 
 profits soon to the normal level and compels them to direct their 
 attention to economy in working. Each one has a clear interest 
 in getting as much as possible out of his machinery in order to 
 be able to dispense with a proportionate amount of human labour. 
 Thus every improvement renders a certain amount of labour 
 superfluous and inflicts thereby an absolute loss upon labour, 
 unless the consumption of commodities can be stimulated fully 
 and at once in the same ratio as labour is saved by the improve- 
 ment. We are all familiar with the phenomenon of over-pro- 
 duction in special branches of industry, the results of which are 
 manifest in loss of employment and curtailment of wages on the 
 part of the labourer, and in the shrinking of profits on the part of 
 the employer, but under our haphazard system of production we 
 have grown accustomed to accept these drawbacks as part of the 
 price which the world is bound to pay for progress. Applying the 
 principle to the whole level of industry and trade, we look upon 
 these phenomena as transient and expect a gain in the long run. 
 Up to the present events have not justified the expectation, and it
 
 SOCIAL DE VEL 0PM E NT. 
 
 is therefore desirable to state clearly the fact of the loss. And 
 this is not the only disadvantage inflicted by the introduction and 
 perfection of machinery upon labour. Its value consists in force 
 and in skill, and it is chiefly the latter which gives to the labourer 
 a hold upon his work and his employer. But, the more the skill 
 of the instruments (if we may use the term skill figuratively) is 
 increased, the less scope is left for the exercise of skill on the 
 labourers' part. Skill as well as physical force is transferred ' from 
 labour to capital. Instead of the simple tools of former times 
 wielded and rendered productive by the skilful labour of man, we 
 have now highly complex and perfected machinery tended by 
 mere machine-minders, who have hardly any opportunity of im- 
 proving their work and their condition by personal skill. Instead 
 of men who could almost dispense with tools, we have now tools 
 which can almost produce without the aid of man. 
 
 No doubt the construction and installation of machinery itself 
 offers a wide area of activity to the skilled labourer, but it is 
 evident, that the labour spent on the building and maintenance 
 of machinery can only bear a very slight proportion to that 
 saved by its use. Otherwise machinery would be too costly 
 for practical use, nor could the production of other commodities 
 have increased as it has done of late. The fact, that old methods 
 of production are driven from the field by new ones chiefly 
 through the cheapening of the process, speaks for itself. Besides 
 even in the engineering profession the call for individual skill 
 decreases, as division of labour is carried to the extreme, and 
 will apply in the long run chiefly to the leaders and managers, 
 that is, to a small minority of the men employed. 
 
 Progress in the productive arts, by rendering the production 
 of a given quantity of commodities easier, renders — under our 
 competitive system — the act of production of the same quantity 
 worthy of so much less reward. If with the use of machinery
 
 PROGRESS AND AGRICULTURAL LABOUR. x^^ 
 
 our cotton-spinners can turn out in a day by the same number 
 of hands fifty times as much as formerly, this means, that, in 
 order to keep the labourer as valuable as he was before, the 
 demand for cotton goods must be raised fifty times. Otherwise 
 the employers have the power, which under our system of ill- 
 regulated production they are frequently forced to use, of re- 
 ducing the share of labour in the reward by an abatement of 
 wages or a dismissal of workmen. 
 
 Turning to agriculture, we find the same relations between 
 labour and capital. In this respect the results of improvement 
 must be essentially alike, whether it is applied to the weaving 
 of cloth or to the binding of sheaves. Differences can only occur 
 in details, as they will also occur between different branches of 
 manufacture. The introduction of machinery and perfected tools 
 increases the power of capital and diminishes that of labour. 
 The more can be done by machinery, the less need be done by 
 human hands. The reaping-machine which, directed by a couple 
 of men, performs in a few hours the work which with common 
 tools would occupy a dozen men during a whole day, is evidently 
 more important to production than ten men — short of absolute 
 scarcity of labour for the working of the machine, which is not 
 the grievance of our times. The capitalist who employe the 
 powerful instrument can claim whatever surplus profit may be 
 obtained by its use, whereas the man who has only labour to 
 offer, has now even a worse prospect of finding a demand for 
 it than before. As to the amelioration of the soil itself through 
 the application of fertilizers and other improvements of a material 
 kind, this is clearly traceable to capital and separable from the 
 value of the land and the labour. The capitalist who derives 
 profit therefrom may or may not be identical with the owner 
 or the tiller of the land, but labour as such has nothing to gain 
 thereby. In speaking of capital and capitalists in this connexion
 
 134 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 we must discard the colloquial use of the terms and apply them 
 in their strict and proper sense. Even the poorest Irish tenant, 
 whom we are not accustomed to count amongst capitalists, is 
 such a one in reality, although on the smallest scale. The 
 improvement effected by his labour in the condition of the soil 
 is undeniably capital, and the tenant's hold upon this makes 
 his position essentially different from that of the hired labourer. 
 The recent land-legislation for Ireland has improved the tenant's 
 position q7id capitalist and redressed the crying abuse of allowing 
 the reward of capital to be confiscated by land. But no ad- 
 justment of the relations between land and capital, however just 
 and desirable in itself, can effect an improvement in the condition 
 of labour. Being the most exposed and the least independent 
 of the three factors of production, labour has been compelled to 
 remain passive during the struggle between land and capital, but 
 goaded by necessity, it will now speak out for itself and con- 
 trive to make its voice heard before long. 
 
 I do not wish to convey the impression, that the agricultural 
 depression in England is caused solely or even chiefly by the 
 progress in the arts of production. The subject will occupy us 
 later on, in this place it is my purpose merely to show, what 
 is the actual influence of material progress upon the reward of 
 agricultural labour. 
 
 We will now glance at distributive or commercial labour, which 
 occupies a large and apparently a yet growing number of people. 
 
 With reference to distribution progress consists principally in 
 the increased quickness and ease of communication and exchange 
 and in the extension of the area and volume of commercial 
 operations arising from the growth of the possibilities of pro- 
 duction and consumption. To judge from appearances, commerce 
 in our time is an altogether different thing from what it was 
 only a few decades ago. It disposes of forces and enjoys op-
 
 PROGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE OR COMMERCIAL LABOUR. 135 
 
 portunities which would have seemed nothing short of fabulous 
 to the merchants of former ages. Time and space have been 
 conquered in a high degree, elementary forces, from masters 
 and enemies, have been converted apparently into servants and 
 helpmates of trade. Nor can it be denied, that there are some 
 solid advantages to show. It is doubtless a great gain, that a 
 want felt in the morning at Sydney or Hong-Kong or San 
 Francisco can be made known in London on the evening of 
 the same day, and perhaps a greater advantage still, that by 
 means of railways and fast steamers it can be supplied in less 
 weeks than it required months before the introduction of these 
 means of communication. There is also some real gain for trade 
 in the possibility of regular and quick information from and 
 to all centres of trade and industry, in so far as thereby the 
 danger of a disturbance of markets by merely local causes is 
 minimised. An immense prospect of individual success seems 
 to be contained in the fact, that the cost of travelling has been 
 reduced to an insignificant fraction of what it was formerly, and 
 that correspondence has become so cheap as to form hardly a 
 consideration in commercial affairs, so that the whole world lies 
 an open field inviting to be tried and explored by any one's 
 energy without large risk, outlay, or loss of time. And yet we 
 see a state of depression becoming almost chronic, we observe 
 all around us the unmistakable signs, that the ordinary trader 
 fails to secure a competency by distributive labour. The first 
 and most general complaint is want of business, the next the 
 extreme restriction of profits. But what is this other than 
 insufficiency of the reward of labour } Capital can easily obtain 
 a return. There are more opportunities now than at any previous 
 time of obtaining three to five per cent, without any appreciable 
 risk, by lending to States and municipalities of undoubted stand- 
 ing- But for distributive labour there is no security, there is no
 
 136 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 adequate reward. Here we find the same want of employment, 
 
 the same reduction of wages which we have found in the spheres 
 
 of industrial and agricultural labour, and the fact is not altered 
 
 by the substitution of the term " depression " for want of work, and 
 
 "restricted profits " for low wages. And here, just as in the other 
 
 areas of activity, we can trace the deterioration of the condition 
 
 of labour to the very progress, which at a superficial glance 
 
 seems to hold out such glowing prospects. For here also material 
 
 progress means only improvement of the instruments. To judge 
 
 from those branches which permit a more exact comparison, as 
 
 also from the inability of distributive labour to hold its own 
 
 against capital, we have no reason to assume, that personal 
 
 efficiency has increased to any considerable extent. And even 
 
 if it could be proved, that some access of individual power and 
 
 skill has taken place, the new possibilities of commerce are not 
 
 due to the personal qualities of the worker, but to the perfected 
 
 and multiplied tools which capital puts at his disposal. With 
 
 the appliances of a hundred years ago our cleverest financiers 
 
 and traders could not perform much more than financiers and 
 
 traders did then. Railways, fast steamers, telegraphs and 
 
 telephones, Alpine tunnels, maritime canals etc., have altered 
 
 the aspect of trade so materially, that it has become impossible 
 
 to weigh the commercial performances of our generation against 
 
 those of a former with reference to the personal energy and 
 
 ability employed in both. But, that capital is doing wonders, 
 
 that it enables us to do many important things not dreamed 
 
 of in old times, is evident. Clearly then capital deserves an 
 
 extra reward and obtains it. To labour the material progress 
 
 holds out no prospect of additional reward, but only a possibility 
 
 of increased ease, of which it cannot avail itself, being forced 
 
 through its dependent position to use all its opportunities on 
 
 penalty of starvation.
 
 SMALL PROFITS— QUICK RETURNS? 137 
 
 The matter appears simple enough, if we can only look at 
 the situation unblinded by the glamour of the splendid improve- 
 ments of modern times. For what does it really amount to, that 
 by the help of the telegraph a merchant can perform in one 
 hour and with a minimum of exertion the work which occupied 
 his predecessor during whole days, that by steamers and railways 
 he brings his goods to their markets in a tenth part of the time 
 required for the purpose before the invention of these appliances, 
 or that he receives by telegram within a few hours the decision 
 for which under the old conditions he would have had to wait 
 anxiously during weeks or months ? It means simply, that com- 
 mercial work has become so much easier, or that for a given 
 amount of performance so much less labour is required. As a 
 necessary consequence the reward on each transaction, which we 
 call the profit, is reduced in proportion. It is an idle boast of 
 some traders, that they rely upon small profits and quick returns. 
 The small profits are a condition of modern trade, to which 
 nolens volens every one must submit who intends to earn his 
 living by commercial pursuits. So far the principle is certain 
 to be carried out, but the difficulty comes in at the attempt 
 to increase the returns proportionately. Nor can this be a matter 
 for surprise, if we consider to what startling extent the possi- 
 bilities of trade have been multiplied during one or two genera- 
 tions, and that, in order to keep up the reward of labour, the 
 volume of trade must be increased to the full as fast as its 
 possibilities. Occasionally this has happened, and in a time of 
 slow progress, when long intervals elapse between one forward 
 step and the next, it is conceivable, that the volume of trade 
 may even grow faster than its possibilities, which of course are 
 never fully exhausted under any circumstances. These are the 
 prosperous times, when men with a fair knowledge of business 
 can make steady good incomes without much capital and without
 
 138 SOCIAL D EVE LOP ATE NT. 
 
 recurring to speculation. But with the rapid modern pace of 
 progress and its ever-increasing velocity, we must become resigned 
 to the fact, that improvements keep ahead of the actual necessities, 
 which means, that the reward of distributive labour is diminished. 
 At the present time it is only too evident, that the difference 
 between the amount of profitable business falling to the share 
 of each individual trader and the amount of work which he could 
 perform by the aid of the available appliances, has become 
 considerably larger than it used to be. If the possibilities of 
 turning over have increased twenty times and the profits on each 
 transaction been reduced to a tenth of the former rate, the turn- 
 over has increased perhaps only three or four times. This is the 
 secret of the universal complaint of want of business and restriction 
 of profits, which drives traders of all descriptions to the undesirable 
 expedient of creating business artificially by mere speculation. 
 
 We have now seen, that in all fields of human activity, where 
 progress is promoted largely by capital, that is, in all those 
 branches which have been created or greatly modified by modern 
 inventions and discoveries, the reward of labour grows more and 
 more inadequate. And, however we may regret it, we cannot 
 escape the conclusion, that 
 
 the depreciation of labour and the groiving inadequacy of 
 its rezvard under our industrial system are not accidental 
 or traceable to transitory causes, but necessary consequences 
 of material progress itself, and can be provided against 
 only by a modification of our system. 
 The inventor or discoverer obtains usually a share of the surplus 
 profit by reason of his monopoly, but in many cases he is baulked 
 of it through his dependence upon capital. 
 
 Another share goes to land, but it is to be observed, that this 
 tends to diminish. Not only are rents dwindling, but hundreds 
 of farms and thousands of houses are standing idle, entailing in
 
 THE NEW CENTRE OF GRAVITY. 139 
 
 many cases actual loss upon their owners or those who have 
 stepped into the owners' place as lease-holders or tenants for life. 
 Royalties from mines etc. are falling off, because capital refuses 
 to employ itself upon the old terms. With material progress con- 
 tinuing at the present rate a time might be expected before very 
 long, when land would be almost as much distressed as labour is 
 now. If, either by extending the area of production into hitherto 
 uncultivated parts of the earth, or by extracting more from it 
 by means of improved methods the land can be made to yield 
 considerably more than could be used, the value of land should 
 become merely nominal. In a certain measure we see the process 
 accomplishing itself, the American and other competition in agri- 
 cultural and mining produce having reduced the rents in Europe. 
 But that the reduction has not been much more serious, is due 
 to a fact of a partly practical and partly sentimental nature. This 
 is the love of country and of home. As long as nations maintain 
 their national character, as long as ordinary men retain a pre- 
 ference for the land which bore them, there will always be a special 
 demand for native land, an article strictly limited in extent, the 
 position of which cannot be affected materially by any new deve- 
 lopments. Whatever chances may offer themselves in the bush, 
 the ordinary Englishman will prefer English, the Frenchman 
 French, the German German land. Every emigrant expects a 
 richer return from the new country than what he can obtain at 
 home. The cheapness of land in sparsely populated parts, how- 
 ever fertile and promising^ and the rapid rise in its value as soon 
 as it has acquired a fixed and somewhat dense population, are 
 facts which lend force to my assertion, although I am far from 
 denying, that there are other strong grounds besides for the ex- 
 planation of these phenomena. Thus the owners of the land in 
 civilized countries hold a valuable monopoly, which enables them 
 to claim a considerable share of the profits accruing from material
 
 I40 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 progress, and neither nationalization of the land nor any other 
 kind of land legislation would do away with this fact. 
 
 That labour is losing ground by the very progress of industry 
 and trade, is far too evident to have escaped the notice of thinking 
 men. But by putting the progress to the credit of the wrong 
 factor, by speaking and writing of the increased productiveness 
 of labour without hinting, that the term is only applicable in a 
 figurative sense, and that it is in reality the productiveness of 
 capital which has been increased, the issue has been obscured. 
 The strictly logical and necessary consequences of material pro- 
 gress upon the relations between the different factors of production 
 have been mistaken and represented as monstrous anomalies, 
 whereas the anomaly lies entirely in the system which rules pro- 
 duction and distribution. Propositions have been made for the 
 cure of the evil which, whatever may be their influence in moral, 
 intellectual and political aspects, are quite unavailing against the 
 growth of power on the part of capital and the corresponding loss 
 on that of labour. 
 
 We will now see how and at what rate this transfer of power 
 takes place under different social conditions, and for this purpose 
 we will try to follow the relations between the factors of produc- 
 tion through the gradual stages of civilization. 
 
 Before society had assumed stable forms, when every individual 
 or at least every family had to produce for itself everything which 
 it wanted to consume, production must have been determined by 
 the resources of the land on one hand and the individual's desire 
 to consume on the other. As by the invention of tools and the 
 interchange of experiences between individuals and families the 
 possibilities of production were increased, the desire for consump- 
 tion grew likewise and in many cases outgrew the former. At the 
 same time the desire for accumulation must have come into prac- 
 tical existence. Thus families, and later tribes found themselves
 
 POSITION OF LABOUR UNDER PRIMITIVE CONDITIONS. 141 
 
 compelled to move from parts which had yielded a sufificiency to 
 their former simpler demands, to others which through higher 
 fertility or better opportunities offered a promise of a larger 
 return. Biblical history tells of great migrations, and similar 
 phenomena occurred in the beginning of the Christian era, when 
 whole peoples left their ancient homes in search of more favoured 
 countries. But these are comparatively late historical instances, 
 the tendency must have asserted itself already in a much ruder 
 state of society. 
 
 When in consequence of a growing desire for security and 
 peaceful occupations communities were formed and laws were 
 agreed to for the protection of each individual's life and rights by 
 the combined power of all individuals forming the community, a 
 certain division of labour must already have come into existence. 
 There must have been chiefs in council and in war, there must 
 have been a majority doing the hard work, and a minority super- 
 vising them and most likely from the first appropriating the larger 
 share of the surplus of production. At this early point the desire 
 for consumption on the part of the labouring majority ceased to 
 be a determining factor of production, which was now limited by 
 the resources of the land, the absolute necessities of the majority 
 and the desire to consume and to possess of the minority. This 
 state found its clearest expression through the institution of chattel 
 slavery which formed part of most, if not all, early civilizations 
 and which drew a sharp dividing line between the ruling few and 
 the labouring masses. In whatever shape the former appeared, 
 as chiefs, as priests, as warrior caste, they always found means 
 of obtaining considerably more than an equal share of the common 
 wealth, mostly in return for less performance. Personal ability 
 might either help its possessor to become one of the rulers, or 
 relieve him from part of his toil, where fixed tasks were set to the 
 individual, or lastly not avail him anything, where he was bound
 
 142 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 to work according to the full of his capacity and to give up the 
 produce to his owner or master. Gradually, with the increase of 
 average skill and the improvement of tools, the growth of pro- 
 duction must have influenced the standard of comfort of the slaves, 
 but there was never a prospect for them of obtaining a larger 
 proportionate share of the aggregate wealth than before. The 
 division of labour made also steady progress, but its greater 
 minuteness, the narrower circumscription of every individual's 
 tasks and duties could only have the same influence as increase 
 of average skill. All labour was appropriated and all its produce 
 flowed to its proprietors who had only to agree amongst them- 
 selves as to the distribution of the produce. When Homer's 
 Greeks sack a town and enslave its inhabitants, the question is 
 only, how many slaves each of the conquerors may claim (taking 
 into consideration the difl"erences in value according to age, power 
 and skill), and the disposal of slaves by sale, which is still legal 
 in some countries, embodies the same principle with the only 
 difference, that here it is the richest, whereas formerly it was the 
 most valiant, who had the prospect of appropriating the largest 
 amount of labour. 
 
 Complications must have arisen with growing civilization, when 
 numbers increased, and out of the lower strata of the governing 
 class and the higher strata of the labourers a class of people 
 formed itself who had only their labour to rely upon for their 
 maintenance and yet had no owner or master to give them the 
 certainty of work and subsistence. These people who claimed a 
 social status superior to that of the slaves, were naturally indis- 
 posed to accept a lower standard of living and had to make special 
 exertions in order to make up for the material disadvantage im- 
 plied in the moral gain of freedom. Now every advantage began 
 to tell heavily upon a class of the population which could not 
 afford to neglect any, however trifling. A little more quickness,
 
 GROWING CIVILIZATION. 143 
 
 a little more skill in constructing tools, a little extra opportunity 
 for obtaining instruments and materials would now make all the 
 difference between success and failure, between secured indepen- 
 dence and starvation or slavery. Exchange, commerce begins to 
 rule production. Still, work is on the whole yet so simple, demand 
 so easily roused and the relations between the probabilities of 
 production and consumption so easily discerned, that a reasonable 
 proportion maintains itself almost without trouble. Scarcity 
 and over-production in special branches occur occasionally, but 
 they are exceptional, and the losses are compensated by occa- 
 sional exceptional gains, so that a fair average can be maintained. 
 The power of capital begins to assert itself, but as yet it is fully 
 as much dependent upon labour as the latter is upon capital. The 
 large wealth accumulated in the possession of individuals is not 
 utilized for purposes of gain to such an extent, as to interfere 
 seriously with the industry of the man subsisting by labour alone. 
 Land is free or so cheap, that rent cannot hinder production 
 materially. The desire to enjoy and possess of the free labourers 
 becomes one of the determinants of production co-existent with 
 this desire on the part of the ruling class. At the same time the 
 growing comfort of the free labourers helps to improve the material 
 condition of the slaves who must be kept in good humour by their 
 owners, in order to insure their obedience and efficient labour. 
 
 Now let us suppose, that under such circumstances a discovery 
 or an invention is made, which enables one man to produce a 
 certain object with half the amount of labour expended on it 
 before. Say for instance, some one finds out, that by the proper 
 use of fire he can reduce the substance of a metal quicker than 
 men are wont to do by hammering it in a cold state. If he is of 
 an acquisitive turn of mind, he will keep the discovery secret as 
 long as he can and enjoy the profits of his monopoly. If there 
 is an unsatisfied demand for hammered metal, he will be able to
 
 144 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 produce and to sell at the old price double the quantity produced 
 formerly, thereby doubling his gains. But, should he find, that 
 he cannot sell the double quantity at the old price, he will reduce 
 it so far as still to leave him a larger profit than what he derived 
 from his labour previously. If he sees, that, in order to stimulate 
 the demand, he must lower the price so far that he does not derive 
 any profit from his discovery, he can restrict his production to the 
 former quantity, sell at the old price and take out the advantage 
 of his discovery in the pleasurable or profitable use of the time 
 which he saves by it. In a primitive state of civilization this is 
 far from probable, as many demands must be always waiting for 
 satisfaction. The discoverer will therefore be able in most cases 
 to secure an additional profit without causing a material disturb- 
 ance of prices or interfering with the profits of his competitors. 
 The community loses relatively by the accumulation of an extra 
 share of wealth in his hands, but, as it seems desirable to ofter 
 an exceptional reward to ingenuity, the enrichment of the dis- 
 coverer or inventor — if within reasonable bounds — need not be 
 regarded as a drawback. 
 
 After the lapse of a certain time the secret will be divulged, 
 and the novel use of fire in hammering metals will become general. 
 Every one who wants it can have and keep a fire, there is therefore 
 no difficulty about the utilization of the discovery by any one 
 employed in hammering metals. Now everybody pursuing this 
 industry is in the position occupied formerly by the discoverer. 
 The power and productivity of this branch of labour has been 
 increased, the community draws the advantage of an increased 
 supply or lower prices, and the producers that of larger gains or 
 more leisure. Of course the balance of the relations between the 
 different branches of industry has been disturbed. Metal hammer- 
 ing has become an exceptionally lucrative or an exceptionally 
 easy pursuit, and this will cause an influx of competitors, which
 
 INCREASING POWER OF CAPITAL. 145 
 
 will in time reduce the profits or restore the necessity of exertion 
 to the average. But in no case has any one to lose by the dis- 
 covery, and the community is clearly a gainer thereby. 
 
 The results are different, if the discovery or invention is of such 
 a kind, that its utilization requires the use of a larger amount of 
 capital. Suppose a man has found out, that through utilizing the 
 force of the wind by means of sails he can get his wheat ground 
 much quicker than by crushing it by hand between two stones. 
 He erects a windmill and enjoys the monopoly of his invention 
 until his secret becomes public property. But even then not 
 everybody employed in grinding corn can start a windmill in 
 competition, for the erection requires something besides skill and 
 willing hands. It requires an accumulated stock, which not 
 every one has the opportunity to acquire. These inventions remain 
 therefore the monopolies of the capitalists, who give to the com- 
 munity a share of the benefit derived from them, just sufficient 
 to cut out those competitors who cannot take advantage of the 
 improvement for want of the command of capital. 
 
 This shows clearly, that the opportunities of capital in opposition 
 to those of labour have been growing constantly with every inven- 
 tion or discovery the application of which requires an amount 
 of capital of a certain importance. Such an amount as may be 
 accumulated by a trifling expenditure of labour, although capital 
 in its nature, need not be reckoned as such in the examination of 
 the relations between the two, but may be considered practically 
 as an attribute of labour. The more the amount of capital required 
 exceeds the capacity of the common labourer to save, the closer 
 becomes the monopoly of capital to the fruits of material progress. 
 
 Before the most powerful agents of production came into play, 
 the improvements were mostly of such a nature, that the amount of 
 capital required for their utilization did not put them absolutely 
 out of the reach of the man with ability and willingness to work. 
 
 L
 
 146 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 By diligence and prudence he might have been able to save within 
 a reasonable time the means required. A character for ability and 
 honesty implied also a certain credit, which enabled the labourer 
 in many cases to enjoy a part at least of the profit of improvement 
 before he really owned the capital employed, by yielding a share 
 of its fruits to its possessor. The pace of progress was slow, and 
 as slow was the process of the widening of the distance between 
 the power of capital and that of labour. The capitalist came to 
 be regarded as a man of might, but yet there was nothing in his 
 position to startle or frighten the community, and the small 
 accretions of power caused by the occasional progressive steps in 
 the arts of production and by similar influences were hardly dis- 
 cernible to the public. But during the last half century, and more 
 particularly during the last generation, the rate of material progress 
 has been accelerated to an almost incredible degree, and at the 
 same time nearly all essential steps in progress have been of such 
 a nature, that they can only be utilized by the help of a large 
 amount of capital. Steam and electrical engines and modern 
 machinery of all kinds are far too costly to be procured from what 
 an ordinary man can save by labour. Circumstances have com- 
 bined to make the command of large capital much more than 
 formerly indispensable for the successful carrying on of most staple 
 trades and industries. Only an amount quite beyond the reach of 
 the ordinary labourer can secure to a man a claim to a share of 
 wealth in excess of the necessaries, capital has become a most 
 powerful monopoly and asserts itself as such to the detriment of 
 labour. 
 
 In consequence of this development the social and commercial 
 relations have become so complicated, that it has grown impossible 
 to determine the amount of individual exertion which is necessary 
 to produce a share of wealth sufficient to sustain the workman and 
 the capital employed in the production. The highest amount of
 
 THE PRESENT DEAD-LOCK. 147 
 
 exertion is demanded in return for the lowest wages compatible 
 with the ruling standard of comfort, not by individual ill-will, but 
 under the pressure of a haphazard, self-destructive system of pro- 
 duction, and we have virtually returned to the state of slavery, the 
 ruling caste being represented by the large capitalists and land- 
 owners, and the slaves by the labouring masses. Production is 
 now again determined — within the possibilities limited by the 
 resources of land, labour and capital — by the desire of the capi- 
 talist to consume and to accumulate and by the absolute wants 
 of the labourers. 
 
 Surely this is not a state of things to be contemplated with pride 
 or even with equanimity as the outcome of an unprecedented 
 progress. We cannot look without apprehension upon a develop- 
 ment which by its very nature keeps the majority down and 
 increases the already unreasonable opportunities of a minority. 
 If by the laws of political economy the consequences of progress 
 under the ruling system are such as we observe in our times, then 
 we shall be forced either to stop progress or to change the system. 
 But progress cannot be stopped without decay setting in at the 
 same moment. It may stop of its own accord, after a certain 
 height has been attained, but there are no signs, that our civiliza- 
 tion is near the summit, on the contrary to all appearances we are 
 on the brink of new discoveries and inventions which will exercise 
 an incalculable influence upon the arts of production. It remains 
 therefore only for us, to alter our ruling system in such a manner, 
 that the pernicious consequences of progress are obviated, and that 
 it may prove a gain in the best sense to the community.
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 The claims of capital. — What it gets actually and how. — Monopoly. 
 — Credit. — Spoliation of labour. — Speculation. 
 
 OUR next task will be to trace the manner in which the results 
 of material progress are conveyed to capital. For this 
 purpose it will be necessary to investigate its proper claims. Inci- 
 dentally we have already defined the ideas of " land " and " labour," 
 the rewards of which are called " rent " and " wages." " Capital " 
 we define as wealth devoted to the procurement of more wealth 
 or, as Mr. George aptly puts it, " wealth in course of exchange," 
 and its reward we call " interest." 
 
 The usual justification of interest is Bastiat's well-known 
 explanation by the power which exists in capital of increasing the 
 productiveness of labour. Mr. George in his " Progress and 
 Poverty," after an exhaustive examination comes to the conclusion 
 that this is not sufficient, and proposes to explain interest by a 
 comparison with the natural forces of growth and improvement. 
 He says : " Suppose I put away wine. At the end of a year I 
 will have an increased value, for the wine will have improved 
 in quality. Or, supposing, where there is a range, I turn out sheep 
 or hogs or cattle, at the end of the year I will upon the average 
 also have an increase." There can be no doubt, that in these and 
 similar cases there is an increase distinct and separable from that 
 caused by labour, and, as wealth is interchangeable, the return ex- 
 pected in other cases must be on an average equal to that in such 
 instances. The man who intends to invest capital, would rather 
 
 148
 
 JUSTIFICATION OF INTEREST. I49 
 
 buy sheep which would bring him an increase in the natural course, 
 than lend it to some one else, if at the end of the year he received 
 back nothing above the bare amount of capital lent. In order 
 to reduce the question to its simplest form, the element of risk and 
 insurance against such is eliminated in this statement, as it does 
 not affect the relations of the returns from different classes of 
 investment any more than those from investments of the same 
 class. 
 
 The explanation sounds plausible enough, but, on looking at 
 it closely, I do not find, that it is an improvement upon that of 
 Bastiat. It is merely an illustration of the same idea by some 
 of the most striking instances. Whether capital is invested in 
 wine or sheep or in manufacture, it is always done with the 
 intention and expectation of obtaining a reward above that, which 
 would be secured by the application of labour without capital. 
 The essential difference between the various employments of 
 capital does not lie in the action of capital, but in that of labour 
 a larger expenditure of which is required in one case than in the 
 other, and which will in consequence receive a larger share of 
 reward in the one than in the other. It appears therefore, that this 
 explanation does not furnish a new reason, but that it is only an 
 amplification of Bastiat's statement. * 
 
 My objection to the latter is, that it accepts a common form of 
 speech as a scientific expression, that it does not correspond to the 
 facts. Capital does not increase the productiveness of labour, but 
 brings to production a new element. The tool does not render the 
 labourer more productive, but the result of their combination is 
 in excess of what could be produced if both were kept separate. 
 It is therefore clear, that a share of this surplus belongs to capital 
 and is, properly speaking, interest. There is no more need of a 
 justification of interest than of wages and rent, the only possible 
 question is its destination. It is true enough, that nobody would
 
 I50 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 pay interest, but that it would remain to labour, if capital could be 
 obtained in any desired quantity by the mere wish. We do not 
 make any specific payment for the air which we breathe, although 
 it is more necessary to labour and in every way more precious than 
 any form of capital. But if any one could lock up all the air and 
 retail it to mankind in exchange for wealth, he could obtain ninety- 
 nine hundredths of the world's production and would in fact hold 
 the world at his mercy. Evidently the power of obtaining a 
 reward is dependent upon a certain exceptionality of the perform- 
 ance. If a whole army behaved in such a manner, that every 
 soldier deserved to be made a captain, it does not follow, that 
 every one could get what he deserves. But the relative position of 
 labour and capital is such and has been such at all times, that the 
 latter is at the disposal of a minority which can impose its terms 
 upon the remainder, and we have had the opportunity of observing, 
 that in the course of material progress the position of capital 
 becomes as much stronger as that of labour deteriorates. It is 
 clear therefore, that capital obtains its reward by means of its 
 position as a monopoly. In consequence of this it commands a 
 reward even in cases where it is employed unproductively, where 
 in fact it is capital only in the lender's hands and ceases to be such 
 in the hands of the borrower, as when a man borrows money 
 or goods to defray his cost of living. The lending of the money 
 or of the commodities is an act of accommodation for which — 
 even with the most perfect security — a reward is expected under 
 ordinary circumstances. In a case of absolute necessity, that 
 is, if without the loan the borrower must starve, the lender can 
 make his own terms — within the limits drawn by competition 
 between lenders, — but a premium is required likewise in cases of 
 less urgent need, in order to determine the possessor of capital 
 to accommodate the intending borrower. In the same manner 
 interest on public securities of the most trivial and reprehensible
 
 INCOME FROM EXPLODED CAPITAL. 151 
 
 kind is explained. The expenditure may be wrong and harmful 
 in itself, but whoever incurs it, owes interest on capital borrowed 
 for the purpose, and, if he manages to devolve the liability from 
 himself to the shoulders of some one else, it must rest with his legal 
 successors, whatever may have become of the capital. Mr. George 
 suggests, that the return on such securities, which he calls very 
 fairly a tax on the produce of labour and capital, should fall into 
 the class of wages of superintendence which are comprised in the 
 general term wages. But this suggestion I cannot accept. The 
 payments made as interest on national war-debts and the like are 
 surely not the reward of labour any more than those made to a 
 banker for the use of money for unproductive purposes by a private 
 person. Capital was invested originally, and whatever is obtained 
 for its use, is a reward of capital, whether the latter is still in 
 existence or whether it has been destroyed in the meantime. The 
 heavy amounts which modern states have to pay under this head 
 and for which they have no equivalent to show, are a kind of 
 penalty for the faults or misfortunes of their own or of former 
 generations. The income derived from these investments comes, 
 so to speak, from exploded capital, but does not differ in its nature 
 from that of capital invested productively. When a nation 
 embarks upon war, it ought naturally to pay its cost out of its 
 income as it is incurred and, if necessary, to raise the amount by 
 increased taxation. If this is found impossible or inconvenient, 
 the nation has no choice but to borrow the money and to offer 
 interest as the reward of the accommodation which enables the 
 taxpayers to defer the payment of the capital and to devote it 
 in the meantime to other purposes. Mr, George's intention is 
 sufficiently clear. In his endeavour to prove, that the whole so- 
 called unearned increment flows to land, he has come to the con- 
 clusion, that everything obtained by capital is fairly earned, and 
 in those cases, where he cannot trace the equivalent performance
 
 152 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 on its part, he puts the return down as going to something else. 
 It would be impossible to maintain, that the payments on Govern- 
 ment securities and such accrue to land, so he makes an attempt to 
 represent labour as their recipient, he calls them wages. I hope to 
 have proved, that they are interest in fact, and obtained by capital 
 like its other rewards by means of its monopolistic position. 
 
 In any state short of absolute communism interest is a natural 
 necessity, an outcome of the economical conditions which cannot 
 be done away with. As long as a larger income can be obtained by 
 labour in combination with capital than without it, capital obtains 
 a reward, just as land of superior quality or appropriateness obtains 
 it. As long as industry and trade together with their rewards 
 are left to individual enterprise, no limitation on the part of the 
 State can abolish interest, although they may change its destination. 
 
 I admit therefore without reserve the claim of capital to a share 
 of wealth. But the crucial questions are, Hoiv much does it deserve? 
 and, Hozv much does it obtain f 
 
 Under the actual conditions I contend, that labour should 
 obtain a sufficiency for a decent existence, and that undeserved 
 distress should be swept away. The surplus may go to capital 
 and land. This postulate will hardly meet with serious opposition. 
 But facts prove, that distress, severe and extended, is not excep- 
 tional, but chronic, and that the condition of the ordinary labourer 
 is not so secure and comfortable as, with all the resources of civili- 
 zation at our command, we should expect it to be. We shall 
 now investigate, how the glaring inequalities of distribution are 
 accomplished. 
 
 If an artisan, in receipt of five shillings daily wages and in 
 possession of a few hundred pounds, takes his capital out of the 
 savings bank and starts a business for himself, he expects and as 
 a rule obtains a higher income than he earned before from his 
 journeyman labour and the interest on his capital together. This
 
 REWARD OF CO-OPERATION. 153 
 
 surplus is the reward of the co-operation of labour and capital. 
 It used to be considered the reward of enterprise, which is wholly 
 misleading, ordinary enterprise by itself deserving and obtaining 
 no reward and being in fact merely one of the attributes of labour 
 like ordinary skill, prudence, strength and intelligence. 
 
 In a state of society where labour is nominally free and large 
 capital not a necessity of profitable production, the capital required 
 by the artisan, if not in his possession, could probably be obtained 
 on the strength of a respectable character, and its owner would be 
 satisfied with a reward slightly above the rate ruling for unpro- 
 ductive employment. The surplus would go to the labourer. 
 But, as the productive power of capital increases, whilst that of 
 labour decreases, the former gains the power of claiming an ever- 
 growing share of the production until at last, as at present, it can 
 appropriate the whole surplus. In our time the amount which a 
 labourer can save is of no practical value as an aid in production. 
 The spade and harrow cannot compete with the steam-plough and 
 the reaping-machine, the blacksmith's hammer and anvil are left 
 far behind in competitive production by the steam-hammer, the 
 spinning-wheel is dying out. Capital is out of labour's reach, 
 whereas labour is more in the power of capital than at any 
 previous time. No wonder then, that the reward of co-operation 
 must go entirely to capital. 
 
 That this is not an over-statement, appears very plainly from 
 the fact, that small establishments are constantly eaten up by the 
 laro-er ones. Independent artisans are now the exception, and the 
 rule is, that men with no or small capital take wages from a large 
 capitalist or a combination of capitalists, who enjoy whatever 
 extra profit may result from the co-operation. In the joint stock 
 concerns which play such a prominent part in our industrial life, 
 the owners of the capital supply no part of the labour, but take 
 their profits merely in their quality as capitalists.
 
 154 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 The proper rate of the reward of co-operation in our times 
 cannot be fixed in figures, as the area to be surveyed is too wide 
 and the determining circumstances too various. But for our 
 purpose a rough and ready method which any one can apply and 
 understand is perfectly sufficient. If a man makes 5 or 6 per 
 cent, on capital employed in production without devoting his own 
 labour to the concern, we do not consider the rate excessive, if he 
 makes 30 or 40 per cent., we do. The fact, that incomes are made 
 far beyond the average reward of labour and capital, for which 
 no equivalent is given in exceptional services, is too well known 
 to require a special proof. These are due either to monopolies 
 granted by the community as an incentive to invention and 
 exceptional beneficial exertion, or to monopolies which assert 
 themselves without any formal sanction. These latter we may 
 divide into monopolies of natural gifts, of opportunity, and of 
 property. 
 
 Short of a state of communism I cannot conceive of any 
 arrangement in civilized society, where a special reward would 
 not fall to the share of exceptional physical or intellectual power, 
 if exercised with a view to material rewards. There is no reason 
 to begrudge an extra share of wealth to the man of special 
 abilities,'as long as inequality of possessions is sanctioned at all, 
 for in all probability he will be able to use it better than the 
 ordinary man. But as a matter of fact io-w large fortunes owe 
 their origin to the exercise of special abilities in the service of the 
 community. We do not find often, that immense fortunes are 
 amassed by those or possessed by the families of those to whom 
 the community is most indebted. The great inventors, writers, 
 artists, scholars, who by their labour have increased the material 
 and intellectual well-being of the world, the men who have given 
 us new powers or new delights, have rarely been rewarded with 
 very large fortunes. I do not mean to say, that they ought to be
 
 MONOPOLIES OF OPPORTUNITY AND PROPERTY. 155 
 
 thus rewarded, I state the fact only for the purpose of pointing 
 out, that under our system the material reward of exceptional per- 
 formance is rather precarious and forms only an insignificant 
 part of the surplus return. 
 
 The man who is lucky enough to find an unappropriated thing 
 of value, receives an exceptional reward in consequence of the 
 opportunity which offered itself to him and not to others and 
 which therefore was practically a monopoly. When a barren 
 piece of ground is needed by a railway company and bought at 
 a fancy-price, the owner enjoys the monopoly of opportunity. 
 When by unforeseen circumstances capitalists are enabled to sell 
 their stocks or to pass their contracts at a profit of 100 per cent., 
 when in consequence of a sudden decrease of their numbers or of 
 an unexpected development of business clerks or labourers in a 
 certain branch of trade can claim a considerable increase of wages, 
 they profit by the monopoly of opportunity. Instances of this 
 kind will occur easily to any one. 
 
 In an increase of income from land caused by the growth of 
 population the land-owner draws his profit from the monopoly 
 of property. When a capitalist is enabled by his command of 
 capital and credit to keep commodities from the market until he 
 can obtain a certain price for them, or when he introduces new 
 and costly machinery, by means of which he obtains an extraor- 
 dinary profit, this is clearly traceable to the monopoly of property. 
 As far as I can see, there is absolutely no difference between the 
 position of a land-owner whose land gains in value by an increase 
 of population, and that of a railway shareholder whose shares 
 rise in value for the same reason. The one advance is as much 
 unearned increment as the other, the proper reward of the rail- 
 way enterprise should be the ordinary reward of labour and capital, 
 and the exceptional rate of profit is secured to capital merely in its 
 quality as a monopoly, not by the aid which it lends to production^
 
 156 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 But, as in fact it does go to capital, any comparison of the position 
 of the great factors of production, which ignores these extra profits, 
 cannot give a correct result. If by renting and working a mine I 
 succeed in making lOO per cent, profit on the capital invested 
 during the first year, the normal return on enterprises of this kind 
 being lo per cent, is it not clear, that the remaining 90 per cent, 
 profit are due to monopoly.? And who but the capitalist can 
 utilize the monopoly to his gain } The more capital is distributed, 
 the smaller is the danger of its becoming the chief arbiter of the 
 fate of the community, just as small landed estates are less danger- 
 ous to the commonwealth than large ones. But by its tendency 
 to accumulate and to grow in power in a geometrical ratio which, 
 if left unchecked, must involve the gradual absorption of all capital 
 by a small minority, capital threatens to become an absolute 
 autocrat. The actual state of society in this respect is sufficiently 
 alarming, for the most powerful people of our time are neither 
 kings nor statesmen nor soldiers nor land-owners, but those who 
 have the largest command of capital. Armies march and stop, 
 war is declared and peace concluded, sovereigns are crowned and 
 deposed, constitutions given and withdrawn, markets opened and 
 closed more at the beck and call of capital than of any other 
 interest. The share taken by so-called financiers in recent political 
 entanglements in the East, the influence exercised by them in 
 Mexico, in Tunis, in Egypt and in almost any international com- 
 plication, is perfectly well known and understood. There are not 
 many states in Europe which a certain combination of capitalists, if 
 they took it into their heads, could not set fighting for their very 
 lives, or the existence of which they could not endanger. In 
 America things are almost worse. A handful of extremely wealthy 
 men pull the wires in politics and rule trade and industry with a 
 rod of iron. Perhaps all these powerful individuals are swayed by 
 noble instincts and just sentiments, perhaps none of them would
 
 UNDUE POWER OF CAPITALISTS. 157 
 
 dream of sacrificing a people's happiness or the world's peace to 
 his own interest, perhaps all their promptings to war are due to an 
 enlightened solicitude for the welfare of the nations concerned, but 
 is it reasonable to leave such enormous powers, powers which 
 ought not to be entrusted to any individual, but which the com- 
 munity should guard jealously in its own keeping, to some 
 individuals who have given no proof of their ability and trust- 
 worthiness ? We are clamouring with good reason against the 
 hereditary privileges of the nobility and I suppose, we shall look 
 upon their abolition, whenever that may take place, as a fine 
 piece of work. But what are these privileges, what is the power 
 conferred by noble birth alone in comparison with the power given 
 by the monopoly of large capital to a small number of irrespon- 
 sible individuals who have neither the title of merit nor even that 
 of historical associations ? 
 
 We will now see, how capital uses its power in the ordinary 
 intercourse of trade and commerce, and by what means it improves 
 its position. 
 
 Capital, being only wealth in a certain attitude, can be created 
 without an increase in the world's wealth, without new production 
 or improvement, by a simple change of attitude on the part of 
 wealth. Gold and silver-plate may be melted down, houses or 
 pictures and other works of art may be transferred from private 
 possession to dealers, where they become capital, until they have 
 found their way again into the hands of some one who keeps them 
 as a source of enjoyment, not of profit. 
 
 As a rule these changes of attitude are performed without a 
 change of form or ownership by means of credit. The owner of 
 land or wealth, desirous of enjoying the acquisitive advantages of 
 capital, obtains a certain amount of capital proportionate to the 
 value of his property on the strength of his possession and on con- 
 sideration of paying to the lender either a fixed percentage or a cer-
 
 158 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 tain share of the profits expected from the employment of capital. 
 In the same manner the trader or producer possessed of a certain 
 amount of property gets the command of a much larger amount 
 by virtue of its possession. Of course the property forming the 
 basis of credit in these cases is not capital any more than a good 
 character would be, if credit was obtained in virtue of this. But 
 in so far as it enables its possessor to get hold of capital, it leaves 
 the sphere of unproductive or dormant wealth. This fact will 
 appear in its real significance, if we consider, that in a highly 
 developed industrial and commercial society the distribution of 
 credit is almost of more importance than that of capital itself. 
 The amount of transactions in which credit plays absolutely no 
 part is extremely small in proportion to the aggregate. Even our 
 cash payments are effected by bank-notes and involve therefore 
 the credit of at least one establishment. Now, this power of credit 
 belongs to property and, although exercised chiefly through 
 capital, enables owners of property of any description, if so 
 inclined, to partake in the rewards of capital. How this power 
 is distributed in our time, is a matter of common experience. 
 The man who has nothing will find it almost impossible to obtain 
 the command of the smallest amount of capital. Costermongers 
 and other itinerant vendors are frequently hampered in their trade 
 by the want of a few pounds or even shillings which they cannot 
 obtain on credit. The possessor of small means obtains a small 
 credit, but the great proprietor, whether land-owner or capitalist, 
 can command as much capital belonging to other people as he 
 may require or wish. 
 
 It may be desirable to make my meaning clear by a practical 
 illustration. An artisan who thinks, that with the help of £200 
 borrowed capital he could set up for himself and make a good 
 income, will have the greatest difficulty to find the ^^200 and will 
 probably have to submit to very onerous terms. But if a great
 
 CAPITAL AND CREDIT. 159 
 
 land-owner, whose income from land has fallen off from ^50,000 to 
 ;^30,ooo, wishes to make up the difference by building a factory on 
 his ground, he will obtain the ;^ 100,000 or ^150,000 required at 
 about the market-rate ruling for money investments. Thus 
 capital's function of aiding labour in production is only fulfilled 
 in those cases, where labour is supported by property of some sort. 
 It is evident, that a system which forces capital to squander its 
 opportunities upon the big man and to withhold them from those 
 who stand most in need of them, must inevitably widen the 
 distance between rich and poor. This is a very obvious mis-ad- 
 justment, not indeed the last cause of the evil, but a conspicuous 
 symptom, the significance of which should not be under-rated. This 
 is also one reason, why land-owners maintain their position fairly 
 well in those parts, where land is in the possession of compara- 
 tively few men. 
 
 By its practical monopoly of obtaining credit capital is enabled 
 to take advantage of all opportunities, to extend or restrict its 
 operations according to ever-changing circumstances. By the 
 corollary power of giving credit it levies a tax upon labour in the 
 shape of an unduly large share of the production in those cases, 
 where it accords credit to labour directly. 
 
 Considering the position of power held by the possessors of large 
 fortunes it is not to be wondered at, that in public estimation they 
 enjoy the highest consideration, and that people are not too 
 curious as to the origin of the fortune. Non redolct. Money is 
 good enough, whatever may be its source. I have pointed out 
 already, that large material rewards fall to the real benefactors of 
 mankind only in exceptional cases. In very few instances can 
 they compare with the rewards of large property, and even under 
 the most favourable circumstances they come to the lucky in- 
 dividual only after long and hard struggles, whereas property 
 needs neither much exertion nor any power of perseverance in
 
 i6o SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 order to secure them. Yet it is evident, that even property's 
 opportunities of accumulation may be used or abused according 
 to personal character. One may utilize them for the benefit of 
 the community concurrently with his own, the other may sacrifice 
 all considerations of the welfare of others to narrowly selfish 
 aims. There are such things as good and bad landlords, reason- 
 able and grasping employers, honest merchants and unscrupulous 
 speculators. 
 
 Our economical system does not discriminate between these 
 different characters. Only the personal sentiment or inclination of 
 the individual, and a public opinion, often mistakenly unjust and 
 often wilfully blind, which by its frequent sudden and unsub- 
 stantiated changes proves its unreliability, are the checks upon 
 the abuse of opportunities. Yet in many cases the means by 
 which fortunes have been amassed are of such a kind, that the 
 performance is deserving of punishment instead of the reward 
 which it receives. 
 
 I am speaking only of such kinds of activity as are sanctioned 
 by our laws and customs, I have nothing to do in this place with 
 any mode of acquisition which is condemned by law and against 
 which society is doing its best to protect itself Even such 
 manoeuvres as knowingly issuing shares in excess of the value of 
 an enterprise or turning over a private concern to a company at 
 double its intrinsic value, may be dismissed shortly. After all it 
 is one set of capitalists, which suffers in these cases at the hands 
 of another, although it must be noticed, that even here the small 
 property is the suffering part and the large property the gainer. 
 Adulteration of commodities, in so far as it is not legally punish- 
 able, is another manifestly immoral thing, but I do not believe, 
 that many fortunes have been made by means of this method. 
 Generally the adulterated commodity is sold to the public at a 
 price at which a pure article could not be supplied. The public
 
 SPOLIATION OF LABOUR. i6i 
 
 is fooled and hoodwinked, but as a rule the community is not 
 absolutely robbed either as a producer or as a consumer. 
 
 But when a landlord has grown rich by exacting crushing rents 
 from his tenants, when a manufacturer has built up a fortune by 
 keeping his labourers at starvation wages, they have in fact 
 appropriated something which was due to some one else. Of 
 course they have done so in a legally permitted way, and it is 
 hardly fair to blame them for having made use of the powers 
 and opportunities conferred upon them by the economic system of 
 the time. Better and wiser men would have refrained from exer- 
 cising their power to the full, but we must not pretend to be 
 surprised at finding some people straining the law in their own 
 favour to the utmost. Laws would not be required at all^ if every 
 one could be trusted to be led in all his actions by the highest and 
 purest principles, and their chief purpose is to supply those prin- 
 ciples to those who either do not grasp them or who decline to be 
 governed by them. There is nothing in our laws to prevent an 
 employer from starving his labourers, although he may be able to 
 afford a much higher rate of wages. Yet I maintain, that such a 
 course of action is no better than robbery in a moral and in an 
 economic sense. We have grown so accustomed to the thing, that 
 its enormity does not strike us any more. It seems quite natural 
 to us, that an employer should keep down wages as low as possible, 
 whatever profits he may be making at the time by the work of his 
 labourers, the surplus reward of which he monopolizes as a man 
 of property. We may even hear him commended for strictness in 
 this respect — in the sovereign interest of the labour-market. It is 
 not my intention to lay the blame upon individuals for using all 
 the opportunities offered by their position and sanctioned by the 
 law, but the system which allows them to do so at the expense of 
 the community, is surely deserving of condemnation. 
 
 According to the canons of political economy a state of unduly 
 
 M
 
 i62 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 low wages or exceptionally high rewards of capital is bound to 
 right itself by the rise of competition. If by starvation of labour 
 or from other reasons exceptionally high profits are obtained in 
 one particular branch of industry, additional capital will be 
 directed to it. But what will this competition do ? It will cur- 
 tail the opportunities of capital and lessen its profit, but it will 
 not improve the position of labour, as long as there is yet unem- 
 ployed labour in the market, which under our industrial conditions 
 is inevitable. Besides, this remedy grows slower of effect and 
 more difficult of application in proportion to the magnitude of 
 the capital required. If a prospect offered of making fifty per 
 cent, on a capital of a thousand pounds, there is indeed strong 
 reason to expect an increase of competition which will reduce 
 the rate of profit very soon to the ordinary level. But, when 
 the capital required counts by hundreds of thousands of pounds, 
 the case is very different. Establishments of such importance 
 cannot be planned and started in a week or in a month, and the 
 intending adventurer must apprehend, that by the time when the 
 competing concern is in working order, the circumstances which 
 caused the exceptionally high rate of profits may have ceased to 
 exist. And even if a competition is started in time, it does not 
 follow by any means, that the monopoly of property will be broken 
 up permanently. What usually happens, is either of the follow- 
 ing results. One of the competitors succeeds in crushing the 
 other by working for some time without a profit or even at a loss 
 and, as soon as this has been accomplished, raises his price again 
 so as to afford him monopoly returns. Or, if neither is strong and 
 obstinate enough to break the other, they unite and agree to share 
 the profits of the monopoly between themselves. 
 
 A good illustration of the facts is given by large public enter- 
 prises like railways. They are monopolies in fact and in name, as 
 a State concession is required for their construction, but, as this
 
 LARGE CAPITALS PARTICULAR STRENGTH. 163 
 
 concession is coupled with restrictions and obligations, it does not 
 contribute much to strengthen the position of the concern. As 
 soon as the concession has been obtained, if not before, we find 
 the principle of monopoly at work. The ornamental directors on 
 railway-boards who are not expected to work or to invest largely, 
 but only to adorn the circulars with their well-known names, are 
 reaping the fruits of the unacknowledged monopoly of their family 
 names. The bankers or bankers' combination by whom the shares 
 are issued and who take a good slice out of the raw material, so to 
 speak, obtain their share not by investment nor to any extent by 
 legitimate labour, but by their exceptional power of credit growing 
 out of the monopoly of property. We will put the case, that the 
 enterprise is managed in the most conscientious and honourable 
 manner, and that exactly that amount of capital is asked for which 
 is wanted and reasonably expected to yield a fair return. But if 
 in consequence of an unforeseen development, a discovery of mines 
 or coal-fields or a shifting of population in favour of this particular 
 line the dividends go up to a fabulous height, the surplus above 
 the average is clearly owing to the monopoly of opportunity exer- 
 cised by capital. If these causes are of a permanent character, it 
 is probable, that a competing line will be promoted, but, unless 
 the concession is hampered by the most stringent conditions — and 
 in this case it would probably be abandoned, — the consequence in 
 the great majority of instances will be, that after some time spent 
 in war both lines combine to maintain the rate of profits. It is 
 true, that in the case of railways the small capitalist has an oppor- 
 tunity of sharing in the gains of monopoly, but he obtains the 
 advantage only by giving up the control of his property, by follow- 
 ing blindly in the wake of the large capitalist, who is wide awake 
 all the time, and by incurring in consequence a risk far in excess 
 of that run by the leader. The joint-stock system has indeed 
 done something towards equalizing the chances of large and small
 
 1 64 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 capital, but it has counteracted and completely effaced this ten- 
 dency by the increased facility which it supplies to the large 
 capitalist of obtaining the control of smaller peoples' property. On 
 the whole there can be no doubt, but that it has strengthened the 
 position of large capital, which lets the small share in the fruits of 
 monopoly just as far as it deems necessary in order to retain its 
 support. In no manner has the system done anything to increase 
 the reward of labour and, whatever development it may be destined 
 to undergo, it can always only regulate the relations of capitalists 
 between themselves. 
 
 We have now seen, how under our system it is almost impossible 
 to prevent capital from withholding from labour the greater part 
 of its reward by keeping wages unduly low. I do not mean of 
 course, that low wages are always due to the rapacity of capital, 
 but that the latter, if used for the purpose, can rob labour with 
 impunity in this manner. We come now to the chief agent of 
 accumulation, the great aid of capital, namely speculation. 
 
 We have noticed already, that through material progress and 
 the consequent depreciation of labour many individuals employed 
 in commercial and industrial pursuits have lost the opportunity to 
 earn a livelihood by their labour and are driven to speculation as a 
 last resource. In this case it would be downright foolish to hold 
 these men responsible for the evil wrought by them. They have 
 the natural duty to maintain themselves and their families in a 
 lawful manner and, in the absence of a scope for the labour which 
 they are willing enough to supply, they resort to the creation of 
 artificial business — as the only thing they consider themselves 
 suited for. The infection of speculation is in the atmosphere, 
 engendered by our social and industrial conditions, and men do 
 not deserve blame for catching it any more than sufferers from 
 infectious physical diseases. By means of speculation many of 
 them succeed in keeping their heads above water, some few are
 
 SPECULATION, THE GREAT ACCUMULATOR. 165 
 
 lucky enough to amass fortunes, most of them are gradually eaten 
 up by the large speculators who can out-stay and out-manoeuvre 
 them. It would be waste of power to wage war upon individuals, 
 we must obviate the tendency by altering the system which forces 
 people to speculation as their only means of living. 
 
 The profit from speculation is not the legitimate reward of either 
 capital or labour, for although property confers upon its holders 
 the power of speculating profitably, it need not be invested for the 
 purpose, and it does not aid production. A man who could create 
 the impression, that he possesses a million pounds, would be able 
 to speculate with nearly the same advantages as though he 
 possessed it in reality, as nothing but contracts, — mere pieces of 
 paper — need change hands until the accounts are squared and 
 the differences settled. Such a state of things is impossible in 
 cases where capital is really employed. In any productive pursuit, 
 material and tools must be provided, wages must be paid, capital 
 must change hands. But speculation maintains a peculiar position, 
 being utilized by capital, particularly large capital, and enriching 
 it by its spoils, which are no more the legitimate reward of capital 
 than the spoils of a gigantic bank fraud would be, which also 
 cannot be perpetrated without capital's co-operation. 
 
 Its position with reference to labour is of the same kind. It 
 requires some sort of activity and gives scope to many of the 
 qualities which go far towards making labour efficient. Ex- 
 perience of affairs, nerve, resolution, quickness of perception, readi- 
 ness of resource, self-command and self-reliance, moderation in 
 success and patience under defeat — all the mental qualities which 
 confer power upon the worker in fields of legitimate activity, 
 confer power upon the speculator likewise. So they do upon the 
 thief and swindler, yet wc do not consider the spoils of theft and 
 swindle as the rewards of labour. We do not acknowledge the 
 activity of these gentlemen as labour, and I see no reason to admit
 
 i66 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 the title of speculation to this honourable name. The rewards of 
 speculation are the fruits of an abuse of labour and capital or 
 some other equivalent monopoly, like land or social position, but in 
 such a majority of cases do they flow to the holders of capital, that 
 for practical purposes these may be considered as the recipients. 
 
 All attempts at justification by the exceptional abilities displayed 
 by the successful speculator and alleged to be proved by the 
 success of his operations would apply with equal force to a thief 
 who managed to pursue his career without falling into the hands 
 of the law. It must not be forgotten, that the speculator does 
 not create or improve, that he does not even distribute, and that 
 he has therefore no claim to anything as the reward of his activity. 
 His profits must be the fruits of some one else's labour, snatched 
 from their rightful owners by rneans which we shall contemplate 
 later on. 
 
 It must be admitted, that speculation is not blameworthy under 
 all circumstances. I know very well, that it is a frequent concomi- 
 tant of legitimate business and that it has its proper functions in 
 our economic life. By the very nature of his calling the merchant 
 and the producer is a speculator to a certain limited extent. Only 
 in exceptional cases can he buy and sell at the same moment, as a 
 rule he is forced to do one or the other first and thereby to run the 
 risk of the market till he has been able to perform the counter- 
 operation. The retail dealer is compelled to keep a stock which 
 may bring him an extra profit or a loss according to the fluctua- 
 tions of prices. The manufacturer must either buy his materials 
 and pay his wages before he sells his goods, and so run the risk of 
 a fall of prices occurring before he has brought them to market, or 
 he must sell them first and submit to loss, if wages or the price of 
 raw material should advance afterwards. In so far speculation can 
 hardly be avoided, but there is no necessity, that the producer and 
 dealer should look to the fluctuations of prices as his source of
 
 LEGITIMATE SPECULATION, STEADYING VALUES. 167 
 
 income, and it stands to reason, that on the whole his gains from 
 these movements will be balanced by losses. For his income he 
 should, and in many cases does rely upon the average profit 
 which he calculates upon the cost price of his goods. Speculation 
 of this kind does not build up large fortunes and may be considered 
 economically harmless. Chance will naturally play an important 
 part even in speculation of this character, but on the whole it is 
 fair to assume that experience and capacity for business will 
 obtain a certain moderate advantage which need not be grudged 
 to them. 
 
 There is yet another kind of speculation closely associated with 
 that just described, against which no objection can be taken. 
 Sometimes circumstances occur which offer opportunities for buy- 
 ing exceptionally cheaply or selling at exceptionally high prices. 
 This means in either case, that in consequence of peculiar con- 
 ditions labour is forced to forego a part of its reward. When there 
 is a temporary scarcity of buyers in the former case, and of sellers 
 in the latter, the speculator fulfils a useful mission by stepping in 
 and supplying the want on more reasonable terms than could be 
 obtained without his interference. The reward which he anticipates 
 in such instances is well deserved, speculation having served to 
 steady and regulate the market, to prevent an inflation or depres- 
 sion of values for reasons which it has recognised as temporary. 
 Speculation of this kind requires a good experience of the particular 
 branch of trade and a clear view of the situation, it is not oppressive 
 in any way, and the best man of business has undoubtedly the 
 greatest chance of profiting by it. 
 
 This is the proper function of speculation under our system, 
 namely, to regulate markets and to prevent the pendulum of values 
 from oscillating beyond the real necessities of each case. But 
 from the judicious exercise of this speculation very large gains 
 cannot be expected, for the competition between people, well
 
 1 68 . SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 versed in affairs and capable of perceiving any exceptional oppor- 
 tunity of profit, tends to reduce the extra margin on exceptional 
 occasions to slight proportions, if the inevitable risk is taken into 
 account. This action, which prevents ephemeral disturbances of 
 the elementary factors of supply and demand from impressing 
 their full effect upon the markets, we may call legitimate specula- 
 tion. But large fortunes owe their origin rarely to such activity, 
 which from its nature must be guided by the dictates of prudence 
 and keep within the opportunities created by extraneous circum- 
 stances. 
 
 The kind of speculation which builds up the gigantic fortunes 
 of modern times has only an external connexion with legitimate 
 trade and is in many cases conducted on a basis, which even 
 commercial morality would not justify, if it was laid open to 
 view. In contrast with those kinds which I have described 
 as legitimate, I call this "professional" speculation. Here profit 
 is only expected from the fluctuations of the market, no claim is 
 raised to a reward for distribution, no pretence is made of serving 
 any purpose beside the enrichment of the speculator. An ac- 
 quaintance with producers or consumers may be useful, but is by 
 no means necessary, all that is required is a certain standing in the 
 commercial world and a regular intercourse with dealers. Inas- 
 much as the standing necessary to the carrying through of large 
 operations can only be obtained by the possession of capital, 
 capital forms also part of the necessary equipment of the pro- 
 fessional speculator, but in ordinary cases it is less an instrument 
 than a pre-requisite. The speculator wants capital as he wants 
 boots, he cannot go into the market to any purpose without either, 
 but he wants neither for the actual performance of his operations. 
 Only the large speculator, who must be prepared to extend his 
 enterprises over all markets of the world and over long periods, 
 and occasionally to lock up heavy amounts, must really have the
 
 PROFESSIONAL SPECULATION. 169 
 
 command of large capital, and through his action the latter obtains 
 ultimately the spoils of speculation without having earned them. 
 
 Speculation of this class has neither the intention nor the effect 
 of regulating and steadying the markets, on the contrary, living by 
 the fluctuations of prices alone, it has a vital interest in keeping 
 the market in violent movement as far as is compatible with its 
 own safety. It does not matter to the professional speculator, 
 whether the price of a certain article at a given time may be 
 already too low or too high. If he sees a chance of depressing the 
 price further yet in the former case or screwing it up somewhat 
 more in the latter, he will exert himself to the utmost to aggravate 
 the evil and to exaggerate the tendency. After he has succeeded 
 to that point which he considers the limit of safety, he turns round 
 and pockets his profits, having inflicted losses upon the producer 
 or the consumer, and having in either case damaged labour to the 
 exact amount of his gains. Needless to say, that in the case of 
 large speculations the bulk of the operations is not performed 
 openly or directly. Frequently a large operator will be ostensibly a 
 seller of a commodity or a security in order to depress the market 
 and to buy cheaper under the influence of the depression, or he 
 will appear as a buyer, whilst at the same time he is trying his 
 hardest to sell. Manipulations of this character are perfectly well 
 understood and regarded as harmless by the commercial com- 
 munity, but I cannot see, that the wide spread of such practices 
 renders them less objectionable. Is there such a saving and 
 purifying power in money, that the strife for gain renders all 
 means just and fair? Should a lie not be a lie, when it is uttered 
 in the sovereign interest of pecuniary profit ? 
 
 One branch of the professional speculator's activity, less 
 dangerous than some other classes of operations, because it is not 
 extended over long periods and does not involve so heavy amounts, 
 is the practice of preparing the market against tlie legitimate
 
 I JO SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 dealer, producer or consumer by buying, when there is a prospect 
 of the preponderance of buyers, and by seUing in the opposite case. 
 If orders to buy are in view, the speculator buys at the market- 
 price and forces the intending buyer to relieve him of the com- 
 modities which he wants, at an enhanced price. If he knows, that 
 commodities will be brought into the market for sale, he sells 
 beforehand and obtains the goods afterwards at a lower price, 
 because there are no legitimate buyers at hand. It is evident, that 
 no good is effected by this activity which results only in the cur- 
 tailing of other peoples' normal profits and frequently in the inflic- 
 tion of actual losses upon others for the exclusive benefit of the 
 speculator. Yet this is the most respectable kind of professional 
 speculation, carried on by men of experience and rectitude who 
 would feel themselves wronged if they were classed with mere 
 gambling speculators. As a matter of fact the damage done by 
 speculation of this sort is not of a very serious extent, as it stands 
 on a rather uncertain basis and involves a great risk in consequence 
 of the competition between speculators having reduced the margin 
 of profit very low. Still, as many people make a living by this 
 kind of business, a certain not inconsiderable amount must remain 
 in their hands, and it is my contention, that all of this, whether 
 much or little, is merely spoliation of the producer, distributer or 
 consumer. This is the last resource of well-meaning and honest 
 men who cannot find a scope for their labour in legitimate distri- 
 butive work. Under present circumstances there are probably 
 not many commercial houses which earn a reasonable income with- 
 out recurring to this kind of speculation as a means of increasing 
 their returns. 
 
 The professional speculator on a large scale does not find 
 sufficient expanse for his activity in operations of the character 
 described. He does not restrict himself to utilizing the fluctuations 
 of prices which occur in the course of legitimate trade owing to the
 
 THE ETHICS OF PROFESSIONAL SPECULATION. 171 
 
 ever-changing relations between production and consumption in fact 
 and in prospect, but he tries — often only too successfully — to create 
 the conditions which enable him to make a profit. His best-known 
 and most used battlefields are the stock exchanges, but there is 
 hardly one article of first commercial importance which is not 
 drawn at times within the province of his operations. Artificial 
 dearness is caused by heavy speculative purchases or by the pro- 
 pagation of rumours that they will be made, prices are depressed 
 by sales under the prices asked by holders and producers, the 
 opportunity for which is offered to the man of standing by the 
 system of sales on time or for account. Even outside of business 
 circles some of the means resorted to by the operators are well 
 known ; the general public is quite accustomed to cast doubt on 
 all political and financial news, unless the source excludes the 
 possibility of their being influenced by financial interests. Down- 
 right false news are dangerous, because they leave a shade of 
 discredit upon the propagator which may prove prejudicial to him 
 in future transactions, they can therefore be brought into play only 
 at rare intervals and upon great occasions. But a clever man can 
 convey a false impression without telling a direct lie, by suppressing 
 part and unduly accentuating another part of a report, and this 
 kind of manipulation has been raised almost to the rank of a fine 
 art in the service of speculation. The damage done to the com- 
 munity by " rings " and "corners " is a matter of notoriety, and it 
 must be admitted, that a large portion of the commercial classes 
 looks upon operations of this kind with disfavour. The modus 
 opci'andi is simple enough. It cannot be done without large capital 
 and credit and it requires beyond ordinary commercial experience 
 and capacity an unusual development of recklessness and unscru- 
 pulousness. The man who embarks upon such transactions must 
 not be troubled by any consideration for the common good nor for 
 the individuals whom he victimises. It is clear, that the facility
 
 172 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 of profit by such operations puts a downright premium upon 
 unscrupulousness, for a man of fine feeHng for others would have 
 a very slight chance of success in competition with less scrupulous 
 operators. Manipulation of all kinds is of the essence of pro- 
 fessional speculation on a large scale, and disregard of all but the 
 speculator's own pecuniary interests forms its only possible basis. 
 It has no proper economic function to fulfil, it is only the most 
 powerful instrument of accumulation, the handmaiden of large 
 capital, to which it conveys a great part of the wealth due to labour. 
 
 There is certainly a feeling prevalent, that speculation by itself 
 is not a legitimate occupation, that it ought to be no more than 
 an aid to distributive labour and should not form the nucleus 
 of business. A kind of shamefacedness is met with amongst 
 speculators which does not admit of any other explanation. Men 
 who are nothing but speculators are in the habit of speaking of 
 orders and clients and trying to create the impression, that they are 
 buying and selling for the account and risk of third parties. Even 
 in those cases are these fictions maintained, where they are not 
 required for the purpose of carrying on operations to a larger 
 extent. By appearing as a speculator pure and simple with no 
 other aim a man damages his standing. The community is far 
 from squeamish and yet it mistrusts the professional speculator. 
 Is not this strong evidence, that there must be something inhe- 
 rently wrong in his position 'i 
 
 This instinct is right. The development of industry and trade 
 has created such internecine strife for gain, that commercial men 
 have grown accustomed to regard trade as an eternal warfare, in 
 which all means are fair, but the fundamental truth, that the pur- 
 suit of selfish ends to the exclusion of other interests is anti-social 
 and must not be encouraged, survives in the consciousness of the 
 community and finds its expression in the universal distrust of 
 speculation. How low the standard of commercial morality has
 
 THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. I73 
 
 sunk in practice, will appear from the following reflection. That 
 man, who speculates without enjoying special sources of informa- 
 tion and without being able to influence the market in his 
 interest, is thought after all only a poor sort of operator and 
 rather looked down upon by speculators in a stronger position. 
 Many will call him immoral, because in their opinion he runs an 
 undue risk. The real speculator, whose operations are admired 
 and followed by the crowd, who is considered a safe and — 
 commercially speaking — a moral man is he who knows, as far 
 as is humanly possible, that his operations must turn out to his 
 profit. No one would consider it right to bet upon an event of 
 which he is certain, yet here we regard the operation as more 
 or less proper in exact proportion as the result is more or less a 
 foregone conclusion. This comparison applies of course only to 
 professional speculation, which is no more than a branch of 
 gambling. Legitimate speculation which renders a distinct service 
 to the community has a right to look forward to a reward and to 
 make as sure of it as possible. 
 
 As I pointed out before, it is useless to blame individuals for 
 making use of opportunities which are open to them without fear 
 of penalty or even of public condemnation. It is the duty of the 
 community to provide against a practice which works to its pre- 
 judice and at the same time tends to weaken, if not to destroy, the 
 notion of solidarity. Whether this provision can only be effected 
 through a measure directed specially against speculation, or whether 
 a change of system, which raises the reward of labour generally, 
 will also restrict speculation within reasonable limits and make it 
 harmless, we shall have to consider later on, for the present it was 
 my purpose merely to show, that by speculation the proper reward 
 of labour is curtailed, and that for the greater part the spoils are 
 obtained by the possessors of large capital. 
 
 Speculation in land is essentially the same in character as specu-
 
 174 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 lation in securities or commodities. For speculative purposes only 
 counters are required and a market for them open to manipulation. 
 What the counters represent, is a matter of minor importance. As 
 a matter of fact many securities like mining and railway-shares 
 represent to a great extent land. I have already proposed, that, 
 in order to prevent land from being kept in an unutilized state 
 owing to caprice or with the intention of extracting an exorbitant 
 rent in the future, all land should be subjected to a perceptible tax. 
 This, I consider, will meet the case so far as to equalize the availa- 
 bility in a speculative sense of land and other property, by counter- 
 acting the special advantage inherent in the former thanks to its 
 fixed quantity. Beyond this I cannot admit a material difference 
 between speculation in land and in other things. 
 
 I have shown in the foregoing, by what means the surplus of 
 production is obtained by capital, which allows property of other 
 kinds to participate in the gain. We shall next have to consider, 
 how this process is accomplished in times which in common esti- 
 mation are held unfavourable to the growth of capital.
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 IJo7v capital fares in times of depression. — About value. — The real interests 
 of capital and of labour. — Depression of trade., its cause afid character. 
 
 IN times of acute and general depression of trade like those to 
 which we have grown accustomed of late, the universal outcry- 
 is almost as strong on behalf of land and capital as on that of 
 labour. Rents are falling, labourers are insufficiently employed 
 at low wages, capitalists find their property depreciated and pro- 
 nounce themselves poorer than before. It looks as though 
 everybody all round was a loser. Yet in the meantime pro- 
 duction has been carried on in most branches to a point which 
 consumption cannot reach, and as a consequence stocks have 
 accumulated. Under such circumstances it is clear, that, notwith- 
 standing all appearances, the actual wealth of the community 
 cannot have decreased. Bad as a year may have been in 
 a commercial sense, there can be no doubt, that, if a regular 
 inventory was taken every year of all wealth in existence, even 
 with the fullest allowance for the advance of the standard of 
 comfort, a steady increase would be ascertained. It seems even 
 as though the largest increase of wealth may be looked for in the 
 commercially bad years. For then producers are straining every 
 nerve to make up by an increased turn-over for loss of profit, 
 whilst consumption is kept down by the lowness of wages, and 
 the standard of comfort can therefore not advance. 
 
 The aggregate of the world's wealth can be affected only 
 through action of either natural forces or labour. Growth and 
 
 I7j
 
 176 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 decay, production and destruction are the only determining 
 factors, taken of course in the widest sense. To put capital out 
 of labour's reach, as for instance carrying railway material into 
 the desert where it is useless and left to spoil, is destruction to 
 the extent of the consequent depreciation. But wheat or meat 
 stored in London or Chicago, where there is as good a prospect 
 of demand for it as at any other place, represents at all times the 
 same item in the world's assets, whatever its market price may be. 
 In similar manner the diminution of traffic on a railway or steamer- 
 line, or an absolute decrease of the productivity of mines and 
 factories means a destruction or, if temporary, a suspension of 
 wealth. Yet in a general survey of the world's balance-sheet 
 cases of miscalculation like the former instance are hardly im- 
 portant enough to deserve any notice, and as to the latter, our 
 experience teaches, that on the whole traffic as well as productivity 
 are growing constantly, and that the decline on one side must 
 therefore be at least compensated by an advance on another. 
 
 What then becomes of the increase of wealth in those times, 
 when capitalists, land-owners and labourers alike proclaim them- 
 selves losers ? 
 
 The apparent contradiction is easily explained, if we recollect, 
 that we compute wealth by means of money, which is itself wealth. 
 There being no fixed value in existence we must choose arbi- 
 trarily one thing for purposes of currency and computation. It is 
 the natural impossibility of finding a standard of value which is 
 not itself fluctuating and merely relative, which causes such contra- 
 dictory results. The precious metals, and particularly gold, seem 
 to combine most of the qualities required and have therefore been 
 accepted as the means of currency by all civilized nations. 
 
 That no change of values can affect by itself the sum of wealth 
 in existence, is sufficiently evident. If, following upon the dis- 
 covery of new areas of production, wheat goes down in value, the
 
 TFIE WORLUS BALANCE-SHEET. 177 
 
 world is distinctly the richer by the surplus stock, whatever may 
 be the fate of individual holders of wheat. Only in so far as the 
 change of value is caused by a change of human habits or by a 
 deterioration of the commodity — as for instance if it should be dis- 
 covered, that pork is not fit for human food, and the price of pigs 
 would fall to almost nothing in consequence — does it represent a 
 loss of wealth to the world, but in these cases the loss is absolute 
 and quite independent of the value or relation of the one article to 
 all others. But, in forming an idea of the condition of trade, it 
 is habitually left out of view, that the computation of all wealth 
 by one particular form of it must vitiate the accounts. If com- 
 modities have fallen in price, money has risen in value correspond- 
 ingly, but, although the holders of commodities calculate the loss, 
 the holders of money do not reckon the gain, the latter only com- 
 pare the amount which they possess now with that which they 
 possessed a year ago and strike their balances accordingly. 
 
 It seems to me worth while to illustrate the facts by an applica- 
 tion to figures. We will put the case of a man who began the 
 year with a capital of i^io,ooo in money and bills of exchange and 
 with a stock of 600 tons of commodities representing at the 
 market price of ;^50 per ton, ^^30,000. He will consider himself 
 the possessor of ;^40,ooo. Now let us assume, that during the 
 following year a general depression ensues, that commodities, 
 rents and wages are depreciated on the average 15 per cent., and 
 that his particular commodity suffers exactly the average depre- 
 ciation. At the end of the year he finds, that he possesses ;^9,ooo 
 in money and bills and 700 tons of commodities which at the 
 reduced market-price of £^,2 \os. per ton represent £2<:),'j<,o. He 
 would now state his property as amounting to ;£^38,75o and con- 
 sider, that during the year he had sustained a loss of /"i, 250. But 
 if there was some way of taking formally into account the differ- 
 ence in the value of money, he would have to acknowledge, that 
 
 N
 
 178 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 the ^9,000 which he holds in money at the end of the year, repre- 
 sent 15 per cent, more value than they did at the beginning, he 
 would therefore find himself a gainer on this of ;^ 1,3 50, so that on 
 the whole he would be better off by £iQO value at the end of the 
 year than at the beginning. The result would be very different 
 again, if values were computed by quantities of commodities only. 
 We should then find, that at the beginning of the year the capitalist 
 possessed 600 tons and ;^io,ooo, representing at ^50 per ton 200 
 tons, together 800 tons of commodities, whereas at the close he 
 had in stock 700 tons and ^^9,000, equal at the rate of ^^"42^ per 
 ton to 2\.\\\ tons, together 911!?- tons, so that he has been the 
 gainer of 11 iff- tons of commodities or nearly 14 per cent, on his 
 capital. 
 
 Now, as the bulk of money as well as of commodities is in the 
 possession of a minority, I contend, that this minority has nothing 
 to gain or to lose by alterations of the standard of prices which are 
 equivalent to fluctuations in the value of money. In the case 
 mentioned before the capitalist, although professing himself a loser, 
 has in fact been a gainer. Continuing to live in the style to which 
 he has been accustomed, he possesses at the year's end the means 
 of living for a greater number of years than he did at the begin- 
 ning. If this is the road to poverty, we need have no objection to 
 the community growing steadily poorer. 
 
 The reason for a fall of prices all round, including the price of 
 land and labour, can only be, that the production of currency has 
 not been increased and facilitated to the same extent as that of 
 other things. If the output of gold had grown as much during 
 recent years as that of grain, the price of the latter would prob- 
 ably not have fallen so much, but there is no reason to suppose, 
 that labour would have obtained a better reward in consequence. 
 Some more enormous fortunes would have been founded, and 
 some of those in existence might have increased faster yet than
 
 FLUCTUATIONS OF THE VALUE OF MONEY. i79 
 
 they have under the actual circumstances, prices would certainly 
 have ruled higher, but wages and trade-profits could not have 
 increased more than general prices, and poverty and want and 
 depression of trade would rule no less than they do now. 
 
 On a superficial view it might be thought, that an increase of 
 the value of money ought to be expressed by an increased rate 
 of interest. But a moment's reflection will show, that, as the 
 increase of value affects equally the capital and the interest, both 
 being expressed in money, the rate of reward is quite independent 
 of the relation between money and other things. Although this 
 conclusion has been pointed out by Mill and is indeed of quite an 
 obvious character, there is still a good deal of confusion upon this 
 point, and the essential distinction between purchasing power and 
 lending value of money is not always observed sufficiently. 
 
 If the range of prices may be a matter of comparative indiffer- 
 ence to capital, the movement of prices in itself is a thing of the 
 first importance to it. It is one of its chief instruments for obtain- 
 ing the surplus of production. In turn, as money or commodities 
 become cheaper, as prices go up or down, capital applies itself 
 to one or the other. It cannot of course by a simple change ot 
 attitude create either money or commodities, but it can secure to 
 itself the profits expected from their possession by, selling in the 
 former and by buying in the latter case things which have not 
 been produced yet. This is the essence of speculation. The more 
 frequent the changes and the wider the range between the lowest 
 and the highest point, the more opportunity for profit is afforded 
 to the speculator. 
 
 But the direct and most vital interest of capital is to keep wages 
 as low as possible. This does not imply a reproach to capitalists, 
 as the principle would remain in force under our system, even if 
 good wages were secured to every labourer. For, the more is 
 allowed to labour, the less remains for capital. As to the struggle
 
 i8o SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 between capital and land, this need not occupy us here, both being 
 perfectly able to take care of their own interests. 
 
 We may therefore say, that capital's interest lies in frequent and 
 large fluctuations of values, and in low wages in proportion to 
 general prices. In so far as wages represent less wealth, when 
 general prices rule high, and as a change of prices can be effected 
 with less friction than one of wages, capital's interest appears to lie 
 on the side of high prices. But this is merely secondary, its real 
 concern is only the relation between wages and prices, namely to 
 keep the former as low and the latter as high as possible. 
 
 The position of labour is diametrically different. Its real 
 interest is to obtain the largest possible amount of com.modities 
 for the least possible amount of exertion — of course within the 
 limits prescribed by the interest of the community. As a potential 
 capitalist on a small scale the labourer of a superior class, who 
 invests his savings in money, may prefer a state of general cheap- 
 ness, because then his savings represent a larger quantity of wealth, 
 but in so far as he has money to invest, he is a capitalist and 
 participates in the interest of small capital, not of labour. The 
 general feeling of the common labourer is in favour of high wages 
 and high prices rather than of low prices with low wages, and the 
 reason is, that there are classes of people, like public and private 
 officers, annuitants and others, in receipt of fixed incomes, and 
 some sources of profit, like mortgages, bonds and stocks, which 
 afford a money return at a fixed rate. Altogether the amount of 
 money paid and payable in a civilized country year by year with- 
 out reference to the state of markets, the purchasing power of 
 money and other economic considerations, must be very important. 
 The receivers of these incomes have an obvious interest in a high 
 purchasing power of money as expressed in low prices. Their 
 position is absolutely better, when they can obtain more commodi- 
 ties for a pound, whereas that of the labourer, whose wages must in
 
 LABOUR WANTS STEADINESS OF VALUES. 
 
 the long run follow the fall of prices, remains the same as before. 
 Consequently the distance between the classes is increased to a 
 certain extent, and the just instinct of the people recognises the 
 undesirable fact. It is also to be considered, that the advantages of 
 cheapness come last to the working classes. Long after objects of 
 luxury have fallen in price, and after the people who buy in larger 
 quantities have even obtained the necessaries at lower prices, retail- 
 prices follow slowly the downward movement. But, whatever state 
 of prices may be best for labour, it is undeniable, that it wants 
 steadiness and that it abhors with good reason the fluctuations by 
 which capital profits at labour's expense. To the working man 
 it is of importance to know as nearly as possible, what amount 
 of the necessaries of life is represented by his wages. Frequent 
 fluctuations can only unsettle his life and entail upon him addi- 
 tional trouble and anxiety. This ordinary fact alone ought to be 
 sufficient to restrain reformers from identifying the interests of 
 labour and capital. 
 
 From the foregoing considerations it appears, that the often 
 heard assertion, that in times of depression capital bears the 
 greater part of the burden, is not borne out by facts. In his 
 quality as a large consumer of commodities the capitalist shares 
 in the advantages of low prices, even when the rate of wages is 
 maintained. But as a matter of fact a fall of prices engenders a 
 fall of wages in the great majority of cases. Low prices in them- 
 selves are therefore not a good thing for labour, only in conjunction 
 with high wages do they represent prosperity. Their apparent 
 advantage is, that they seem to aff"ord to the very poorest class of 
 people an enhanced security from starvation. But this is a decep- 
 tion, for low prices are merely the expression of comparative 
 abundance, and it is this which reduces the danger of absolute 
 starvation. Abundance is not the result of cheapness, but cheap- 
 ness the consequence of abundance. We cannot have low prices
 
 1 82 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 in times of scarcity, the question to be decided is, what special 
 advantage they bring in times of plenty. Now it seems, that there 
 is a certain minimum amount of money within reach of everybody. 
 No man need starve for want of a penny a day — if within reach of 
 other men, — any one can pick up somehow such an amount. If, 
 therefore, a penny can buy enough to keep a man alive during one 
 day, there need not be any downright death from starvation. That 
 in our vaunted state of civilization this consideration has to be 
 taken into account at all, is startling to the believer in progress, 
 but nevertheless the idea, that with cheap bread the lowest strata 
 of the community are provided for and ought not to grumble, 
 obtains largely in circles, where the kindest intentions are enter- 
 tained. It is doubtful — to say the least, — whether true philan- 
 thropy would not pronounce rather in favour of a sharp crisis 
 which carried off that part of the population condemned to live 
 upon an amount which can be picked up anywhere, than of a 
 continuance of such joyless, comfortless and hopeless lives. Still 
 the ordinary instincts of humanity do not permit the community 
 to sanction the quick extermination of the sufferers — although they 
 are less squeamish in face of cases of slow starvation — and have 
 led to the organization of systems specially calculated to avoid 
 the extremities of distress. In those cases, where starvation can 
 be avoided by a low range of prices, no one need die of hunger 
 in England, whatever the prices ruling may be. Against absolute 
 scarcity there is no help. If food was distributed gratis and there 
 was not enough for all, some people would have to starve. But as 
 long as food can be secured by the community, there is the public 
 institution of the workhouse, and there are the private organiza- 
 tions of charity ready to supply the needy with a small quantity 
 independently of the ruling prices. It appears therefore, that the 
 very poorest class has nothing to gain from low prices, and that 
 the advantage in this respect goes to those who are for the time
 
 LOIV GENERAL ERICES NO BOON TO LABOUR. 183 
 
 beyond the reach of starvation and able to contribute towards the 
 insurance for the least fortunate part of the population. This 
 saving in the poor-rate is such a small matter in comparison with 
 the questions involved, that it deserves hardly any consideration. 
 The advantage of low prices is evidently much over-rated in public 
 opinion, and the damaging influences of depression of trade upon 
 labour are by no means compensated by low general prices. 
 
 We shall now have to devote some attention to the general 
 question of trade-depression. 
 
 As stated upon a former occasion, this need not be accompanied 
 by a fall of prices. The very worst form of depression is absolute 
 scarcity, famine or pestilence, which impoverishes the country 
 afflicted and the world in spite of exorbitantly high prices and the 
 great gains of capitalists. 
 
 We have seen, that a fall of prices affecting all commodities, 
 land and labour is tantamount to an appreciation of money. It is 
 hardly necessary to point out, that beside the fluctuation in the 
 value of money there are at all times many forces at work which 
 interfere with the proportions of value existing between the 
 different factors of production as well as between the different 
 objects of wealth. The interests, intentions, events and influences 
 shaping the course of markets are so numerous and heterogeneous, 
 that the relation of values is changing constantly, any change in 
 the position of one thing involving naturally not only a change in 
 its relation to every other, but also a disturbance of the average 
 of values. The natural causes for raising the value of a commodity 
 are the restriction of the area of production or the increased dif- 
 ficulty of production or the growth of consumption. The causes 
 of a fall of value are the extension of the area of production or 
 increased facility of production or diminution of consumption. We 
 have seen, that our material progress is widening constantly the 
 area of production and increasing its facilities, whilst, with regard
 
 1 84 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 to consumption, we find everywhere clear proofs, that its increase 
 has not kept pace with actual production, much less with its 
 capabilities. It is therefore not open to doubt, that the tendency of 
 our times is towards the depression of prices which express the 
 values of commodities. But this fact does not explain in any way 
 the prevalent depression of trade and would be almost meaningless, 
 if all branches were affected by it in the same degree. This is 
 of course not the case. It is quite unavoidable, that the different 
 branches of production should be affected in different degrees by 
 progress at any given time. This year copper-mines are opened 
 and copper falls in value, next year an African country is made 
 accessible to trade and ivory becomes cheaper. Then again a new 
 process is introduced into the manufacture of steel and the value 
 of steel is diminished. This natural irregularity is the cause of the 
 disturbance of special branches of industry. In order to dispose 
 of a surplus of production, prices must be lowered so far as to 
 induce people to buy or to consume more than they would have 
 done at the old price. This is the stimulation of demand, which 
 plays the part of panacea for evils of this kind in political economy. 
 But unfortunately this is not such an easy matter in our times as 
 it used to be under simpler social and industrial conditions. For 
 with our complicated wants, means of production and exchange 
 there are always plenty of special branches striving simultaneously 
 for an increase of demand, and in their eager competition the 
 producers are frequently forced to reduce the price of their pro- 
 ducts to an absolutely unremunerative level. Even under the 
 most favourable circumstances the process requires time, which is 
 exactly what trade cannot afford at present, and it is frequently 
 only a transfer of suffering from one branch to the other. As a 
 rule we do not take a sufficiently wide view of the area of produc- 
 tion and consumption. By offering an advantage as compared 
 with his competitors a producer or dealer may indeed secure a
 
 DEPRESSION OF TRADE. STIMULATION OF DEMAND. 185 
 
 large sale. If gloves are offered in one shop at one shilling, which 
 cost two shillings at other shops, the seller at the low price will no 
 doubt obtain a ready sale for gloves. But it is open to doubt, 
 whether the consumption of gloves has really been increased there- 
 by. A great part of this one dealer's increased sale of gloves must 
 have been at the expense of his competitors who have sold less in 
 consequence. And even if the sale of gloves has been increased, it 
 is likely, that some people have bought gloves at one shilling who, 
 if their price had remained at two shillings, would have invested 
 their shillings in other objects, in neckties or tobacco or shilling 
 novels. It is not to be assumed, that the money, if not expended 
 upon gloves, would have been hoarded. The increased consump- 
 tion of gloves will probably have caused a corresponding diminu- 
 tion of the consumption of other articles. In this case the effect of 
 the depression has therefore not been neutralized, but only trans- 
 ferred, the only advantage gained is, that it has been distributed 
 over a somewhat wider area. But in many cases even this advan- 
 tage is not obtained. If brass becomes cheap enough to replace 
 iron for some purposes, if brass-bedsteads become popular instead 
 of iron ones, the iron industry loses the whole field conquered by 
 brass, and the aggregate consumption of wealth may hardly have 
 been increased. What we are in the habit of regarding as an 
 increase, is therefore here merely a shifting of consumption from 
 one branch of trade to another. The capitalist who has employed 
 capital in a branch of industry affected by special depression is 
 naturally a loser in so far as existing stocks are concerned, the cor- 
 responding advantage flowing to the consumer. When the fact of 
 the increased production has once been accepted and it has been 
 found impossible to maintain the former rate of profits by a further 
 stimulation of the demand, the employer's next resource is a reduc- 
 tion of wages or the transfer of his capital to other objects. Now 
 labour begins to suffer severely from the special depression.
 
 1 86 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 The economist's remedy is the transfer of labour to other 
 branches. But the same facts which render the stimulation of 
 demand such a difficult task in our time, stand also in the way 
 of the transfer of labour. There are always several branches of 
 industry afflicted by the same malady, and the consequent com- 
 petition between labourers makes their attempts to better them- 
 selves almost hopeless. Gradually the depression is passed or forced 
 on to some other branch or distributed over several others, and 
 the net result of the special depression is, that capital has main- 
 tained or regained its position at the permanent expense of labour. 
 But the influence of a special depression upon the whole industrial 
 community can never be important enough to account for a depres- 
 sion pervading all branches. 
 
 Even less can it be explained by local reasons. Local de- 
 pressions have been rendered less lasting and less dangerous by 
 the increased facilities of exchange and communication, and under 
 ordinary circumstances need hardly be counted as serious dis- 
 turbances. A strong movement of prices or of trade in one 
 particular place can only be maintained for a very short time, 
 as it will undeniably be utilized and counteracted by the action 
 of other markets, as soon as the telegraph has made it known. 
 Almost the only case where a local movement can be maintained, 
 is a rise of prices in consequence of local scarcity and in face 
 of an urgent demand. But this possibility is being restricted 
 from year to year, first by the increased frequency and swift- 
 ness of communication between the most distant parts of the 
 earth, and secondly by the growth of production and the ex- 
 tension of international trade, which combined cause stocks of 
 all kinds of commodities to be held wherever there is the slightest 
 reason to expect a demand. Even speculation can rarely localize 
 a fluctuation of prices. In order to be effective, it must embrace 
 all markets, and this is one of the reasons, why the fruits of
 
 SPECIAL AND LOCAL DEPRESSIONS NO EXPLANATION. 1S7 
 
 speculation are obtained chiefly by the possessors of large capital. 
 But if local disturbances cannot now be so acute nor so disastrous 
 in their immediate consequences as they were formerly, it must 
 not be assumed, that the conditions which used to create them 
 have ceased to exist and to operate. There occur still everywhere 
 local difficulties and local opportunities, there are still local dis- 
 crepancies between supply and demand which do not correspond 
 to the general conditions. Only, instead of working their whole 
 effect upon local industry and trade as previously, they spend 
 their force by distributing it over the whole commercial and 
 industrial community. There is less probability now of a place 
 being ruined by a local failure, however important, but on the 
 other hand no failure of a certain importance can take place 
 anywhere without disturbing trade more or less all over the 
 world. Considering the extended and complicated relations 
 between all commercial countries, there is a strong probability, 
 that at any given moment all local causes for depression and 
 inflation of prices may nearly balance each other so as to leave 
 only a small impetus in one or the other direction to affect the 
 general tendency. We shall therefore be safe in assuming, that 
 local causes, however important in themselves, can now less than 
 ever be thought to account for a general depression of trade. 
 
 After having seen, that neither local nor special causes nor 
 general falls of prices can be held accountable for general de- 
 pression of trade, and keeping in view the fact, that in spite of 
 appearances capital obtains its reward even in the worst times, 
 whilst land and all kinds of property share in the advantages of 
 progress in virtue of their power of credit, we arrive at the 
 conclusion, that depression of trade means in reality insufficiency 
 of the reward of labour. The merchant, manufacturer and farmer 
 are losing in their character as labourers, not as capitalists. And, 
 as the depreciation of labour is traceable to material progress
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 itself, we must hold the latter ultimately responsible for the 
 frequent depressions of trade. It is a delusion to look upon these 
 as exceptions or as the corrections of undue inflation. On the 
 contrary, depression is the natural and normal state of trade under 
 our system and with our progressive tendency, and occasional 
 inflations are merely the rebounds after somewhat exaggerated 
 depressions. We must not forget, that never in the world's known 
 history material improvements have followed upon improvements 
 so quickly as they have done during the last generation. Every 
 year sees some branch of industry revolutionised by inventions 
 and discoveries. This giant stride of progress is a most impor- 
 tant factor for the correct appreciation of our social state and 
 the comprehension of the special difficulties of modern civili- 
 zation. If some great step forward was made every hundred 
 or every fifty years, we should have time to settle down to the 
 altered conditions and to find the proper level and relations of 
 values in the meantime between one improvement and the next. 
 But in our age the rate of progress is so fast, that the community 
 has absolutely no time to recover from the eff"ects of one before 
 it has already to reckon with another. It is in the nature of 
 material progress, that it outstrips frequently the boldest calcu- 
 lation based upon its first appearance, every advance in this 
 unlimited field carries in itself the increased prospect of further 
 advance. The quick succession of progressive steps does not only 
 cause a continual misproportion between the possibilities of pro- 
 duction and consumption and a growing difficulty of gauging 
 their proper proportions, but it implies also, that some one is 
 always in advance and others diff'erent stages backward in the 
 arts of production. With the natural tendency towards the lower- 
 ing of the reward of labour it is unavoidable, that all those who 
 are not in the front rank of productive capacity must be working 
 with an insufficient profit, and many of them even with a loss,
 
 THE MODERN FAST RATE OF PROGRESS. 189 
 
 and by the time that they have improved their methods, another 
 step has been gained by some one else, if not by the same man 
 who led the race hitherto. Thus — independently of the fluc- 
 tuations of prices — there must always be a great proportion of 
 producers losing by their work of production, and the maintenance 
 of a position enabling one to earn his living by labour requires 
 not only the co-operation of capital, but also exceptional ability 
 to follow and judge industrial and commercial developments. 
 Property of any kind receives its reward in full and enjoys more 
 opportunities than it would in a stationary state, but labour loses 
 relatively, and ordinary labour even absolutely, under the present 
 arrangements by almost every step of material progress. 
 
 Yet there is a difference between the effects produced upon 
 labour by the different kinds of progress. An extension of the 
 area of production does not necessarily imply a depreciation of 
 labour, When new mines are discovered or new countries opened 
 to cultivation, labour will probably be displaced. Wheat being 
 raised under more favourable conditions in Canada or the United 
 States than in England, the English wheat-grower may lose his 
 employment, but at the same time Canada and the United States 
 open new fields for his activity. Besides it must not be forgotten, 
 that the labour which employs itself upon new countries, even 
 when it is not English labour, has been in existence somewhere 
 before and, in finding a scope there, ceases to compete with English 
 labour in some other branch or some other locality. If for instance 
 German or Russian peasants emigrate to Canada in order to cul- 
 tivate wheat there, they cease to compete for agricultural work 
 in Germany or in Russia. More than this, when they succeed 
 in the country of their adoption, they turn into consumers of 
 other commodities, part of which is probably imported from 
 England or at any rate from some competitor of England, and 
 there will therefore be some lessening of competition and some
 
 I90 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 consequent advantage for the latter in other fields. An extension 
 of the area of production may therefore bring and has in fact 
 brought a positive gain to labour by increasing its opportunities. 
 It is different in the case of progress consisting of improvements 
 in the arts of production. Here every step carries with it an 
 actual depreciation of labour which is mostly expressed in falls 
 of wages, loss of employment and in the dwindling of profits, in 
 so far as the latter represent the reward of labour. The fall of 
 value in the commodity is the consequence of the fall of value in 
 the producer's activity. Even when the whole increase of produc- 
 tion can be consumed, labour will gain nothing, but, as improve- 
 ments cause as a rule the production to be increased more than 
 demand can be stimulated on terms affording to labour the former 
 rate of reward, labour is almost always a loser by improvements. 
 
 We may summarize the results of the foregoing as follows : 
 
 A depression of prices, rents and wages in equal proportion 
 means merely an enhanced value of money. 
 
 A depression of values caused by the extension of the area of 
 production will cause a displacement of labour, but need not inter- 
 fere permanently with its reward. If the demand can be suffi- 
 ciently stimulated on reasonable conditions, it will even bring a 
 gain to labour. 
 
 A depression of values caused by improvements in the arts of 
 production diminishes the reward of labour, giving to capital, and 
 particularly to large capital, the difference. 
 
 An unequal rate of progress in different branches unsettles the 
 markets and inflicts ultimately a loss upon labour. 
 
 A remarkably quick rate of progress destroys the sense of pro- 
 portion and aggravates the evil by making us lose sight of the 
 relations between the possibilities of production and consumption. 
 It accentuates the distance between the strongest producers and 
 the less strong.
 
 DEPRESSION TRACED TO MATERIAL PROGRESS. 191 
 
 Capital has only to gain by fluctuations of values, being inde- 
 pendent of the range of prices. It can lose only by destruction. 
 Labour's interest lies in steadiness of values. 
 
 The chronic state of depression in our time is the expression 
 of the insufficiency of the reward of labour, which is caused by 
 material progress. 
 
 According to the point of view of the observer the results of 
 progress appear as over-production or over-population, but the 
 mere fact, that both ideas, which are exactly contradictory, can be 
 entertained by men of fair judgment at the same moment, goes 
 far to show, that the real cause of our unsatisfactory state is neither 
 the one nor the other, but a mis-adjustment which prevents the 
 wealth produced from coming into the hands of those who have an 
 urgent need of it. This does not exclude the facts, that over- 
 production is practised in many branches of industry, or that many 
 labourers are looking for employment where it cannot possibly be 
 found, or that many avenues of labour are over-crowded, but it 
 requires only a re-adjustment, a limitation in some parts and an 
 extension in others, to guide labour and capital into the proper 
 channels and to make the supply meet the demand. Our system 
 of blind trust in the self-checking action of economic forces, which 
 are expected to further the community and to spare the individual, 
 has broken down ignominiously after a long and fair trial. If we 
 want to save ourselves, we must devise a system of better checks, 
 and I hope to be able to propose one which does not destroy 
 personal liberty, as communism would do in the present state of 
 civilization and with the sentiment prevailing in our time.
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Final revieiu of the relations between land, labour and capital. 
 
 BEFORE proceeding to the proposition of remedies, it will be 
 necessary to review finally the status of the different factors 
 of production by the light of the facts at which we have arrived 
 in our investigation. We shall have to compare first the position 
 of property (land and capital) with that of labour, and secondly 
 that of land witht hat of capital. 
 
 With regard to the former problem I should like to state here 
 my conviction, that it is practically unimportant, whether wages 
 are drawn from capital or not, or, to put it in another form, 
 whether capital employs labour or vice versA. It is quite true, 
 that in co-operation with capital labour gives more and on the 
 average earlier than it receives, that by the time the labourer gets 
 his wages, he has already produced more wealth than is repre- 
 sented by them, but what difference can this possibly make 
 in the condition of labour, whilst labour applied to land without 
 capital's help is evidently unable to compete with labour associated 
 with capital, and when material progress widens the discrepancy 
 with every forward step ? 
 
 Labour and capital are frequently grouped together in oppo- 
 sition to land on the plea, that material progress diminishes the 
 demand for both, whilst increasing that for land. There can be no 
 doubt, that manufacturers have learned to produce commodities 
 with a smaller expenditure of capital in some shapes. Fuel is 
 economised, waste of different kinds is utilized, and altogether 
 
 i92
 
 THE DEMAND FOR CAPITAL NOT DECREASING. 193 
 
 more of a consumable thing is got out of a certain quantity of raw 
 material than could be done in former times. But, if in conse- 
 quence the demand for capital decreases, this is tantamount to a 
 decrease of the demand for labour, the labour which was thrown 
 away formerly, although paid for, on wasted material or on coals 
 or wood burned in excess of the quantity required with our 
 improved methods of manufacture. In that case the outcome of 
 progress would be, that the material required would not only be 
 produced with less labour, but that besides a smaller quantity 
 would be wanted than formerly. On the other hand a diminished 
 demand for labour does not by any means imply a diminished 
 demand for capital. If by an alteration in the shape of his 
 machinery a manufacturer is enabled to increase his output, he can 
 do with less labour, but he cannot as a rule diminish the capital in 
 his employ. Besides, capital has a compensation for any possible 
 decrease of demand, which labour does not possess. As a strong 
 man effects with ten strokes an amount of work on which a 
 weaker man would have to expend twenty, so the capitalist of our 
 time can effect a certain amount of production with the applica- 
 tion of a smaller quantity of capital than was required for the 
 purpose formerly. It would therefore be quite reasonable to 
 assume, even if the demand for capital was diminished, that it 
 would be able to recoup itself by virtue of its increased productive- 
 ness. Yet as a matter of fact the demand has not fallen off, and 
 the increase of capital in existence is a standing boast of the 
 defenders of the ruling system. It is true enough, that to carry 
 on the traffic effected by railways and telegraphs by means of 
 antiquated appliances, would require a much larger amount of 
 capital than is invested in railways and telegraphs, but without 
 the invention of these improved methods the intercourse of the 
 world would never have assumed its present dimensions, and the 
 additional capital would not have been required. All we can say 
 
 O
 
 194 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 is, that the demand for capital in small amounts for individual 
 purposes of production has diminished, whereas that for large 
 amounts and for purposes of combination is steadily increasing. 
 This is one of the consequences of capital's power growing with 
 accumulation. 
 
 I must also allude to co-operation of which such great things 
 are expected. The combination of workmen for purposes of 
 production does not actually raise the reward of labour, but only 
 gives a share of the reward of capital to the labourers who are 
 at the same time capitalists themselves or obtain the command 
 of capital. If a number of workmen combine for the purpose 
 of carrying on their industry for common account and are lucky 
 enough to find the necessary capital at a reasonable rate of 
 interest, they enjoy in the surplus earned by them not an increase 
 of wages, but the reward of the monopoly of capital. Naturally 
 capital may, as it sometimes does, leave a share of its profits to 
 labour as well as it may leave it to idlers. But labour cannot 
 compel it to do so and is dependent upon its goodwill in this 
 respect. As a matter of experience co-operation of this kind has 
 not taken a footing in those branches of industry which require 
 large capital for the simple, but sufficient reason, that large capital 
 holds on to the whole reward of co-operation as its own share in 
 production and is not to be had by labourers on easier terms. 
 
 Looked at plainly and without reference to scientific deductions, 
 the strength of the position of property appears to lie in the 
 circumstance, that it has something to fall back upon, which labour 
 lacks. Every landlord and capitalist is a potential labourer. 
 llowever they may squander their advantages, they retain yet 
 I..C same chances in life which stand open to the man without 
 property. Whether it is worse to fall from a favoured position to 
 the common level, or to start in a low place, seeing the higher, 
 without being ever able to reach or even reasonably to aspire to
 
 CAPITALS BACK COVERED. 195 
 
 it, is a question the answer to which must vary according to the 
 individuality concerned. Knowing what we do about the lives 
 of the lowest strata, knowing also, that sensitiveness is not a 
 monopoly of the wealthy, we have no reason to pour out our sym- 
 pathies upon those who may be compelled by circumstances to 
 accept a mode of life inferior to that to which they have been 
 accustomed, but yet beyond the reach of actual want and sordid 
 cares. If culture has any moral value — and I fully believe, that it 
 has,— it must be able to render such a change bearable. As to the 
 fall of highly^bred people into absolute want, this is no doubt a 
 fearful calamity, which deserves full sympathy, but the case is so 
 rare — comparatively speaking, — that it need hardly be taken into 
 account. Only extravagance, culpable want of prudence or public 
 misfortunes under which the whole community has to suffer 
 severely, can bring a rich man to such a pass. Property can 
 always secure a reward, however little ability and inclination its 
 holder may possess for its administration. By merely giving 
 money into safe keeping a reward is already secured. A somewhat 
 higher rate may be obtained by investment in one of the innu- 
 merable national or municipal securities. This possibility confers 
 upon the owner of capital an exceedingly strong position in his 
 relations to labour. If he cannot obtain labourers at terms which 
 he considers sufficiently advantageous, he can withdraw from pro- 
 duction altogether and yet earn some reward from his capital. 
 Of course he cannot dismiss his labourers and close his establish- 
 ment without considerable sacrifice and is therefore not likely to 
 proceed to such extreme measures unless he thinks them absolutely 
 necessary, but the fact, that he has the power to do so, and )^et 
 to maintain himself and his family, is quite sufficient to put the 
 labourer at his mercy. So has a man, set to watch another with a 
 loaded revolver, no occasion to make use of his weapon in one out 
 of a hundred cases. The watched one knows, that the other can, and
 
 195 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 under certain circumstances will shoot him, and accepts any terms 
 which he considers less hard than death by a bullet. It must also 
 not be forgotten, that, although it is a costly process to withdraw 
 capital from industrial production, it is very easy to refrain from 
 investing it therein. If labourers insist upon a rate of wages which 
 leaves to the employer a profit considered too small by capitalists^ 
 the manufacturers in actual work may choose to go on rather with 
 reduced profits for some time than to close their factories, but 
 other capital waiting for investment will be held back from pro- 
 ductive employment, and labour loses opportunities which it would 
 have enjoyed, had it been content with starvation wages. 
 
 In fact the stakes are unequal, so grossly unequal, that a 
 bargaining on fair terms presupposes a benevolent disposition on 
 the employers' part which the ruling system is not likely to 
 produce in the majority of cases. It is somewhat like a duel 
 between a condemned criminal and a free man, or like a heavy bet 
 between a millionaire and a poor man. To capital it is a com- 
 paratively small matter, a question of increased property, increased 
 influence, perhaps satisfied vanity, to labour it is one of life or 
 death. To arrive at an understanding is a matter of expediency 
 to the former, of necessity to the latter. I can understand, if not 
 approve, an attitude of mind which concedes to property all the 
 rights and advantages enjoyed by it at present, whatever may be 
 the consequences to the labouring masses, but in face of ordinary 
 experience I cannot understand the talk about the freedom of 
 labour under our present system. If our labourers are free, slaves 
 were also free under the rule of slavery, they enjoyed at all times 
 the alternative to die when they were discontented with the con- 
 ditions imposed upon them by their masters. 
 
 The admirers of the ruling system point to the occasional strikes 
 as evidence of the powerful position of labour, and they lay stress 
 upon the fact, that these are mostly entered upon by labourers
 
 UNEQUAL STAKES. STRIKES. 197 
 
 whose wages are a good deal above starvation point. But this 
 fact, which apparently lends emphasis to the argument, does in 
 reality weaken and almost destroy it. Only in those industries 
 which require a certain amount of skill and therefore offer a 
 chance of more regular employment and higher wages, can labour 
 sometimes gather the strength necessary to make a stand against 
 the pretensions of the employers. Only those labourers who are 
 earning more than ordinary wages can save something in times of 
 employment, which enables them to tide over times of idleness. 
 Common labour or light labour docs not refuse any terms. Agri- 
 cultural or dock-labourers or clerks do not strike in masses or 
 decline to accept work, even if they know, that the wages offered 
 are inadequate to the provision of the bare necessaries. And it 
 is not much beyond the bare necessaries for which strikers in any 
 branch of industry are standing out. Even as it is, they fail in 
 many instances, but once let them try to put in a claim for a large 
 share of profit in a prosperous concern, let them ask for a doubling 
 of wages when their employer is making a fortune, and they would 
 be simply laughed at or replaced by other men of equal skill who 
 would be ready to take their places for a very slight enhancement 
 of wages. 
 
 We have indeed become accustomed to treat capital and labour 
 on equal terms or rather, to assume, that they are fairly matched. 
 Statisticians prove by long arrays of figures, that the aggregate 
 income from labour has grown more during a certain period than 
 that from capital, and conclude from this, that labour has parti- 
 cipated to the full in the increased production. They show, that 
 of most articles of ordinary consumption more is consumed per 
 head now than fifty years ago, and point triumphantly to this fact 
 as a plain proof of the improved condition of the working classes. 
 But only a very superficial observer could agree with those con- 
 clusions. For one thing, not all the earnings of capital have been
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 invested as capital so as to yield an actual money return. The 
 immense sums which capitalists have drawn ofif to unproductive 
 uses by applying them to their own or their friends' personal grati- 
 fication, are not considered. Labour has been obliged to consume 
 nearly the whole of its income during the fifty years, but how 
 many millions have been spent by capitalists on private buildings, 
 on travelling in foreign countries, on expensive pleasures and 
 luxuries of all kinds ? All this has been obtained and enjoyed 
 by capital, which was strong enough to withdraw this enormous 
 amount from production and to maintain and improve its position 
 at the same time. The mere fact, that the income from capital 
 has not increased so much as that from labour, proves therefore 
 nothing, and that, in spite of the enormous personal expenditure of 
 the capitalist class during the period surveyed, their income has 
 increased as much as it has done, goes far to show, that they have 
 obtained the lion's share of the increase of production. Besides, 
 the increased power of large capital and the enhanced facilities for 
 combination on the part of capital are not taken into account. 
 The position of the shopkeeper and the independent artisan has 
 indeed not been strengthened, but the capital accumulated in large 
 amounts has grown in power all the more, and for this reason, if 
 for no other, the relative position of labour and capital cannot be 
 gauged by a comparison of the figures of income. 
 
 As regards the comparison of past and present consumption, I 
 must refer to the detailed examination of this subject in a previous 
 chapter. If we leave the differences in the standard of comfort at 
 different periods out of view, we shall have to measure the relative 
 condition of the people by a simple statistic of the numbers of 
 deaths by starvation. But the question is not merely, whether 
 more or less people are starved to death now than at some former 
 time, but whether the workman's life has grown in comfort and in 
 all those things which make life worth living, in the same propor-
 
 SOME CURIOUS NOTIONS. 199 
 
 tion as that of the man of property has improved and as the 
 growth of production would warrant. 
 
 In comparisons of this kind the relative position of labour and 
 capital is accepted as a natural necessity. If apparently labour 
 has gained thirty per cent, and capital only twenty-five, labour is 
 said to have done well and to have obtained more than its full 
 share of the advantages of progress. No doubt is expressed as to 
 the naturalness of the conditions which have made the relations ot 
 labour and capital what they were say fifty years ago. But I say, 
 that the basis of these relations is wrong, anti-social and subject 
 to re-adjustment. If we consider it necessary, that the holders 
 of property should have almost the only chance of material im- 
 provement and that the vast majority should always be at their 
 mercy, then we may as well restrain our exertions to preaching 
 the gospel of charity to the rich and that of resignation to the 
 poor. But this state is past praying for. Some living and active 
 influences, at which we have glanced in the course of our research, 
 put such acquiescence in the present conditions out of the ques- 
 tion. The very basis of our economic structure is assailed, the 
 evil is felt and known, whatever may be provable by statistics, and 
 I have no doubt, that, when it is in a fair way of being cured, 
 statisticians will be able and willing to prove, that the figures 
 which are a source of elation to economists now, revealed a most 
 depressing state of affairs. 
 
 The idea, that things are all right and in order as they are, finds 
 sometimes expression in curious ways. It is quite a common 
 thing to hear an employer say, after having made a smaller income 
 than what he has been used to, that he is worse off than the clerk 
 or the labourer who received the same scanty wages in this as in 
 former years. A fixed standard seems to be set up, that the one — 
 thanks to his possession or command of property — shall be able 
 to fare luxuriously and to keep something over, and that the
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 other — owing to the lack of these things — shall only earn enough 
 to keep him and his in a dull and comfortless mode of life and in 
 constant fear of loss of employment. One of the most wonderful 
 pleas in support of the existing inequality is the often heard asser- 
 tion, that the rich must have large incomes in order to " keep up 
 appearances." But why in all the world should they keep up 
 appearances, unless they find their pleasure or their profit in doing 
 so } Whose interests are served by it except their own 1 To 
 have appearances to keep up, is one of their privileges, which 
 should properly belong only to people of exceptional merit, it is 
 not a benefit to the community for which they can claim a com- 
 pensation. 
 
 Statisticians are trying to make much of the fact, that the 
 number of capitalists is said to have increased and to be gradually 
 increasing. But what does this prove ? For one thing the pos- 
 session of small capital is not the blessing now which it was a 
 generation or two ago. But besides, is there any conceivable 
 arrangement of economic conditions, however unreasonable and 
 unjust, which would not bring profit to some } Even a lottery 
 would make some people rich and improve the condition of many 
 others, but we have yet to learn, that it is capable of raising the 
 average, or that lotteries are sources of prosperity. 
 
 That figures can be made to prove almost anything, is a well- 
 known fact. It is therefore no matter for surprise, that by a great 
 array of figures it is provable, that the working classes or, to put 
 it shortly, that labour has been gaining immensely by material 
 progress. But the result of these calculations does not tally with 
 the manifest facts which everybody, who does not close his eyes 
 to them, can easily perceive, and which at the present moment 
 are crying out with a voice which will not be gainsaid. Reckon 
 up in detail, as you will, all the additional advantages which labour 
 enjoys in our times, show up at the same time all the supposed
 
 THE STATUS OF LAND AND CAPITAL COMPARED. 201 
 
 losses of capital, — I say, that the advantages of labour and the 
 losses of capital are sham, that the former is more helpless and the 
 latter more powerful than at any previous time, and that we are 
 drifting into a state of slavery or of violent revolution, if the dis- 
 tribution of rewards is not equalized to some reasonable extent ! 
 
 We come now to the question, in what points the position of 
 land differs essentially from that of capital. In dealing with this 
 problem we can base ourselves upon the deductions of the land- 
 nationalizers who hold land, or rather private ownership in land, 
 alone responsible for poverty, while conceding to capital its present 
 position and full power. I have already explained, that to a great 
 extent I agree with the conclusions of these reformers, but that 
 I do not consider their propositions adequate to the solution 
 of the social question. As I look upon an interference with the 
 existing powers of capital as unavoidable for this purpose, I shall 
 have to review the most important distinctions made between land 
 and other kinds of property by the promoters of land-nationali- 
 zation, none of which appear to me of an essential character. 
 
 One of them is, that the land belongs originally to the people 
 and has been wrongfully alienated from them, whereas all other 
 property is the produce of human activity and may be employed 
 by its possessor according to his inclination. It seems to me, that 
 the claim to the produce of land, the right to wealth which could 
 not have been obtained without the use of land, cannot be better 
 than that to the land itself. If a man succeeds in getting wrong- 
 ful possession of capital and is found out and convicted after he 
 has used it for years, he will be expected to disgorge capital and 
 interest. Why should a different kind of justice prevail for land ? 
 It is surely not the present land-owners and capitalists who have 
 created all the wealth in existence or the greater part of it. I 
 refrain from basing the claims of the community upon natural 
 rights of such an arbitrary character as the common right to the
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 ownership of land, and prefer to justify any measures which I may 
 have to propose by their necessity for the maintenance and well- 
 being of the community. But, if I was of opinion, that under all 
 circumstances the land must be and remain the collective property 
 of the whole people, and that no conceivable action and toleration 
 could convey a title to any part of it to an individual, I would 
 most assuredly lay claim also to the wealth which has been drawn 
 from it during the time, when it was used by individuals for their 
 exclusive profit, and as experience teaches, that labour during all 
 that period has not afforded more than a bare living to its votaries 
 in the great majority of instances, I do not see, why capital could 
 not be impounded with the same right. We should of course 
 have to discriminate between the reward of labour and that of 
 land, and it might be difficult to trace wealth to its source in all 
 cases, but this would be no ground for abandoning the claim 
 which, even with the most generous handling, would bring a great 
 deal of wealth under the disposal of the community. 
 
 Another alleged distinction is, that the capitalist must run a risk 
 of total loss, whereas land cannot be destroyed. These facts are 
 undeniable, but the conclusions drawn from them are not justified. 
 It is true, that land cannot be destroyed absolutely, but it can 
 lose the whole of its value, just as land which may be appropriated 
 by the first comer at one time may advance in value to an almost 
 fabulous height. Natural and accidental causes, like the alteration 
 of climatic conditions, eruptions of volcanoes, submersion by the 
 sea, discovery and exhaustion of mines and other events may 
 influence the value of land in either direction to almost any extent. 
 Wealth on the other hand is indeed liable to what we must call 
 practically total destruction, but the comparative risk is taken into 
 account in all dealings with land and other property, as proved by 
 the smaller percentage of income drawn from land than from com- 
 mercial or industrial enterprises. The position of capital in our
 
 CAPITAL PROVIDES FOR THE GREATER RISK. 203 
 
 time supplies the most cogent proof, that the normal risk as well 
 as the waste inherent to its employment has been provided for 
 very liberally on the average. There are investments where the 
 adventurer risks the loss of the whole capital embarked, but their 
 prospects of profit are proportionately high. Whoever is looking 
 out for gains of ten, twenty per cent, or more within a week or 
 two, must naturally be prepared to risk his whole capital within 
 a few months. This is not investment, but mere gambling. There 
 are no such chances for land, and the risks are correspondingly 
 smaller. 
 
 The land-nationalizers endeavour to establish a radical differ- 
 ence between the status of land and that of capital by pointing out 
 the natural monopoly of the former in consequence of its fixed 
 quantity. They say, that without the use of land capital would 
 be powerless, and capitalists would be reduced to the rank of mere 
 wage-earners, whereas the land-owner would be able to retain all 
 the produce gained in excess of the lowest possible cost of labour. 
 Of course this could only apply to the case, that the whole surface 
 of the habitable earth was appropriated, for, as long as there is any 
 cultivable area out of cultivation, capital would find a scope there. 
 Under the supposed circumstances I admit, that all power would 
 be concentrated in the land-owner. If one man owned the whole 
 earth, he might (theoretically, for practically such a state would be 
 impossible) force every other human being to work for his profit 
 for the lowest wages at which life can be maintained, he might 
 prohibit and prevent any saving by any one except himself and 
 dispose of the surplus produce according to his whims. Capitalists 
 would then not only be powerless, but non-existent, because out- 
 side of the land-owner's possession no wealth could be accumulated. 
 As long as wealth was not employed in production, capital could 
 naturally not claim a share of the reward. But if machinery or 
 other forms of capital were found necessary to production, if grain
 
 204 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 was required for sowing and wool required for weaving, with one 
 word, as soon as the human race emerged from actual savagery, 
 the possessor of capital would claim a share of the profit. The 
 land-owner might monopolize capital himself, but in this case he 
 would owe his power just as much to capital as to land. Anyhow, 
 the supposed state of things is practically impossible outside of 
 a state of chattel slavery and not at all analogous to that prevailing 
 in our time, when capital has a separate existence and confers upon 
 its owners a position at least as powerful as that of the landlords. 
 In so far as it can draw a reward from unproductive employment 
 in many more cases and with much greater ease than land, its 
 position is in fact the stronger of the two. 
 
 The advocates of land-nationalization do not take sufficient 
 account of the growth of capital, and this circumstance is probably 
 the reason of their contention, that the whole unearned increment 
 goes to land. They compare the present state of society with that 
 which prevailed a certain time ago and find, that rent has much 
 increased, whereas the rate of interest has rather fallen and that of 
 wages has not risen nearly so much as that of rent. Here, they 
 say, is the clearest proof, that the increase goes to land, to the 
 exclusion of the other agents of production. But they overlook 
 in this place the fact, upon which they lay due stress on other 
 occasions, namely that the land of a country is a fixed quantity, 
 whereas the growth of capital is practically unlimited. If the 
 land-owners of the United Kingdom are drawing a larger income 
 from land now than formerly, they can do so only by levying rent 
 at a higher rate per acre or square foot or square league, but if 
 capital has increased manifold in the meantime, its owners may 
 obtain a much larger income than the capitalists of former times, 
 even if they must be contented with a lower rate of interest on the 
 average. This remark would not apply, if capital was distributed 
 equally between all members of the population, but its increase as
 
 CAPITALS POSITION THE STRONGER. 205 
 
 well as the inequality of its distribution are palpable facts, and with 
 its versatility, its strong tendency to concentration and the pro- 
 gressive growth of power accompanying accumulation, its position 
 appears decidedly stronger than that of land. To look at capital 
 as though it was at any labourer's disposal, whilst insisting upon 
 the monopolistic position of land, can only result in inadequate 
 conclusions. Any reform intended to strike at the root of the 
 insufficiency of the reward of labour must inevitably deal with all 
 kinds of property capable of aiding the possessor to claim a share 
 of wealth. 
 
 Apparently the corollary to land-nationalization should be 
 nationalization of capital. But it is evident, that, with land and 
 capital in the hands of the State, labour could only employ itself by 
 the permission of and on the opportunities assigned to it by the 
 State. The two measures combined are therefore applicable only 
 under a system of complete communism, which I do not wish to 
 advocate, whilst nationalization of capital alone, with land and 
 labour left to private disposition, is obviously impracticable.
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Regulation of maxiinuiii woiki)ig-ti)ne. 
 
 WE have now touched the roots of the insufficiency of the 
 reward of labour and accounted for the increasing accumu- 
 lation of wealth on one hand and the enhanced difficulty of earning 
 the necessaries of life on the other. We have traced the pheno- 
 mena of modern distress and general depression to their sources 
 and found, that they spring from the supplanting of human labour 
 by machinery, which forms part of material progress and which 
 increases the power of capital in the same proportion as it 
 diminishes that of labour. We have seen, that large capital enjoys 
 an enormous monopoly which it utilizes in anti-social, although 
 lawful, manner by speculation and by absorption of labour's reward. 
 We have recognised the fact, that with material progress the power 
 of capital grows at an increasing ratio, and the consequent hope- 
 lessness of an improvement under the present system. We have 
 also perceived, that the quick modern rate of progress creates a 
 state of things akin to over-production by the autocratic power 
 of property and the difficulty of gauging the possibilities of pro- 
 duction and consumption. We are now in a position to form 
 an opinion as to the nature of the required remedy. 
 
 The position of labour must be strengthened and that of pro- 
 perty correspondingly weakened, so as to give to the former a 
 better chance of obtaining a fair share of wealth, and to prevent the 
 latter from claiming all surplus wealth and restricting the share of 
 labour to the bare necessaries of life. This must be effected in 
 
 206
 
 REGULATION OF MAXIMUM WORKING-TIME. 207 
 
 such a manner, that the community obtains the full advantage 
 derivable from progress. Our task is not the impossible one to 
 stop the rate of progress, but to find some way of directing it so, 
 that the world may enjoy its benefits, whilst the drawbacks, which 
 in the present time are so conspicuous as to render its value alto- 
 gether doubtful, should be counteracted efficiently. 
 
 I propose as a remedy for the evils arising from material progress 
 a regulation of the maximum working-time in all branches of 
 industry where machinery is used, determined by the figures of 
 consumption, by the proportion between the labour and the 
 machinery employed, and varying according to the size of estab- 
 lishments. 
 
 A general uniform restriction of working time is being advocated 
 by men belonging to very difi"erent schools of thought. The 
 Social Democrats have accepted it as part of their programme, 
 and Liberal politicians like Lord Rosebery have alluded to its 
 necessity in public. In American politics the eight hours' working 
 day plays an important part. But such a general measure, em- 
 bracing all branches of labour and all establishments alike, would 
 not produce the desired effect. It would still leave the largest 
 employer the virtual ruler of the whole branch, it would not stop 
 the concentration and accumulation and, far from leading to a 
 more equal distribution of wealth, it would cause the dismissal of 
 labourers from those places, where they used to be employed for 
 longer hours than the new legal maximum. There is a glimmering 
 of the truth in the notion, but the matter is far too complicated to 
 be solved by such a simple measure. 
 
 As to the remedy proposed by myself, I am far from pretending 
 that it is simple. On the contrary it requires a great deal of 
 preparatory work at the outset and a constant watchfulness after- 
 wards. In fact the material necessary to afford a reasonable basis 
 to the scheme is so vast, that it can only be collected by the
 
 2o8 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 co-operation of every member of the community. The proper 
 proportion for every industrial concern can only be fixed, after the 
 State has accepted the principle and instructed a commission to 
 collect and compare evidence of all industrial and commercial facts. 
 It is therefore quite impossible for me or any other individual to 
 lay before the public a cut and dried scheme. All I can do and 
 propose to do is, to point out the principle and to prove, that and 
 how its application would provide a cure for the evils which we set 
 out to remedy. I believe, that reasonable men will not think worse, 
 but better of the idea for the reason, that it does not pretend to 
 solve the difficulties arising from most complex conditions and 
 causes by one stroke of the pen, but that it pre-supposes a 
 thorough consideration of all the facts concerned, that it applies 
 to different cases with varying strength according to the necessity, 
 and that it imposes a continuous care and watchfulness on the 
 community which it intends to benefit. 
 
 To make my meaning clear, I must reduce the proposition to 
 figures, but I state expressly, that these are taken quite at random 
 and do not pretend in any way to practical applicability. 
 
 Manual labour would remain unfettered. We will say, that a 
 factory employing thirty men and machinery of ten horse-powers 
 would be restricted to forty-eight hours per week. Then one of 
 the same branch working with thirty men and machinery of twenty 
 horse-powers would be assigned a somewhat shorter time, say forty- 
 four hours weekly. Establishments of the same branch employing 
 300 men and 100 horse-powers might be restricted to say forty-four 
 hours, and those working with 300 men and 200 horse-powers to 
 forty hours per week. Due allowance would be made for those 
 branches of industry which cannot be carried on at all by manual 
 labour without the application of machinery, and where the latter 
 cannot therefore be considered to compete with and to supplant 
 the former, as also for those, like agriculture, where advantage must
 
 DIFFICULTIES IN STARTING. 209 
 
 be taken of the whole time appropriate to the performance of 
 certain tasks. But these exceptions are not so important as they 
 appear. For the former case applies only to those things which have 
 for their purpose the application of machinery, like railways, steam- 
 ships and telegraphs, none of which can harm the community by 
 turning out more work than is required. As regards agriculture 
 and similar pursuits naturally dependent upon the seasons, the 
 maxinmm legal time could be greatly augmented by the employ- 
 ment of manual labour, and a special allowance might be made for 
 the time, when reaping-machines come into requisitioru 
 
 The limits would be set for a fixed time, say one or two years, 
 subject to alterations rendered necessary by peculiar occurrences 
 and developments, and during the time of operation the commis- 
 sioners or other officials appointed to the work would be bringing 
 their figures up to date and preparing the propositions to be 
 applied for the next period. I do not conceal the fact, that the 
 scheme would entail a great deal of work and care upon the 
 legislature or upon the body to which the task may be transferred, 
 but it would be work and care for a good and great purpose, 
 worthy of the time and labour of the best, not a waste of both, as 
 the party-warfare of Parliament is only too frequently now. 
 
 In the beginning the limitations would necessarily be of a some- 
 what tentative character. Wrong starts may be taken, some branches 
 of trade may be injured by a treatment unduly severe or unduly 
 lenient. At first we must be prepared for startling discrepancies. 
 It might be desirable to allow fifty or sixty hours' work to some 
 trades and to restrict others to thirty hours, but this would only 
 be a proof of the necessity of a measure of this description. These 
 large differences would be the result of the mis-adjustment of pro- 
 duction and consumption under the actual system, and the 
 responsibility for them would not lie with our scheme, but with the 
 old system, which permitted industry to run riot and to defeat its 
 
 P
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 own purposes. It stands to reason, that such large diflerences 
 would not be maintained. Even at present the different branches 
 are tending constantly to balance their rentability by the influx 
 of capital and labour into the more prosperous and the desertion 
 of the less profitable. This will be the case much more and 
 much quicker, when the regulation of working time supplies to 
 ever}body interested a measure of the degree of prosperity prevail- 
 ing in various branches. The reduction of working time to a figure 
 much below the average would mean, that this particular branch 
 was over-crowded, an extension of working hours much above the 
 average would be a palpable indication, that in this trade there was 
 scope for more capital and labour than were employed in it at 
 the time. After the system has been in operation for some time, 
 experience and familiarity with the facts and figures concerned will 
 help us to find the formula for determining by a mechanical method 
 the proper number of hours to be worked weekly by a certain 
 number of people under different conditions as to machinery 
 employed, in order to insure a certain amount of production, which 
 must in its turn be determined by the properly estimated prospects 
 of consumption. 
 
 A measure like that proposed will obviate the chief difficulties 
 in the way of a better distribution of wealth. It will provide for 
 the small capitalist and the mere labourer an opportunity of com- 
 peting with the largest establishments, it will prevent the depression 
 of values below the point where it becomes hurtful to the producer, 
 and it will help us to forni a clear idea as to what branches of 
 industry are capable of an extension, and which are doomed to 
 contraction. It is not a panacea, it will not bring about universal 
 plenty and content, but it will equalize the conditions of life's 
 contest to a great extent and will destroy the most glaring of the 
 inconsistencies from which we are suffering. It will make it 
 impossible, that the community should again be threatened with
 
 NO HINDRANCE TO PROGRESS. 
 
 disturbance and industrial ruin by the very growth of the facihty 
 of production, and th?.t the majority should be forced to give up 
 all but the strict necessaries to a minority. But at the same time 
 it will leave unchecked the tendency of lowering values of com- 
 modities which does not assert itself to the injury of the labour 
 of production. It will let prices go down as far as the progress of 
 the productive arts warrants, without depressing wages, thus really 
 securing the advantages of material progress to the community. 
 At present this is not the case. In many instances the cheapness 
 enjoyed by us is not warranted by actual progress, but caused 
 either by the feverish activity and want of intelligence of capital, "N^ 
 which has not yet learned to use its new powers in moderation, 
 or by the unfair use of the power of capital. Lovv-pricedness of 
 this sort does not really deserve the name of cheapness, although 
 for want of a better term we must call it so. In commercial and 
 industrial intercourse there exists a tacit understanding, that the 
 producer and distributer derives a profit from his production and 
 distribution sufficient to cover the ordinary cost of living. When 
 the prices accepted do not include such a profit — reckoned of 
 course upon the cost of production at the time of the sale — the 
 goods or services are obtained below their real value, or, if I may 
 say so, on false pretences. Stolen goods are not cheap, they are 
 simply stolen. A man should rob himself and his family as little 
 as he should rob another, and the .system which forces the small 
 man to immolate himself on the altar of large capital and gigantic 
 concerns, is an immoral one, the continued rule of which must lead 
 to destruction. This want of intelligence and of the feeling of 
 solidarity, which is showing its disastrous results on all hands, is 
 to be remedied by the measure proposed. As to its necessity we 
 need not indulge in any illusion. If the present system of absorp- 
 tion of labour and small capital by the largest enterprises in every 
 branch of industry is allowed to work its way unchecked, produc-
 
 212 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 tion will before long be concentrated to such an extent, that it must 
 be taken over by the State, for no state could possibly allow itself 
 to be at the mercy of a handful of capitalists who virtually owned 
 and ruled the whole population. We can see the process at work 
 on the Continent where the railways are gradually absorbed by 
 the State. It is natural, that the principle should be applied first 
 in cases like those of the railways and telegraphs, where the 
 monopoly is palpable, and competition of smaller establishments 
 evidently impossible, and in which the State has a special interest 
 for military reasons, but it is only a question of time, when large 
 capital will have arrived at the same impregnable and unassailable 
 position in many branches of labour which are yet nominally open 
 to the public. Ship-building, engineering, the manufacture of 
 cannon and other arms are not very far removed from such a con- 
 tingency already, and other industries which employ a great deal 
 of machinery will follow in their turn. It is not my intention 
 to investigate, whether the absorption of all industrial activity by 
 the State would create a satisfactory situation. This would be pure 
 communism, whereas my task is to show, how our social condition 
 can be improved and a modus vivendi arranged in preserving the 
 basis of private enterprise and private property. To reach this 
 aim I cannot see any way short of the measure proposed, which will 
 tend to decentralize production by making competition with the 
 largest establishments possible to the man of limited means and by 
 giving a fair share of wealth to the labourer. 
 
 For this purpose it is necessary to handicap the large establish- 
 ments as proposed by me. They will be forced thereby to keep 
 their production in the same bounds as smaller competitors and 
 prevented from making additional profits by the mere magnitude 
 of their enterprise, or from crushing the smaller concerns by 
 sheer weight of capital. There is absolutely no reason, why a 
 man should gain more per cent, on the capital invested, because
 
 GRADUATION ACCORDING TO SIZE. 213 
 
 he is able to invest more than another. The immoderate con- 
 centration of capital is not a service rendered to the community 
 in any sense and does not carry a claim to a special reward. 
 It is not a proof or sign of exceptional ability, to which we are 
 willing to concede a title to exceptional wages, when exercised 
 in the interest or for the benefit of the community. Rut, it is 
 said, in many cases the largest concerns do not make extra- 
 ordinary profits, they only lower the prices of their articles, and the 
 community receives the benefit. But the cheapness engendered 
 by mere concentration is either temporary and caused by the desire 
 of the big man to crush his smaller competitors and recoup him- 
 self afterwards by unduly high prices, in which case it results in 
 the absolute ruin of the competitors, or, if permanent, it forces the 
 latter to accept an unduly small reward, so that one part of 
 the population loses what the whole consuming community gains. 
 A very striking instance of this kind of thing is afforded by the 
 action of the American cable companies. After four of them, 
 working together, had maintained the high rate of 2s. 6d. per 
 word, they were forced by a new competitor to reduce it 
 to the presumably reasonable rate of i.y. 8^. Now, in order to 
 compel this fifth to unite with them for the purpose of re- 
 introducing the former rate, they reduce the price to the avowedly 
 unremunerative rate of 6d. per word. Where is the legitimate 
 gain from cheapness in this case .-* Not on the side of the public, 
 which is only to be allured to lend a hand in the crushing of the 
 competition and which will be forced to submit to unduly high 
 charges as soon as this purpose has been fulfilled. It is very 
 clear, that such cheapness is not pro bono publico. We have 
 already considered this subject and recognised, that cheapness is 
 only a boon, when it does not imply a reduction of wages. We 
 shall therefore not be frightened by the possibility, that in con- 
 sequence of our proposed measure prices may not fall so quickly
 
 214 . SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 as they might under the ruling system, knowing, that the advan- 
 tages of this sort of cheapness are merely apparent. As to the 
 claims of ability, of inventiveness, of intelligent diligence, they will 
 be safeguarded under our scheme in a much more complete manner 
 than they are at present. Whoever discovers an improvement and 
 secures its use by a patent, will be able to earn for himself the 
 whole gains derivable from it, until the patent lapses. He will 
 not be forced to offer it to the biggest establishment in his branch, 
 by the fear of not being able to compete with superior capital 
 even with the aid of a superior method of production. 
 
 Similar considerations apply to the graduation of working time 
 in proportion to the machinery employed. For the man working 
 with his hands, his brains and ordinary tools, every hour of extra 
 work represents an additional exertion, the proof of exceptional 
 diligence, for which he may fairly claim an additional reward. 
 There is no danger of the market being swamped by the products 
 of purely manual labour, for the artisan has generally a very fair 
 notion of the quantity of work for which he will find buyers, nor 
 can he afford the risk of working up material into an unsaleable 
 shape. Most of this class of work is done to order, the stocks are 
 mostly only just adequate to the regular urgent demand. That the 
 situation is different where industry is carried on by machinery, 
 is too evident to require a special argument. The product of 
 machine labour is not better, in most cases it is worse than that of 
 hand labour, it is intrinsically less valuable, as it lacks the imprint 
 of the individual skill of the workman and the personal taste of the 
 consumer. Even in our time, which accepts machine work readily 
 enough, a marked difference is made between the products of 
 purely manual labour and those of the machine, and the complaint, 
 that quality is being sacrificed to cheapness to the lasting injury 
 of individual development, is heard frequently not only from 
 artists and aesthetes, but also from men who consider the producer
 
 GRADUATION ACCORDING TO MACHINERY EMPLOYED 215 
 
 more than the product. Yet by force of cheapness the artisan is 
 rendered unable to compete with machine work and reduced to 
 the position of a machine-minder. It is only fair to improve his 
 prospects by putting such restrictions on the competing machine, 
 that the value of the produce is not reduced below^ the point, where 
 the work affords reasonable wages. The increased cheapness due 
 to the introduction of machinery shall and will benefit the com- 
 munity to the full. The manufacturers will lower their prices, every 
 time when a new improvement has become public property, to the 
 whole extent warranted by the increased ease of production and 
 the consequent increase of consumption, which will be taken into 
 account in the limitation of the working time. But that part of the 
 fall of prices which is under the ruling system the disastrous result 
 of the misproportion between production and consumption will 
 be withheld, to the clear benefit of every one concerned. The 
 community has no claim to it and derives no advantage from it. 
 It is neither just nor reasonable, that a minority should starve 
 in order to supply the majority with cloth and boots or any other 
 article of consumption at a somewhat lower rate. The proposed 
 regulation of working time in proportion to the machinery em- 
 ployed in production will prevent this and supply to industry a 
 secure basis, which it lacks at present. 
 
 Some of the striking results of this would be a return to 
 hand-labour in those branches of industry where it can produce 
 something better than the machine and where it has been super- 
 seded by cheapness alone, and a stoppage of the growth of 
 industrial establishments in those industries where smaller con- 
 cerns can accomplish the same work. 
 
 The return to manual labour could take place naturally only 
 in the minor branches of industry, more particularly in those 
 which offer a large scope to the exercise of taste and skill. It 
 could not apply to the staple productions without interfering most
 
 2r6 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 seriously with the output and perhaps causing an actual scarcity, 
 which would force us very soon to revert again to machinery. 
 We cannot revive the old-fashioned methods of producing iron 
 and steel, or entrust to the spinning-wheel and similar primitive 
 contrivances the task of producing all the clothing material re- 
 quired. This would necessitate a restricted consumption and a 
 lowering of the standard of comfort for which there is absolutely 
 no call. But besides the cheap products of machine work a higher 
 class of goods may be produced by artisans of ability and proper 
 training in many fields of industry and to a much larger extent 
 than is the case now. There are thousands of articles on which 
 manual labour confers an intrinsic worth very superior to that 
 of machine-work. This appears most clearly in the case of artistic 
 production properly so-called, as in the difference between an 
 oil-painting and a chromo-lithograph. The performance itself is 
 an element of value, very important in the one case, and in the 
 other almost nil. In a smaller degree these differences prevail 
 in very many branches. A watch made by hand and to order, 
 jewellery and metal work wrought by human hands all through, 
 are essentially different things from the same articles turned out 
 wholesale by machinery. Even in sewing, knitting, and other 
 similar occupations a decided preference is accorded to hand-work, 
 and there are probably iew people able to afford the higher price, 
 who do not order their boots and clothes in preference to buying 
 them ready-made. When the improper and illegitimate cheap- 
 ness of many machine-made commodities has been prevented, 
 manual labour will receive an enormous impetus, and a great 
 amount of labour will be directed to individual independent pro- 
 duction. It is therefore probable, that the comparative value of 
 hand-made things will not be unduly high, and that under the 
 rule of a system, which provides against unnecessary distress, 
 they will be within the reach of more people than can afford to
 
 RETURN TO HAND-LABOUR WHERE DESIRABLE. 217 
 
 pay for them at present. On the other hand it is possible, tliat 
 some machine-made things, which are obtainable now by people 
 of very restricted means in consequence of their undue cheapness, 
 will be put out of their reach temporarily. But this drawback 
 is fully compensated by the increased reward of the labour em- 
 ployed in the production of these things, and besides the rate of 
 progress is so quick, that a growing demand is almost sure to 
 lead to the discovery of means for satisfying it. Our trouble is, 
 that the efficient demand does not keep pace with the supply, 
 and that the discrepancy tends to become wider from year to year. 
 As far as we can foresee, there is no reason to fear, that the former 
 will permanently outstrip the latter in any field of industry. 
 
 It must be admitted, that even at present exertions are made 
 to stimulate the demand for individual workmanship, but, as things 
 are, they can only appeal to the well-to-do classes. With the 
 majority of the population in receipt of wages which cover only 
 the strict necessaries, and with a large number out of employment 
 altogether, only the comparatively wealthy have the choice be- 
 tween objects of different prices and equal utility. The majority 
 must be satisfied with the cheapest thing obtainable or go without 
 it, if it cannot be got sufficiently cheaply. Whatever education 
 and public opinion may do for the popular taste, the people lack 
 the means for its gratification, and a movement in favour of 
 hand labour, unaccompanied by some radical change in the 
 position of labour generally, can therefore have only very limited 
 results. Under the new system it will be a natural and almost 
 a necessary development and assert itself with a power very 
 different from that of the present sporadic efforts of a small 
 number of artists and amateurs. These efforts must not be 
 confounded with the endeavour to introduce a sense of beauty 
 into the every-day life of the masses. The former apply to the 
 few, the latter to the many. The former are exclusive by their
 
 2i8 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 very nature, creating a desire for the enjoyment and possession 
 of exceptional objects of production, the latter are broadly demo- 
 cratic, trying to make every one, down to the humblest member 
 of the community, take a pleasure in everything beautiful, however 
 produced. It will last some time before culture has taken such 
 a hold of common labourers, that they can enjoy art for art's 
 sake, but I expect from the proposed scheme together with the 
 spread of education a quickening of the pace and the opening of 
 a source of pure and healthy pleasure, which will counteract the 
 vicious tendencies of the crowded modern way of life. 
 
 An idea somewhat akin to that treated here is contained in 
 a suggestion of Mr. Ruskin, that nothing should be made of iron 
 which can be made as well of wood or stone. But it seems 
 impossible to effect such a change of ordinary habits by any 
 means but the necessarily slow growth of public taste and con- 
 viction, and besides it would not lead us far enough, unless we 
 allowed it to lead us too far. I mean, that either the demand 
 for objects of wood and stone would increase to such an extent, 
 as to force us to introduce the present system of wholesale pro- 
 duction into these industries or to revert to iron again for ordinary 
 uses, or that we should have to leave many of our wants un- 
 satisfied through maintaining the strict preference for wood and 
 stone. But, when we are suffering from an undigested overgrowth 
 of the possibilities of production, I shall require very cogent 
 proof to convince me, that the remedy lies in restriction of ordinary 
 consumption. This idea is the outcome of a desperate desire to 
 get rid at all costs of the capabilities gained by material progress, 
 after having found, that instead of the expected blessings they 
 have brought to mankind new troubles, intensified distress and 
 growing discontent, I do not intend to sacrifice the advantages 
 of progress. Under my scheme some change of the character 
 suggested will effect itself without any strained effort by the
 
 UNDUE CONCENTRATION OF INDUSTRY STOPPED. 219 
 
 simple fact, that wood and stone will again be able to compete 
 with iron for those purposes for which they are specially appro- 
 priate, and that more people will be able to indulge a refined 
 taste to some extent. 
 
 As regards another result of the proposed measure, namely, 
 that it will prevent the absorption of smaller industrial enterprises 
 by the largest and the concentration of industry and trade in 
 comparatively {^w hands, I suppose, that it will be accepted as 
 an advantage by nearly every observer. We have already glanced 
 at the consequences to which the tendency to centralization must 
 lead the world before long, if left free to assert its full power. 
 But there will be no lack of profitable employment for large 
 capital either, for the handicap of shorter working-time will be 
 applied to large capital to such an extent only, that it can earn 
 profits at the same rate as smaller capital. Only the opportunity 
 of obtaining a reward at a higher rate or by anti-social means 
 will be taken from it. There will therefore be no reason, why 
 establishments which yield a reasonable profit on the basis of fair 
 wages should not be extended, when an increased demand renders 
 an extension desirable. But our measure will put a stop to the 
 arbitrary extension of industrial enterprises without regard to the 
 probabilities of consumption, and will render the large capitalist 
 powerless to make his mistaken ventures pay by crushing his 
 smaller competitors. This will be a great material gain to the 
 community, but equally important will be the moral advantage. 
 Instead of a handful of autocrats, kept in bounds only by a weak 
 and vacillating public opinion upon which they exert themselves 
 the strongest influence, and a population used and forced to 
 cringe to them by reason of its dependence upon them for their 
 daily bread, we shall have a largely increased number of working 
 capitalists, who will be forced to regulate their activity in con- 
 formity with the public interest, and a population of independent
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 labourers with well-guarded rights, able .to find scops for an/ 
 capacity they may possess. This moral change alone would be 
 worth all the trouble connected with the working out of the 
 scheme, and it is not going too far to assert, that it can be 
 deprecated only by those who value wealth in itself higher than 
 human happiness and moral elevation. 
 
 It is not intended to fix the minimum rate of wages ; fluctuations 
 of value and the various combinations peculiar to industry and 
 trade will occur under the altered system and must be allowed 
 to work their effects upon the capital and labour employed. But 
 under normal circumstances the employer will not be under the 
 necessity of reducing his labourers' wages below a fair level, 
 because he will not have to combat the competition of men 
 working with undue advantages. If he keeps up with the progress 
 of his times and uses normal discretion and diligence, he need 
 not fear being crushed by some one else who brings to the contest 
 no more valuable qualities, but only a greater weight of capital, 
 he will be able to earn fair wages for himself and to reward his 
 labourers at a reasonable rate. If he possesses exceptional ability, 
 he will secure an exceptional reward, which he may keep entirely 
 or share with his workmen. If his abilities are below par, he 
 will have to be satisfied with less than the average profit, and 
 possibly his labourers will suffer with hin^, until they find employ- 
 ment with some one who understands to make a better use of 
 their labour. Under such conditions it may be fairly assumed, 
 that labour will be able to take care of itself and that it will not 
 permit an unscrupulous employer to reduce wages unnecessarily 
 in order to swell his own share of the profit. For this we shall 
 have to depend greatly upon public opinion, but that opinion will 
 then have facts to go upon and be something very dififerent from 
 the nerveless, half-blind thing which does duty instead under the 
 present system. The working-time being regulated on the basis
 
 WAGES REGULATING THEMSELVES REASONABLY. 221 
 
 of reasonable calculations and liable to re-adjustments which may 
 be required by altered circumstances, the basis will be known 
 to and maintained by the whole population. Elementary occur- 
 rences and incalculable influences will have to be accepted by 
 employers and employed alike, but mere greed will not enable 
 one part to enrich itself by appropriating a share of the reward 
 due to the other. An official appointment of a minimum rate of 
 wages will therefore not be required. 
 
 Neither will it be necessary to limit in any way the number 
 of establishments 'maintained for every branch of production. It 
 is not intended to eliminate the element of reasonable risk from 
 industrial enterprise, but only to offer a fair field and no favour 
 to any one who wishes to embark upon it. The conditions of 
 industry will be much better known than they can be at present, 
 and a mistake in the choice of the branch will be less probable 
 and not more disastrous than it is now. If there should happen 
 such an influx of capital and labour into one special branch as 
 to alter the relations between production and consumption to a 
 perceptible extent, so that prices threaten to become unremune- 
 rative, the regulation referring to this branch will be overhauled, 
 and at the next revision its working-time will be restricted with 
 the result, that the article produced will become more expensive, 
 and the least skilful employers will be forced to transfer their acti- 
 vity to other objects. Should the improvement of the methods 
 of production or the growth of capital lead to an apparent over- 
 production all round, the result would be a general shortening 
 of working-time. The community would then reap the fruits of 
 progress in an increased leisure which would soon provoke new 
 wants, the satisfaction of which will again require an increased 
 activity. 
 
 How much better such a state of things would be than that 
 prevailing at present, need hardly be pointed out. From the slave
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 of industry, nourished by the crumbs from its table, the community 
 would become its master, utilizing its resources in its own well- 
 understood interest and to that extent, where it is best served. 
 Progress is like fire, invaluable in itself, but beneficent only if 
 mastered and kept under control. At present we let it burn our 
 fingers and endanger the whole social structure, with the aid of 
 the proposed scheme we shall utilize it to warm us and to cook 
 our food and we shall keep the extinguisher ready at hand to 
 cope with its possible excesses. 
 
 One incidental advantage, on which I put much value, would be 
 the increased steadiness of values and the early recognition and 
 redress of the shiftings brought about by natural alterations of 
 conditions. There will be no reduction of wages or loss of employ- 
 ment on a large scale caused by the necessity of selling at unre- 
 munerative prices, and the balance of wages and prices, the value 
 of labour and wealth, will not be subject to frequent unnecessary 
 fluctuations as it is at present. I have already had occasion to 
 explain, that this is a gain to everybody except professional specu- 
 lators, and I do not hesitate to utterly neglect the special interests 
 of the last-named class. 
 
 It is unavoidable, that a factory working six hours daily should 
 obtain the common labour at lower wages per day than one which 
 exacts eight hours of work, and this point will have to be taken 
 into account in the regulation of working-time, so that its influence 
 upon the relation between establishments of different sizes and 
 different branches may be obviated. As working-time will be 
 shortest in branches tending to depression in consequence of the 
 difficulty of disposing of the production, and longest in those, 
 where there is no apprehension of an over-supply and a want of 
 employment, it will be in accordance with the fitness of things, 
 if wages rule lower in the former, until a more favourable propor- 
 tion between supply and demand has been restored. As to the
 
 INCREASED STEADlhESS OF VALUES. 
 
 large establishments which will have shorter working-time than 
 smaller concerns of the same branch, they will naturally have the 
 pick of labourers at equal wages, but according to experience we 
 are justified in expecting, that a very slight difference in the rate 
 of wages will turn the scales in favour of the smaller factories. As 
 a rule labourers compete much more eagerly for high wages than 
 for short hours of labour, provided of course that the latter are not 
 unreasonable in either case. A uniform rate of remuneration is 
 neither desired nor intended. It is an advantage to labour itself 
 to find scope for the man who wishes to work hard at his daily 
 task, and the other who is satisfied with a somewhat smaller wage 
 on condition of keeping a greater part of his time for his own use. 
 Many workmen could earn a good deal by independent manual 
 work, if their regular task occupied them only six hours daily and 
 will therefore be glad to accept lower wages for less time, whereas 
 others, who have neither the skill nor the energy for single-handed 
 exertion, will be as glad to give a larger share of their time for 
 a higher remuneration. We need not apprehend any serious diffi- 
 culty on this point, for, whatever discrepancies may appear under 
 a system of regulated working-time, will be as nothing compared 
 with those which exist at present, when even amongst labourers 
 of the same degree of skill the working-time varies in the most 
 striking manner without any corresponding compensation in wages. 
 Although applying directly only to those branches of activity 
 where machinery is employed, the regulation of working-time 
 would exercise an influence upon the position of every struggler. 
 It is not intended for instance to interfere with commercial pur- 
 suits, because they do not carry in themselves the danger of an 
 over-production leaving tangible results — like the activity of the 
 manufacturer. Yet, even with perfect liberty to devote to his 
 work as many hours per day as he likes, and to employ his clerks 
 as long as he can prevail upon them to stay at their desks, the
 
 224 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 merchant or shop-keeper will not be able to exact on the average 
 a longer working day from his clerks and other servants than what 
 they would be forced to give for equal wages at other occupations. 
 If he has sufficient business to keep his people employed during 
 an exceptionally long time daily, he will be obliged to compensate 
 them by an increased rate of wages. It is chiefly the helpless 
 position of labour in general which causes shopmen and others 
 at present to toil twelve or fourteen hours a day in return for 
 scanty pay. When labour enjoys the blessing of a fair field and 
 ceases to be at the mercy of the blunders and caprices of capital, 
 a lad of ordinary ability will not be forced to deliver himself bound 
 hand and foot into the hands of any shopkeeper who holds out 
 to him the prospect of a crust of bread. For ordinary wages the 
 employer will obtain no more than ordinary working time, unless 
 he employs people of less than average ability whose services will 
 naturally be obtainable at lower wages or for longer hours. 
 
 Thus no branch of labour will remain entirely untouched by our 
 measure. But, considering the large proportion of the population 
 employed in industry, the measure would be amply justified, if it 
 brought relief to this part only and thereby created at least a basis 
 for labour. It cannot offer a guaranty of employment to all those 
 who have not found it under the old system, but it strikes a heavy 
 blow at the conditions which are the chief causes of the want of 
 employment or — to use the more comprehensive term — of the 
 insufficient reward of labour, and may therefore be trusted to pro- 
 duce a better state of things before long. 
 
 For the introduction and maintenance of the new system we 
 must look to the State. An all-embracing combination ot 
 labourers might carry it through, but I have pointed out already 
 the almost insuperable difficulties in the way of such a combina- 
 tion. The cordial co-operation of the majority of capitalists is not 
 to be reckoned upon at once, all the less because the most power-
 
 THE NATIONS FIRST DUTY. 
 
 ful will be the losers by the change of system, besides, the task is 
 almost too heavy, the mass of details, of facts and experiences to 
 be dealt with too vast, to be mastered by any body short of the 
 whole community or its legitimate and well-chosen representatives. 
 But the essence of the measure is not State-guaranty or State-help, 
 which we only utilize for want of a better machinery for its intro- 
 duction. In a more enlightened state of society the same result 
 might be obtained by the same means without the interference of 
 the State, and I have no doubt, that, fostered by reasonable legis- 
 lation, the spirit of solidarity in the ordinary individual will in time 
 grow to such a height, that State-regulation may be dispensed 
 with again and the resources of the State utilized only for the col- 
 lection of the necessary information. The means for obtaining 
 the required legislation the people hold in their own hands. They 
 must elect to Parliament men devoted to the true interests of the 
 nation, of an intellect clear enough to take in the position of 
 different classes and its bearings upon the whole, and imbued 
 with a sense of duty and solidarity, which enables them to carry 
 out ideas recognised as necessary for the well-being of the com- 
 munity irrespectively of their consequences upon powerful indi- 
 viduals and interests. But first of all the people must form a clear 
 and true notion of the ills of which they are suffering and of the 
 possible remedies, and they must make up their minds to have the 
 latter applied. They must not allow themselves to be led away 
 upon side-issues. They must understand and make it plain and 
 unmistakeable to those who wish to represent them, that the time 
 has come for grappling earnestly and strenuously with the great 
 social problem of the insufficiency of the reward of labour, and 
 that beside this all merely political issues — in so far as they are 
 not of the most immediate urgency — shrink into insignificance for 
 the time. It must become a matter of general acceptance, that the 
 future of each country as a nation and as an aggregation of indi- 
 
 Q
 
 226 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 viduals depends much more upon its social progress than upon any- 
 temporary triumph in war or diplomacy, and that the ultimate 
 leadership — in reality, if not in form also — will fall to the share of 
 that nation, which has understood or will understand to put the 
 social relations of its citizens upon the most satisfactory and most 
 enduring footing. 
 
 This is not a merely theoretical conclusion derived from the 
 .contemplation of individual misery and widespread discontent. 
 Whoever can see in history anything besides its battles and its 
 pageants, must have observed, that the germs of the decline and 
 fall of empires were always contained in social misadjustments, 
 which sapped their strength and rendered them finally incapable to 
 resist a foreign aggression, which in their healthy time they would 
 have shaken off without any lasting injury to themselves. The 
 blow comes from the outside, but the rottenness is within. Before 
 falling to the foreigner, the empires of the world were divided in 
 themselves, and these divisions are always traceable to the discon- 
 tent of a large class of the population, which saw its interests 
 hopelessly opposed to those of a powerful minority. The discon- 
 tent did not always result in violent rebellion or in civil war, but, 
 whenever it remained dumb, its effects were not less injurious to 
 the community. A hopeless man is a helpless man, and what is 
 true of individuals in this respect, is doubly true when applied to 
 nations. It is therefore of the highest national importance to 
 create a social state which affords a fair hope to every citizen, and, 
 looked at under this point of view, the proposed measure can claim 
 consideration on behalf of its probable effect upon the stabihty 
 and strength of the nation which will introduce it. 
 
 And let it not be said, that this view is merely the outcome of 
 a strong democratic sentiment on my part. There is testimony 
 borne to it by men whom no one will suspect of democratic lean- 
 ings. The powerful statesman who directs the affairs of Germany
 
 AN HISTORICAL ASPECT OF THE CASE. 227 
 
 is straining every nerve in the possibly uncongenial effort to find 
 ways and means of improving the position of labour. It is true, 
 that in my opinion his efforts are misdirected and most of the 
 means advocated by him either inefficient or injurious, but I ac- 
 knowledge gratefully the fact, that he has at least recognised the 
 necessity of exertions in this direction, and* I admire the sagacity 
 which has led him to the perception in spite of a long and success- 
 ful activity in the field of diplomacy and of an unmistakeable 
 predilection for autocratic and oligarchic institutions. 
 
 By promoting healthy social legislation the community is doing 
 more for itself, even in a national sense, than by snatching some 
 piece of ground in far away countries from another nation or by 
 securing a triumph of diplomacy in keeping some one else out of a 
 possession for which it has no proper use itself. To put and keep 
 its own house in order, is its first and most urgent duty. A great 
 and united people composed of hopeful and prosperous men has 
 nothing to fear from any other nation. It is a great and worthy 
 task to secure to the population those characteristics of hopefulness 
 and prosperity, which it stands in no little danger of losing under 
 the present unrestricted rule of large property.
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 The future of international trade and of agriculture. 
 
 " I ''HAT our measure will possibly diminish the aggregate pro- 
 -*- duction and the figures of export and import, must be 
 admitted. I have already stated my conviction and my reasons for 
 believing, that neither an unbounded production, nor an extension 
 of international trade can afford a remedy for the evils from which 
 we are suffering. I should therefore not consider a decrease of pro- 
 duction as a calamity, as long as enough was produced to satisfy 
 the reasonable wants of the community and as the wealth was 
 fairly distributed amongst the producers. But as under any cir- 
 cumstances, we shall be forced to import many things for which 
 we must pay by exports, it seems desirable to devote some atten- 
 tion to the probable development of international trade in order 
 to show, that the regulation of working time need and will not 
 interfere with its natural movements. 
 
 If it was intended to apply the same limitation to all branches of 
 industry, we need not expect any change in imports and exports. 
 International trade depends, as we have already stated, upon 
 relative cost ot production, which would not be affected by any 
 increase applying to all branches equally. The case is not quite 
 so simple, because it is proposed to treat the various industries 
 differently, according to the proportion of machine power and 
 human labour employed therein and to the particular position of 
 each branch. Those commodities which are most pressed for sale 
 at present and which are tending to fall, will be steadied and in-
 
 THE DESIRABLE IMPORTS WILL CONTINUE. 229 
 
 creased in value, whereas others, commanding reasonable or high 
 profits at present, may be lowered in value by the proposed regula- 
 tion. It is therefore likely, that the exportation of some articles, 
 which are being exported at present, will become impossible. 
 In fact, if the regulation is to be successful, this must take place in 
 some cases, for it is exactly the unprofitable production — whether 
 for home or for foreign markets — with which the measure is in- 
 tended to cope. If we grasp the fact, that, what is called the 
 profit, is frequently only a share of the reward of labour appro- 
 priated by the capitalist or the mere speculator, and remember, that 
 commercial intercourse between nations is only desirable, when it 
 benefits the nations concerned, but that there is not the slightest 
 reason to foster an international trade calculated merely to increase 
 the share of wealth obtained by one small class at the expense of 
 the majority, we see clearly enough, that in giving up some part 
 of our export trade we may benefit ourselves considerably. 
 Where there was a really profitable export trade before, our 
 measure would fix the working time so, that production could be 
 fully maintained. A considerable restriction would only take 
 place in those cases, where trade does not afford reasonable wages 
 at present, and where the results of international trade are wholly 
 injurious. It is one of the chief points in favour of the regulation 
 of working time, that it would furnish us the means of recognising 
 promptly, which commodities we are fit to produce for ourselves, 
 which we can export, and which we do better to import from 
 foreign countries. 
 
 Unless we are prepared to give up a great part of our comfort 
 and our civilization, we are forced to import a great number of 
 commodities which for climatic or other natural causes cannot be 
 produced in England. Looking at the enormous figures of our 
 imports, we must of course take into account, that a very large pro- 
 portion of the imported, commodities is merely warehoused here
 
 230 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 for transportation to other countries, and yet a larger proportion 
 brought here to be worked up into other shapes for exportation. 
 All this would not be imported, unless there was the prospect or 
 at least, the intention of exportation. Still, after all these deduc- 
 tions, an enormous amount of foreign commodities remains for 
 consumption here, which I for one should not like to see curtailed, 
 as I hold, that the nation has a right to raise its demands and to 
 increase its consutnption in proportion with the growing ease of 
 production and distribution. If the choice lay between the two 
 evils, I should indeed prefer, that we gave up some of the imported 
 articles of luxury, than to import them and pay for them through 
 starving part of our population by scanty employment and in- 
 sufficient wages, but I believe, that the proposed measure will 
 result in an increased prosperity, which will raise the consumption 
 of many things like tea, coffee, wine, tobacco, foreign fruits, silk, 
 and cotton. All these imports will then as now have to be met by 
 exports or by services rendered to other countries. 
 
 To me it does not seem to admit of any doubt, that England 
 will always be able to produce with ease as much and more than is 
 wanted to pay for her imports, provided of course, that her supplies 
 of coal and iron are not exhausted. If the farmer or peasant in 
 Canada and other comparatively uncultivated parts of the earth 
 can obtain a competency by applying himself to the production 
 of wheat, if Australia and California can grow prosperous by the 
 exportation of wool and other primary products, it can hardly 
 be doubted, that England, with all resources of the highest 
 material civilization at her command, must be able to create as 
 much wealth as she requires for the comfortable maintenance of 
 her inhabitants. Being a thickly populated country, she cannot 
 allow every individual the same area as the sparsely populated 
 countries mentioned above, but she can employ her citizens in 
 such a manner, that a large area is not* a necessity. A factory
 
 UNPROFITABLE TRADE WILL CEASE. 231 
 
 covering a fraction of an acre produces as much wealth by the 
 shaping and handling of primary products as many thousand acres 
 of land devoted to pasture or the cultivation of wheat. The value 
 of the work performed within the few square miles covered by 
 Birmingham, Manchester, and other centres of industry equals the 
 results of the production spread over territories of many hundreds 
 of square miles in the agricultural parts of Canada and other 
 similarly situated countries. There is plenty of room in the United 
 Kingdom for many more industrial towns — if such are required, 
 and no reason whatever for uneasiness with regard to the possibility 
 of accommodating millions more of working citizens. In her 
 natural wealth of coal and iron England possesses already the 
 means of providing for her necessities and besides, her unique 
 position as the chief money market of the world and as far away 
 the greatest carrier would afone suffice to secure to her a remunera- 
 tive activity important enough to earn for her the means of paying 
 for the imports required for the comfort of her inhabitants. The 
 proposed measure, in curtailing exports and imports, will quicken 
 the necessary process, which under all the bustle and strain of our 
 times is going on steadily, of reducing the imports to the require- 
 ments of the importer, and the exports to those commodities for 
 the production of which the exporter possesses exceptional 
 facilities and opportunities. There is really no necessity why, 
 with a fearful amount of labour unemployed at home, and in the 
 possession of all the skill and knowledge required for their pro- 
 duction, England should import thousands of articles of ordinary 
 consumption from foreign countries, to which she has little to give 
 in exchange, and which are quite capable of competing with her 
 in neutral markets. Under all the disguises and complications of 
 international commerce the great fact, that only by a relatively 
 lower cost of production a commodity is rendered fit for exporta- 
 tion, becomes more and more apparent, as the glamour of novelty
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 wears off the intercourse between different nations. We can send 
 almost any manufactured article to Zanzibar in exchange for ivory, 
 which is obtained there with comparatively little labour, whereas 
 it could be raised here only with an immense expenditure of labour 
 and capital, if at all. We have no trouble in paying for the wines, 
 the oranges, the pine-apples which southern countries can afford to 
 supply us with at less than a tithe of the price which it would cost 
 to grow them here. But when it comes to paying for German 
 cutlery or American' watches or French eggs and fruit, things 
 which can be produced here with the same advantage as in any 
 other country, then the difficulties begin. There are no sufficient 
 differences in the cost of production of other things between 
 England and other highly civilized countries to enable us to 
 supply them with our products at a profit, and the consequence is, 
 that, being forced to pay, we supply them at a loss which is borne 
 by labour, as explained previously. Such a trade is not the result 
 of the proper conditions of international exchange, but only a 
 consequence of the forced rate of production prevailing in our 
 times. The comprehensiveness and complication of international 
 relations makes it appear frequently, as though a profit should 
 be derived from the mere turning over of commodities between 
 different nations. It is hardly necessary to say, that the mere 
 process of buying and selling does not confer an enhanced value 
 upon anything, and that any profit obtained thereby can be 
 nothing but a share of the reward due to some labourer or a 
 tax upon the consumer. 
 
 This kind of international trade, it is earnestly to be hoped, will 
 cease together with the unnatural straining of production. We 
 shall find out much sooner than we can under the present system, 
 what things we can export and for what other articles we had 
 better restrict our production to the home demand. An incalcul- 
 able amount of power, which is wasted upon impossible tasks now,
 
 ENGLAND'S POSITION WILL THEN BE SAFE. 233 
 
 will be saved and directed to more reasonable purposes. By the 
 same process the swamping of the English markets with manu- 
 factured goods of foreign origin will be prevented, and each 
 country will learn again to provide for its own consumption first, 
 a lesson of which all stand in great need. In most branches of 
 trade it is quite customary, even in free-trade England, to fix 
 lower prices for export than for home consumption, which means 
 taxing the country in order to maintain an export trade and is 
 tantamount in its consequences — although in an informal way — to 
 a protective tariff. 
 
 It is clear, that England has nothing to fear from a contraction 
 of international exchanges and to gain very much by sifting her 
 relations. With her natural and acquired advantages her pro- 
 spects are brighter than those of any other civilized nation, if she 
 only uses her strength in the right direction and does not squander 
 her opportunities; for a time she will even yet have an exceptional 
 resource in her colonial possessions, but, as I am firmly convinced, 
 that even without this extraneous aid she would be quite equal to 
 the task of providing for herself fully and comfortably, and as I 
 base my system upon general, not upon political grounds, I do not 
 wish to lay much stress upon this point in this place. She will 
 be forced to drop that part of her trade, home or international, 
 which is only a vehicle for speculation and which results in build- 
 ing up colossal fortunes and in the depression of labour, but she 
 will retain and strengthen that trade, which fulfils the function of 
 supplying the wants or of facilitating the supply, without disturbing 
 the condition of the community. All that the boasted develop- 
 ment of trade has led to, is the absorption and accumulation of the 
 surplus of production by a small minority. I do not believe in 
 the saving economic virtue of great accumulations. Economists 
 maintain, that it is an advantage to have people unable to spend 
 their whole income, but even if this was conceded, it is yet open
 
 234 SOCIAL Development. 
 
 to doubt, whether it is desirable to allow or promote accumulation 
 without any limit. It may be better of course, that the surplus 
 should be saved by the capitalist than that it should be destroyed, 
 but as long as there exist unsatisfied and humanly reasonable 
 wants, as long as glaring inequalities rule the material conditions 
 of different human beings, I shall always consider it better to 
 apply the surplus to the alleviation of these wants or to afford to 
 tens of thousands the opportunity of saving a small sum towards 
 old age, than to let it be appropriated by a handful of individuals. 
 The chief difficulty connected with international trade, which 
 oppresses England, together with other European countries very 
 heavily at the present moment, is one which cannot be entirely 
 obviated by oar measure, namely her inability to compete in 
 the production of wheat with foreign parts like Canada, India, 
 America, Russia. That these countries must produce wheat for 
 export is evident, their cost of production of the article being so 
 low in comparison to most manufactured commodities. The actual 
 conditions of wheat production are of such a kind, that not only 
 all the advantages of progress like division of labour, machinery 
 etc., can be utilized in those parts fully as well as in Europe, but 
 that the extensibility of the area of operations, which is impossible , 
 in thickly populated Europe, gives the Canadian producer for 
 instance an actual advantage over his European competitor. By 
 means of the telegraph and telephone the difficulties of manage- 
 ment have been overcome, and farms of many square miles in 
 extent are handled as easily and much more economically than 
 ten or twenty acre farms in this country. The saving in the ex- 
 penses of management by their distribution over *a much larger 
 quantity is more than sufficient to make up for the difference of 
 freight and the comparative distance of the Canadian from the 
 best rharkets of the world. Under such circumstances it is very 
 likely, that more wheat is produced than is justified by a reason-
 
 WHEAT-GROWING UNPROFITABLE IN ENGLAND. 235 
 
 able expectation of efficient demand, but even if the proper pro- 
 portion was maintained, these new countries would be able to 
 export the article to Europe at prices at which it cannot be raised 
 there. The cheapness of wheat in those parts is fully justified 
 by the natural conditions of production and exchange, which can- 
 not be altered by legislation. As far as I can see, there is abso- 
 lutely no prospect of a change in these conditions in the immediate 
 future. Only when population in the countries above-named shall 
 have reached a density approximately like that of the population 
 of England, when manufactures shall be nearly as common there 
 as they are here, will the great discrepancy between the relative 
 costs of agricultural products and other commodities disappear. 
 As long as there are yet new countries devoted .chiefly to agri- 
 culture, we must be prepared for a chronic state of agricultural 
 depression, at least as far as wheat is concerned. The meat and 
 wool industries, although in a somewhat similar position, admit 
 of more niceties and diversities than the growing of wheat and 
 do not look therefore quite so hopeless. While English meat is 
 still preferred to foreign, and English cattle and sheep are ex- 
 ported to improve foreign breeds, there is some hope for the 
 English cattle and sheep-breeder. Of course this is only a tem- 
 porary alleviation, and I have no doubt, that after the lapse of a 
 certain time these industries will have to face the same difficulties 
 by which that of wheat-growing finds itself threatened to-day. 
 
 I assume here, that the people of the United Kingdom are con- 
 tent to run the risk implied in relying for the prime necessaries 
 of life upon foreign countries. The danger of the supplies being 
 cut off or curtailed during a time of war is a real and serious one, 
 but there are means of meeting it. For one thing large stores 
 of grain may be maintained to meet an emergency and besides, 
 whatever may be done, the bulk of the soil will remain available 
 for the cultivation of wheat in case of urgent necessity. Such a
 
 236 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 change would naturally involve some expense and perhaps some 
 sacrifices of comfort, but these would have to be borne as the 
 necessary drawback of enjoying cheap supplies of wheat during 
 the times of peace. The policy of relying upon foreign supplies 
 imposes also the obligation upon the country to maintain its navy 
 at a somewhat greater strength than would be sufficient, if the 
 people could and would supply their primary wants directly. The 
 additional expense involved herein is equivalent to a premium 
 for insurance against famine and is not important enough to 
 deserve any consideration from this point of view. Should the 
 nation however prefer to keep the land under cultivation lor 
 wheat, the proper solution would be, that the State itself should 
 undertake the business or grant a subsidy to the producers. The 
 growing of wheat would then be not a right, but the duty of the 
 land-owner, who must be held harmless for the inevitable loss 
 entailed upon him by the commonwealth. A protective tariff 
 would not meet the case, as — apart from all the inconveniences 
 of this method of taxation — its incidence would be absurdly unfair, 
 the interest of individuals in the maintenance of home supplies 
 not bearing a fixed proportion to their consumption of bread and 
 flour, which besides are about the worst objects for taxation. The 
 loss involved in the cultivation of wheat on English soil to the 
 highest possible extent in order to provide for the bulk of the 
 home consumption would be enormous, and in my opinion not 
 justified by the danger of war, against which the nation can pro- 
 tect itself reasonably. I take it then, that the people wish to take 
 advantage of the special opportunities for wheat-growing enjoyed 
 by fertile and sparsely populated countries. But what about the 
 land which is falling out of cultivation and the labourers who 
 thereby lose their employment .'' 
 
 It may be expected with confidence, that the healthier state 
 of manufacturing industry produced by the regulation of working
 
 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE FOR CHEAP SUPPLIES. 237 
 
 time will provide employment for a great additional number of 
 hands. Many of the wants of common labour which must at 
 present remain unsatisfied in consequence of the insufficient re- 
 ward of labour will allow of satisfaction, when the average reward 
 has been increased, and an extensive demand for home consump- 
 tion will follow the measure. Demand and supply will meet 
 much more easily, and profitable employment will be found for 
 a great portion of those who are suffering from the lack of it now. 
 Still it cannot be assumed, that all those who are dependent upon 
 agriculture for their maintenance can transfer their activity at once 
 to manufactures. But there is really -no necessity for this. If 
 once we can make up our minds to the recognition of the fact, 
 that the growing of wheat for England can be done best in distant 
 countries, and that instead of wheat we must produce other things, 
 we shall soon find a great number of objects for the production 
 of which England offers greater advantages. We must demand 
 from the agricultural classes, if they want to secure a profitable 
 business, that they bring to bear upon it common sense and ex- 
 perience in the same degree as other producers or traders. There 
 must evidently be a flaw in the reasoning which would convince 
 us, that England is a loser in these times in consequence of obtain- 
 ing her supplies too cheaply. If the cheapness means, that she 
 can obtain the wheat required for her consumption in return for 
 a smaller quantity of her manufactures, she must gain thereby. If 
 it means, that prices have fallen all round, and that merely the 
 value of money has been enhanced, she cannot find herself in a 
 worse position than before. That a man should fall into distress 
 by buying too cheaply, is a palpable absurdity. He may be worse 
 off in spite of the diminished cost of living reckoned in money, if 
 his income has been reduced at a larger ratio. In like manner 
 England may lose by a fall in the value of the articles which she 
 exports in excess of the fall of value of those which she imports,
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 but the depreciation of the imported things is an undoubted prima 
 facie advantage to her. The agricultural classes in common with 
 other producers must be brought to understand these facts and 
 to draw the inferences. 
 
 This is eminently a case for emigration. The same kind of 
 labour which loses employment here, is offered an opening in the 
 new country with better prospects than it has enjoyed here during 
 a long time. Here is a chance of transplanting labour bodily 
 from one part of the earth to another, without even changing the 
 direction of its products. English-born agriculturists may raise 
 wheat in Canada or in Australia for the English market. In emi- 
 gration of this character there is hardly a possibility of failure 
 apart from the personal element, it is obviously prrferable to the 
 transplantation of unemployed artisans and town labourers into 
 new agricultural countries, which is commended at present by well- 
 meaning men in order to alleviate the congestion in large towns. 
 These people can be neither so efficient nor so comfortable in 
 their new homes as agricultural labourers who are exactly the 
 right men in the right places. As explained in a former chapter, 
 this resource is merely temporary. It will be open to old nations 
 just as long as the new countries remain overwhelmingly agricul- 
 tural. As soon as they have reached a high degree of manufac- 
 turing efficiency, the emigration of agricultural labourers becomes 
 inefficient, but also unnecessary. 
 
 Then there is the hackneyed question of the various agricultural 
 and farm products, which are comparatively neglected in this 
 country. Why should immense quantities of poultry and eggs 
 be imported from France and other countries ? Why should fruit 
 like apples, pears etc., which England can produce in the most 
 excellent quality, be brought from foreign parts ? That there is 
 a great and profitable market open for fruit, appears from the 
 dearness of the article here as compared with continental countries.
 
 EMIGRATION. PETITE CULTURE, ETC. 239 
 
 Fruit might be produced in such quantities, that it would become 
 a staple article of diet for all classes, instead of being a luxury 
 as now. A large part of the agricultural labour displaced by the 
 shifting of the area of production for wheat might be profitably 
 employed in fruit-growing and other branches of petite culture, 
 and the saving of imports in these commodities would go a long 
 way towards meeting the increase of the imports of wheat, whilst 
 the comfort of the community all round would be enhanced. 
 There are doubtless many other products of the soil besides im- 
 ported from foreign countries, the consumption of which might 
 be multiplied manifold, if English agriculturists applied their 
 energies to them, instead of attempting the impossible task of 
 competing in the production of wheat with new countries. It is 
 likely, that further reductions of rent will be required, but this 
 is a question independent of the purposes to which the soil is 
 applied. At present if appears, that, if the farmers insist upon 
 growing wheat — except of course under especially favourable cir- 
 cumstances — neither rent, nor interest, nor reasonable wages can 
 be expected, and that all parties interested must live for the 
 greater part upon the capital invested in the concern. The pro- 
 sperity of manufacturing labour which will result from the regu- 
 lation of working time, will supply the necessary pressure for 
 enabling the labourer to obtain fair wages for agricultural work, 
 and the farmer to get his rent fixed at a rate which leaves him a 
 reasonable profit as a return for his labour and the capital invested. 
 Even as it is, the area under cultivation of wheat is diminishing 
 gradually, many farms are unoccupied, and no reduction of rent 
 can tempt a responsible tenant to take them. The process which 
 I have called the shifting of the area of production for wheat to 
 foreign parts, is fulfilling itself independently of individual action, 
 and it would require special strong sacrifices on the part of the 
 community to stop it. Something must be done to utilize the soil,
 
 240 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 if there is any possibility of turning it to account profitably. I 
 believe, that this possibility is afforded in the manner described, 
 and that the production of the objects of petite adture, together 
 with the increased home consumption of manufactured commodities, 
 will absorb that part of the surplus labour devoted to the culture 
 of wheat at present which cannot be transplanted to the wheat 
 producing countries. 
 
 Of course it is not to be expected, that under any circumstances 
 the production of wheat will be entirely abandoned in England. 
 That part of the soil which is peculiarly adapted to the purpose, 
 which we may call first-class wheat land, will still be devoted to 
 it and after a reasonable reduction of rents will probably afford to 
 the cultivator a normal profit. But in face of the advantage of the 
 competition in new countries the demands upon the quality of the 
 soil destined for wheat-growing will be very high, and the area 
 satisfying these demands will form only a very small part of the 
 land of England. Wheat or rye or produce of even less value will 
 also be cultivated as far as possible in some parts of Ireland and 
 Scotland, where the people are living under a very low standard of 
 comfort and with few of those wants which material progress has 
 brought in its train. Until the populations of these parts have found 
 the means of transferring their activity to manufactures or other 
 occupations for which their country is more suitable, they will be 
 forced to bear the penalty of its sterility in putting up with a less 
 comfortable life than dwellers in more favoured regions. But this 
 can only be a question of time. Education is spreading into all 
 corners of these islands, and a proper understanding of economic 
 questions cannot fail to bear its fruits in the near future. By the 
 quickening of the intercourse with more prosperous communities 
 the inhabitants of those sterile regions will find their demands on life 
 growing beyond the amount which they can satisfy by the cultiva- 
 tion of common cereals on soils of inferior fertility. Where the
 
 ABOUT STERILE LAND. 241 
 
 situation admits of it, centres of industry will arise, where this is 
 impracticable, the inhabitants will emigrate to other countries or 
 migrate to manufacturing towns in the United Kingdom. The 
 feeling, highly commendable in itself, of loyalty to the soil of one's 
 birth, when it finds expression in the wish to remain upon it, is 
 reasonable only as long as the soil is capable of maintaining its 
 children. The preference for the native soil is inherent to most 
 men, but after all it is a luxury in which comparatively few are able 
 to indulge and which cannot be guarantied to the peasant or 
 crofter any more than to any other class of the population. To 
 encourage poor men in the sentiment, seems to me mistaken kind- 
 ness. Few professional men, few merchants, no official can select 
 the place where they would like best to exercise their calling, how 
 then can it be expected, that the choice should be open to the poor 
 and comparatively helpless agriculturist ? This view of affairs is 
 in no way opposed to the endeavours to secure to Irish and Scotch 
 tenants their rights in the soil. Whatever good it may do them, 
 they have a claim to a part of the value of the land, the fulfilment 
 of which is not a matter of expediency, but a duty incumbent on 
 those who hold the power. Besides, if the tenants are content to 
 put up with a hard life and few comforts, this is merely their own 
 look out, and their lot has been so miserable before, that an 
 improvement which might appear slight to many, may be a very 
 material boon to them. But we cannot expect such a state of 
 things to endure, and for this reason I look upon any alteration of 
 the land laws as nothing more than a temporary expedient. Who- 
 ever intends it for more, whoever entertains the hope, that by fixity 
 of tenure or peasant-proprietorship a man can be enabled to extract 
 from an area of sterile land small enough to be cultivated by him- 
 self alone, an income equal to the average wages of an industrial 
 labourer in good employment, ignores the elementary facts of 
 economy and will be disappointed in his expectation. He forgets, 
 
 R
 
 242 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 that the average income of an industrial labourer must be equal 
 at least to the income from labour on average land, and that 
 therefore land of less than average quality cannot afford an equal 
 result.
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 The future of the commercial classes. — Duty on speculation. — ll^aste and 
 display. — The world's work and human aims. 
 
 T N view of the great shifting of labour between the different 
 -*- branches of activity which we have to expect, we must 
 devote some special attention to one large class, the members ojf 
 which, less fortunate than most others, will be forced to transfer 
 their activity to occupations different from that to which they have 
 been accustomed not only with reference to the object, but also 
 in regard to character. This is the commercial class. I have 
 explained in a former chapter, that the wages of distribution are 
 affected by progress equally with those of production, and in this 
 case we do not possess the means of regulating the conditions 
 of competition between large and small establishments as in that 
 of factories or other industrial enterprises. It follows therefrom, 
 that the regulation of working time could not be made to comprise 
 the commercial classes. Nor would it be possible or advisable to 
 increase artificially the amount of commercial work merely in order 
 to guaranty a sufficient occupation to any one wishing to embark 
 in trade. We might as well undertake to guaranty a professional 
 career to every one who studies law or devotes himself to the art of 
 painting, or to secure tailor's work to every one inclined to earn his 
 living by tailoring. 
 
 In order to put commerce upon a legitimate basis, an especial 
 measure is required. We have seen, that large property by means 
 
 2*3
 
 244 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 of speculation obtains not only the bulk of the surplus of produc- 
 tion, which may be considered the debatable ground between land, 
 labour and capital, but also a large share of the proper reward of 
 labour. Something must be done to give to the man who relies 
 upon distributive labour a prospect of competing successfully with 
 the large capitalist, and to prevent the absorption of the former by 
 the latter. The artificial and hurtful monopoly by dint of which 
 large property possesses the power of undue appropriation must 
 be broken, and to effect this, the possibility of abuse must be 
 held in check. The power of individuals or corporations to mani- 
 pulate the markets of the world for their exclusive profit must be 
 restricted, professional speculation must be rendered, if not impos- 
 sible, at least more d'fificult and costly than it is at present. 
 
 I anticipate as one of the clear gains from the regulation of 
 working time and as one of the first conditions of an improved 
 position of labour an enhanced steadiness of values. But if it was 
 left open to any wealthy individual or combination of individuals 
 to interfere with the natural development of supply and demand 
 by creating the semblance of one or the other artificially and 
 temporarily, many unnecessary fluctuations of values would still 
 ensue. The true function of speculation under the present system 
 has been explained in a former chapter. As it is, legitimate 
 speculation does not amount to the hundredth part of the whole 
 speculative activity, and under the proposed system it will be 
 rendered almost superfluous. Of course there will still remain 
 some scope for speculation, opportunities of buying cheap and 
 selling dear in consequence of special circumstances will occur 
 even then, but they can from their nature be only exceptional, 
 and there is no reason, why the community should not share to 
 a certain extent in the profits arising from such opportunities. 
 
 I propose to restrict speculation by imposing a perceptible tax 
 ad valorem upon speculative transactions, requiring a written
 
 A TAX ON SPECULATION. 245 
 
 contract stamped to the extent legally prescribed in every case, 
 and establishing a heavy penalty in case of wilful omission. An 
 exception would be made in favour of all transactions for prompt 
 delivery (which may be speculative purchases) on condition, that 
 the goods or documents representing the goods change hands 
 actually. The speculator would thus have to pay something to 
 the community, when he intended to undersell the producer by 
 selling, or to forestall the consumer by buying up the presumptive 
 products of a later time, but he would remain free to buy up the 
 whole existing stock of any commodity, in which case he is ham- 
 pered by the cost of warehousing, insurance and loss of interest. 
 If his speculation is the outcome of an exceptionally clear appre- 
 hension of the future, he will make his profit, a share of which in 
 the shape of the duty will have been paid to the State, but the 
 practice of rigging markets and of manipulating them in such a 
 manner, that they must yield a profit to the large speculator at the 
 expense of labour and small capital, will be stopped effectually. 
 
 Such a tax could only apply to contracts between producers, 
 dealers and manufacturers, whereas contracts for bona fide consump- 
 tion would be exempt from it. But not the consumption which 
 passes under that term in mercantile language now and which 
 means frequently merely the transformation of a primary product 
 into a secondary one. Wheat sold to the miller is considered as 
 gone into consumption, whilst in reality it may remain in the 
 market for an indefinite time either in its original form or in that 
 of flour. Time contracts between wheat-growers or dealers and 
 millers would be subject to duty, but the real consumer, the 
 householder, would remain free to order commodities for his own 
 consumption in advance. In many cases this is an absolute 
 necessity. Houses, ships, railways etc. cannot be bought ready- 
 made under ordinary circumstances, nor is it desirable to encou- 
 rage the production of such things in stock, and there would be no
 
 246 'SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT, 
 
 advantage in subjecting guch contracts to a tax, when the objects 
 are intended for the consumption or private use of the man who 
 orders them. On the other hand houses or ships bought on 
 speculation would be subject to the tax. 
 
 Some measure of this kind is the necessary corollary to the 
 regulation of working-time. It could not possibly be left to the 
 greed or caprice of any individual wealthy enough for the purpose', 
 to disturb the State regulation destined to keep up a reasonable 
 proportion between supply and demand. The regulations will 
 indeed be subject to alterations, but it stands to reason, that they 
 cannot be altered to meet the manipulations of speculators who 
 may reverse their tactics the day after and make another alteration 
 necessary at once. It is true, that in such manner and by the 
 exercise of an unceasing watchfulness on the part of the State 
 the machinations of professional speculators could be frustrated 
 step by step. But it would be most unreasonable to keep up a 
 special costly armament against a dangerous foe, when in the 
 tax on speculation we possess the means to disarm him once for 
 all and to render him harmless for the future. Then the manu- 
 facturer and the distributing trader will be able to earn a reason- 
 able reward on their legitimate transactions and will not be forced, 
 as they are now in too many instances, to make their business 
 simply a vehicle for availing themselves of the fluctuations of 
 values. But, as long as professional speculation is allowed to 
 create an artificial scarcity by buying up and an artificial glut by 
 selling for later delivery commodities which are not yet in exis- 
 tence and over the production of which it possesses no legitimate 
 control, it holds the power to upset at any moment the basis of 
 the regulation of working-time. Such a state of things is not to 
 be endured, and the proper means of amending it are afforded 
 by a tax on speculative transactions. 
 . This may possibly do away with some .other taxes, if speculators
 
 TRANSFER OF DISTRIBUTIVE LABOUR. 247 
 
 find it worth their while to continue operations under its burden. 
 Governments are costly affairs, and as the expense must be borne 
 by individuals, let speculators be the first to contribute a share 
 to the public exchequer. Looked at in a purely material view, 
 speculative transactions are at least as proper objects for taxation 
 as alcoholic drink, and if, as to the moral aspect, it must be 
 admitted, that their harmful influence is not so conspicuous, it is 
 nevertheless most active, undermining the morality of a great 
 number of people and stretching down by the force of example 
 to the broad lower strata which are commonly supposed to be 
 outside its influence. For the reasons explained above I do not 
 however anticipate a very considerable return from this tax. 
 
 But by putting the trade of the country upon a healthy basis 
 we shall unfortunately not be able to provide a remunerative field 
 of activity for all those people who aspire at present to make a 
 living by commerce. The very restriction of speculation will 
 destroy the occupation of that great number of men who speculate 
 not from choice, but from the necessity of gaining their livelihood 
 by commercial pursuits and the impossibility of contriving this 
 by legitimate business. We have seen upon a former occasion, 
 that many merchants or, to speak more correctly, many people 
 styling themselves so, are driven to speculation as a means of 
 living. We may well be sorry for them, but it would be as 
 impossible to spare the profession of speculation on their account, 
 after having recognised its pernicious tendency, as to tolerate 
 brigandage in order to afford the means of living to those who 
 cannot find an opportunity of earning them in honest fashion. 
 The men of whom I am speaking — and I am sorry to say that 
 their number is not inconsiderable — will suffer, but to lay their 
 suffering at the door of the altered system would be as absurd 
 as to object to fine weather on the ground, that it destroys the 
 source of income of the crossing-sweeper. How difficult it is
 
 248 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 for the ordinary man to earn a competency by commerce, in spite 
 of the immense amount of illegitimate or unnecessary business, 
 which is carried on merely for the purpose of maintaining the 
 people embarked in trade, is painfully manifest. And, bad as 
 things are, they tend to become worse yet and to culminate in a 
 crisis of unprecedented severity and extension. For almost daily 
 the public is becoming more conscious of the possibility of dis- 
 pensing with the services of the mere trader. By the ever-growing 
 ease of communication producers and consumers are being brought 
 constantly into closer contact, and the outcry against the middle- 
 man has become ominously loud. It has borne some fruit already 
 in the creation of the large co-operative stores and will bear more 
 in the near future. It is not only the necessary consequence of 
 progress which we have traced previously, but also the growing 
 need of the public, in face of the hard times brought about by it, 
 to reduce expenses to the minimum, which threatens destruction 
 to the middleman in all cases where his services are not absolutely 
 indispensable. Neither can he reasonably raise a claim to reward 
 in any other case, nor can the State by any interference with 
 the relations of capital and labour enable him to earn a living 
 by mercantile work for which there is no call. 
 
 Commerce suffers, apart from the difficulties which it shares 
 with all other branches of labour, from a considerable over-man- 
 ning. The fact is by no means difficult to account for. Commercial 
 pursuits seem more than any other to afford a living without hard 
 work and without the possession of special ability or skill, and 
 at the same time to hold out a prospect — however slight — of 
 large pecuniary prizes. Besides, the commercial man is ranked 
 socially above the manual labourer. There was a justification for 
 this in times, when reading, writing, and arithmetic, the necessary 
 equipment of the commercial man, were yet comparatively rare 
 accomplishments, to possess which stamped a man as well edu-
 
 TRADE IS OVER-MANNED. 249 
 
 cated, but now, after they have become common property, the 
 social distinction based upon the mere fact of one man working 
 in an office and the other in a workshop is an anomaly, which 
 tends merely to confuse matters. Any one unwilling or incapable 
 to perform hard manual work goes into trade, every father who 
 wishes to see his son in a black coat rather than in a workman's 
 blouse, tries to make a commercial man of him, if he does not 
 possess sufficient means to educate him for one of the acknow- 
 ledged professions. There is really so little required of a common 
 clerk or trader in excess of what every one has the opportunity 
 to acquire in the course of ordinary education, that this pursuit 
 opens a last resource to most of those who are unfitted for other 
 branches of labour. No wonder then, that it is overcrowded, 
 and that suffering must be the lot of many who have made the 
 fatal mistake of choosing an avenue which does not afford sufficient 
 room for comfortable progress. This evil can only be compared 
 to an actual scarcity of food or shelter, it partakes in its character 
 of the elementary and cannot be provided against by social or 
 political measures. But when the people affected by it can be 
 brought to understand its nature, they can protect themselves at 
 least to some extent by leaving the threatened spot and trans- 
 ferring themselves and their labour to other fields. 
 
 Under any conceivable system there will always be a demand 
 for distributers' services. There will still be producers and con- 
 sumers in large numbers who are either unwilling or unable to 
 enter into direct communication with each other. People will be 
 desirous of buying commodities on credit which they cannot 
 obtain from the manufacturers on such terms, and willing to pay 
 a profit to the middleman who accommodates them. It stands 
 to reason, that it will be chiefly, even if not exclusively, the whole- 
 sale trade, or rather the people pretending to do a wholesale trade 
 at present, who will be affected by the restriction of speculation*
 
 250 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 Shops will always be required in every neighbourhood for the 
 retail distribution of commodities, shopkeepers will do a fair 
 business as long as their number corresponds on the whole to 
 the requirements of the public, and their assistants will receive 
 better wages in conformity with the advance of the average re- 
 muneration of productive labour. Wholesale houses would find 
 their scope in the acquisition of large quantities and their distribu- 
 tion to shopkeepers, local dealers and larger consumers, besides 
 there would be the international trade to give employment to 
 many. It is also to be observed, that the direct intercourse 
 between producer and consumer can diminish the work of dis- 
 tribution only by that part which was devoted to the relations 
 between the producer and the middleman, not by that far larger 
 portion of it which at present is employed in passing commodities 
 from the latter to the consumer. The manufacturer who resolves 
 to dispense with the services of wholesale dealers, is bound to 
 increase his correspondence manifold and to employ clerks and 
 travellers far in excess of the number which he employed pre- 
 viously, so that we may assume, that after all only those people 
 will lose their means of living — if they can be said to possess 
 them at present — who are obtaining them now by speculation or 
 as the assistants of speculators. 
 
 For them and all those who cannot find sufficient mercantile 
 work for their maintenance there is no help except the transfer 
 of their labour to other branches. And the sacrifice implied herein 
 is undeniably greater in their case than in that of purely manual 
 labourers in town or country. For not only will they have to resort 
 for the most part to work of a kind to which they are not 
 accustomed, but to such work as they are in the habit of looking 
 down upon as beneath the dignity of commercial men. This 
 prejudice will break down under the stress of dire necessity, and 
 if it cannot be annihilated in any other way, then the crisis will
 
 SOME SOCIAL DISTINCTIONS MUST CEASE. 
 
 certainly; not have been without its compensations. If we succeed 
 inputting the existence of productive labour upon a satisfactory 
 footing, it will not be long before the comparatively small surplus 
 number of distributers whose useless and helpless condition be- 
 comes yet more conspicuous by the change of system, will obtain 
 the means of subsistence by work for which the community has 
 some demand. Only the social difference between the trader 
 and the manual labourer as such will be greatly diminished, and 
 no one will have the right to claim social superiority or a larger 
 material reward on the strength of wearing a black coat .and 
 wielding a pen, than for dressing in a blouse and working with 
 spade, hammer, or needle. The thousands of men calling them- 
 selves merchants or brokers or agents, whose actual work — by no 
 fault of their intentions — is of absolutely no value to the com- 
 munity and who yet lay claim to a remuneration far in excess 
 of that enjoyed by the best skilled workman, will be forced to 
 perform real work and to accept average wages in proportion to 
 their capacity. Unprejudiced men see and acknowledge already 
 that a fairly educated artisan, well understanding his trade, is really 
 more than the equal of an ordinary clerk or trader, and that the 
 social distinction between the two is merely an artificial one, 
 which cannot be maintained much longer. This is part of the 
 much dreaded process of levelling, for which we had better make 
 up our minds, whether we like it or not individually. Exceptional 
 service will obtain exceptional reward, but it will become evident, 
 that no reward at all can be secured by the mere impotent readi- 
 ness to perform ordinary commercial work, and fair average wages 
 will take the place of the few great prizes and the many blanks 
 offered to the trader with no or small capital at present. 
 
 That such a process could fulfil itself without heart-burnings, 
 sacrifices of pride and prejudice, is not to be expected. There 
 may even be people who prefer starvation to what they would
 
 252 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 consider social degradation for themselves or their children. Well, 
 these people — whose number will not be large — will have to starve, 
 the issues involved are too important and too real to permit of 
 delay out of regard for the sentimental pride of a small minority. 
 Short of a State pension, which they are extremely unlikely to 
 get, nothing could save them. As to the sacrifices involved in 
 the acceptance of the necessary changes, they weigh only as dust 
 in the scale against the inefficient strivings, the bitterness of use- 
 less toil and unsatisfied aspirations and the actual distress, which 
 beset commerce at the present time. After public estimation 
 shall have reduced trade or lifted manual labour to its proper level, 
 the influx of aspirants into the former will cease, and commerce 
 will be no more likely to be over-crowded than any other branch 
 of activity. The drift of events in this direction is manifest 
 enough and is in fact the necessary concomitant of the spread of 
 education. When common manual labourers can prove and feel 
 themselves intellectually the equals of ordinary members of the 
 commercial classes, the merely conventional ideas about the 
 relative value of different occupations must disappear. By the 
 advance in culture the labourer will gain a more dignified attitude, 
 free from servihty as well as from misplaced self-assertion, and 
 this will be confirmed by a better distribution of wealth. If then 
 on one hand we claim and obtain for manual labour better 
 employment and higher wages, and on the other limit the unrea- 
 sonable opportunities for acquisition of the few, it is unavoidable, 
 that the differences in the amounts of income will be greatly 
 diminished and at the same time determined much more by 
 personal efficiency than they are now. Thus the man forced to 
 transfer his activity from commerce to manual labour will have 
 a reasonable prospect of earning a competency and he will not 
 have above and beside himself so many instances of people enrich- 
 ing themselves at the expense of the community or of other
 
 BETTER DISTRIBUTION OF REWARDS. 253 
 
 individuals. He will fairly enter the bond of fellowship uniting 
 all honest labour and he will lack the unhealthy stimulus of large 
 profits which attend sometimes an unscrupulous, narrowly selfish 
 and entirely worthless occupation. 
 
 With a proper regulation of working time and a perceptible tax 
 on speculation the external conditions of success would be equa- 
 lized and the opportunities of abuse restricted so far, that colossal 
 fortunes could not often be amassed as they have been in the past 
 and, more especially, in the present generation. Apart from excep- 
 tional strokes of luck which from their nature must be few and 
 far between, it will require particular abilities, extraordinary intel- 
 ligence and energy or peculiar services which the community may 
 deem worthy of a large material reward, to lay the foundation of 
 large fortunes. Patents, copyrights, skill and diligence will bring 
 exceptional wealth to their owners then as now, but a high reward 
 would presuppose in almost every case services of a high order and 
 only in quite exceptional cases be the outcome and sign of an 
 unscrupulous exercise of an utterly worthless activity, as it is too 
 frequently now. We may assume, that manipulation of markets, 
 possession of capital or land, or intimate acquaintance with leading 
 financiers, as well as the thousand manoeuvres by which speculators 
 gain their ends, from the corruption of politics to the falsification 
 of news, will not be reckoned amongst the services which call for a 
 special reward. 
 
 This will bring about incidentally another most desirable result, 
 namely that the ostentatious display of wealth and the almost 
 insane waste, which has become the fashion amongst the wealthy, 
 will receive a serious check. That the flaunting of wealth before 
 the world for the sake of mere display is foolish and vulgar, is too 
 evident to require an argument, all sensible and refined men and 
 women alike are agreed upon the point, and signs are not wanting, 
 that a great number bear the yoke unwillingly and regard the
 
 254 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 display as a kind of sham duty owed to society, which they are 
 not strong enough to shake off. As to the waste, the expenditure 
 upon the whim of a moment of sums which would make a com- 
 mon man's fortune for life, this is simply a symptom of ignorance. 
 The man who spends ten thousand pounds upon an old manu- 
 script, which in his hands is only an object of ostentation, or upon 
 a picture which represents an artist's labour during a couple of 
 months, shows thereby that he has lost — if ever he possessed it 
 — the measure of the value of things, which is quite as much 
 a requisite of a healthy mind as the capacity of elementary arith- 
 metic. There are of course cases where the motives are of a more 
 positive character. Ridiculous prices are paid sometimes by one 
 man in order to defeat another intending buyer, and I am not 
 prepared to say, that such action can be justified in no case. If 
 one can prevent a man who wishes to buy a valuable manuscript 
 or picture for the purpose of destroying it, from getting possession 
 of it by outbidding him, his action would not only be justified, but 
 even highly commendable. But we are hardly running the risk 
 of uncharitableness, if we assume, that cases of this kind are 
 extremely rare, and that the payers of insensate prices — leaving 
 aside naturally the dealers buying on speculation — are either 
 animated by blamable spite or acting out of ignorance. I need 
 hardly say, unless the whole drift of my reasoning has been 
 strangely misunderstood, that I do not wish to discourage the 
 patronage of art and science. On the contrary I should like to 
 see a much larger proportion of the public expenditure devoted 
 to such purposes. But the fabulous prices paid for some products 
 of art and for some objects of natural and historical interest at 
 the present time, which bear no relation whatever to their cost, 
 have neither the effect of furthering art and science, nor are they 
 the necessary outcome of public and private interest in their 
 development. A work of art which is sold for ten thousand
 
 MORAL GAINS. EXTRAVAGANCE AND DISPLAY. 255 
 
 pounds, would be in no way less beautiful, less useful for the 
 culture of taste or less interesting; to students and to the sen- 
 sible part of the general public, if it fetched five hundred pounds 
 instead, and it is only the senseless competition between indi- 
 viduals eager to possess and to display, and in the unreasonable 
 position of being able to disregard all considerations of value, 
 which drives prices up to such fabulous heights. Such a com- 
 petition might under certain circumstances be justified between 
 nations or municipalities, but in this case the range of prices 
 paid for special products or unique objects would also be lowered 
 very considerably, if there was not the competition of private indi- 
 viduals to Overcome. Besides, the expenditure of the State is at 
 all times under more control than that of private individuals and 
 although, wanting the very best things, they must be prepared to 
 pay the very highest prices, yet nations do not create the range 
 of prices, but only follow the market which is made by those 
 private people who have more money to spend than they know 
 how to sp^nd reasonably. 
 
 Both ostentation and waste are the characteristics of people 
 who have gained their wealth not by exceptional abilities or 
 honourable exertions, but by the accidents of inheritance or the 
 unscrupulous arts of speculation. Could we arrange a system to 
 secure the largest incomes to those who have used proper exer- 
 tions in their acquisition, and who in return have given services 
 of extraordinary value to the community, the vulgar display and 
 over-expenditure would vanish soon. Those men would be able 
 to gauge the value of things so far as to keep fancy-values within 
 a reasonable range, they would find better ways of spending their 
 surplus incomes than by running up the prices of beautiful and 
 unique objects, they would possess the power of extracting the 
 best enjoyment from life without vain display for display's sake. 
 No doubt that amongst those who vie with each other in expen-
 
 256 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 diture and display there is a certain proportion of men who would 
 rank amongst the highest under any system. But— apart from 
 personal weaknesses to which even genius is subject — they would 
 not pursue such a course, if they were not in a minority and con- 
 taminated by the example of the majority of those with whom 
 they are in continuous contact. Under the system proposed by 
 me, they and men like them would form the majority and would 
 give the tone to the style of living of the wealthy classes. Who- 
 ever persisted then in over-expenditure and display, would appear 
 in his true light as a spendthrift or a vain person. 
 
 The moral gain from such a change would be evidently very 
 great, for not only would it elevate and purify the tone of the 
 well-to-do, but it would also do away with a source of much 
 heart-burning and envy amongst the less favoured masses, which 
 in their conception as well as in their effects can be nothing but 
 baneful. But at the same time it would also imply a great 
 material gain, because the wealth diverted from extravagance and 
 foolish display would be directed to better purposes. And do not 
 let it be supposed, that such a change would touch only the really 
 wealthy classes. These habits filter downward inevitably, and it 
 is easy to see, that they have already affected the middle classes 
 to a most deplorable extent. Very many people who have little 
 to spare from the neeessaries of life, spend that little in a foolish 
 manner upon pretending to be able to afford a large expenditure. 
 Nothing practical can be done without due allowance being made 
 for human weaknesses like vanity etc., but even these ought to 
 have their limits, at a certain point weakness becomes crime or 
 imbecility, and it seems to me impossible to deny, that this point 
 has been over-stepped in many instances. 
 
 This evil of over-expenditure within certain classes is an un- 
 avoidable concomitant of the ruling system. It is not the last 
 cause of distress or of the insufficient reward of labour, but only a
 
 LEVELLING UP OR DOWN. 257 
 
 symptom of the condition of things by which these are produced. 
 Under present circumstances the surpkis wealth of the country 
 must flow to the owners of land and capital, increasing the wealth 
 of the wealthy. They have the option of using it according to 
 their inclination as capital for the acquisition of more wealth, or to 
 spend it. As we have seen, the utilization as capital and con- 
 sequent further accumulation is not always desirable in itself As 
 to the expenditure upon personal purposes, it would be folly to 
 expect much discretion and intelligence from a great part of that 
 class which obtains the surplus at present, and an improvement in 
 this respect can only take place, if the underlying conditions are 
 changed in such a manner, that incomes are more equalized, and 
 the largest rewards obtained in a greater proportion by the most 
 deserving. 
 
 The system proposed by me imposes sacrifices on the owners of 
 large property. That is, the new system is less advantageous for 
 them in a material sense than the existing one, so that by the 
 change they become losers. But something of this kind is abso- 
 lutely necessary, if a better distribution of wealth, a better reward 
 of labour is to be effected. It is wrong and mischievous to flatter 
 those who at present enjoy more than a fair share of opportunities, 
 with the notion, that society can be re-adjusted without something, 
 some power or attribute of power, being taken from them. If 
 every living man was put into the position of being able to live 
 like a millionaire, the former millionaires must lose the privilege 
 and prestige of their position, although not a farthing's worth of 
 wealth was taken from them. When the slaves were liberated, the 
 slave-owners lost in standing, if in nothing else. This cannot 
 be avoided, nor is it a concern of the reformer. What we have 
 to look to is, that only those things or powers are taken from 
 the holders to which they have either no right, or which they are 
 using and cannot be prevented from using in a manner danger- 
 
 S
 
 258 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 ous and injurious to the community. That the present position of 
 property belongs to this category, I hope to have proved by laying 
 bare the motive power of material progress and the sources of 
 accumulation. The talk about levelling up and levelling down, 
 which is propounded in the face of all radical legislation, is 
 idle, if not worse. You cannot change the position of one thing 
 alone, by the one movement you change the relations of all 
 other things to this one particular thing. If one is to have a 
 larger share of wealth, some one else must put up with a smaller, 
 nothing will afford more than two halves or four quarters, even 
 to please capitalists and land-owners. In order that the lowest 
 stratum may be raised, the highest must submit to a relative 
 lowering at the least, but ample compensation for the sacrifice 
 would be found in the increased well-being of the whole, of 
 which even the richest man forms part. There will even be a 
 direct material gain for the wealthy in the increased security 
 from social disturbances and in more amiable relations between 
 the different classes. That these things are desirable, is prac- 
 tically admitted by the strong exertions made lately by mem- 
 bers of the wealthy classes to establish direct communications 
 between the rich and the poor, well-intentioned and well-directed 
 exertions, but doomed inevitably to small results, until the great 
 problem of the insufficiency of the reward of labour has been 
 grappled with successfully. When rich and poor have been 
 drawn nearer to each other in point of comfort and security, 
 when the former have abandoned ostentation and waste, and the 
 latter are no more lying under the curse of insufficient wages or no 
 wages, then, with the help of spreading culture, a surprising num- 
 ber of points of contact between them will be discovered. Then 
 also the growing sense of solidarity will open a source of gratifica- 
 tion to the majority of the wealthy of which perhaps at present 
 only the select {q\^ can avail themselves, — namely the happy
 
 THE WORLD'S WORK. 259 
 
 consciousness of having done their full duty towards the whole, 
 and of submitting to a personal restriction for the benefit of the 
 community. 
 
 As to the fear entertained, or at least alleged by eminent finan- 
 ciers and statisticians, that the work of the community would not 
 be done properly without the stimulus of large pecuniary rewards, 
 I do not think, that we need trouble ourselves much about that. 
 In the first place, the work of the community has been so mis- 
 managed under the rule of that wonderful stimulus, that for that 
 reason alone the people might well be tempted to try the 
 experiment of doing without it. In the second place, there is 
 absolutely no system practically before the public which does not 
 allow exceptional rewards to exceptional work, on the contrary, 
 most of them, like the one advocated by myself, are endeavouring 
 to secure the great reward to the great work, to the exclusion of 
 the many other elements which participate in it at present. If it 
 is proposed to manage affairs so as to curtail the prospects of an 
 over-growth of rewards, where do those statisticians find the limit 
 of what is sufficient and what is not t On our side the fixing of an 
 approximate limit is not a matter of great difficulty, and in fact a 
 mere detail. If the ordinary income of working men was a hun- 
 dred pounds a year, whilst a secretary of state received a salary of 
 five thousand pounds, we can form a very fair notion of the value 
 represented by most kinds of service. But if a man who confers 
 upon the community the benefit of managing a railway for its 
 shareholders, has a claim to an income of say fifteen thousand 
 pounds now, why should he not claim twenty thousand next year? 
 Or, on the other hand, why should he not be content with two or 
 three thousand when the average reward for that kind of work 
 decreases to either of these figures ? There is nearly or quite as 
 much silliness in these fancy rewards as in the exorbitant prices 
 paid for objects of art and articles of veriu. Of course I know.
 
 26o SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 that the position of a secretary of state is sought not merely for 
 the salary attached to it, but much more for the power, distinction 
 and opportunity for efficient activity which it confers on. the holder. 
 But the same considerations apply also to the highly paid positions 
 in other fields of life. The director of a great railway or the great 
 manufacturer are also very powerful personages, they also enjoy a 
 much larger field of usefulness than the common man, and might 
 take out part of their reward in these advantages just as well as 
 a secretary of state. Yet another reflection makes the alleged 
 apprehensions appear rather far-fetched, namely that at present 
 it is by no means the best and most difficult kind of work which 
 commands the largest reward. We have seen where the oppor- 
 tunities lie, and convinced ourselves of the fact — patent enough to 
 any one willing to see — that the qualities required for acquisition are 
 not at all identical with those which enable their possessor to render 
 the highest services and to afford most profit or pleasure to the 
 community. And, besides all personal qualities, the accidents of 
 birth and association are exercising even more potent an influence. 
 But even if a change of system implied the necessity of doing 
 away altogether with exceptional pecuniary rewards, is there 
 nothing else in life capable of stimulating a man to put forth his 
 best efforts ? Have we come to this, that money, possession of 
 wealth is the only thing considered worth having, worth striving 
 for amongst us .'' Do the men who promulgate these theories give 
 themselves a clear account of the nakedness of the Mammonism 
 which they are preaching? I do not believe it, and for this reason, 
 that with the exception of the abnormally mean and vicious, every 
 one is capable of action for higher motives than that of gain. It is 
 not necessary to point to heroes of unselfishness whose names are 
 in everybody's mouth, their cases may be set down as exceptional. 
 But every look into the open book of life, every perusal of the 
 daily papers reporting the proceedings of the most matter-of-fact
 
 STIMULI OF A HIGHER ORDER. 261 
 
 ordinary individuals shows us instances of actions done without the 
 thought or the prospect of gain at great inconvenience and even 
 danger to the performer. Is there any one so unhappy in his 
 associations, that he cannot point to men and women whom he 
 would trust to do a thing which they consider right and proper, 
 without the stimulus of pecuniary profit ? No doubt that most 
 work is done for the sake of the reward, but in the great majority 
 of cases it is not the love of money which furnishes the stimulus, 
 but the need of living and of providing for those who depend upon 
 the worker's care. Because a man is forced to pay for his sub- 
 sistence by his gain, it does not follow that he works for the love 
 of gain. In only too many cases it is true, that the care for his 
 necessities obliges him to let himself be absorbed by his daily work, 
 but, although to him the ideas of profit and of decent existence 
 have become almost identical, the real motive is the desire of living 
 and protecting his family, not the love of gain. If life was ordered 
 so, that the danger of want was removed once for all from and a 
 comfortable life secured to every one willing to work, it would only 
 be the greedy or avaricious and the vain or ostentatious who 
 would still be striving after an accumulation of wealth beyond their 
 wants. Surely we are not called upon to prop up a system which 
 threatens to destroy the worth and freedom of life, merely in order 
 to spare the susceptibilities and preserve the hunting-grounds 
 of these vices! The ordinary man who is now striving for gain, 
 which means to him security from want and means to shape his 
 life comfortably and pleasantly, would then take for the aims of his 
 labour things better worth striving for than money, and as for those 
 who are by nature inaccessible to any other stimulus, there is a fair 
 chance, that the world might do better, if their powers were exerted 
 somewhat less strenuously. Even as it is, the very best, the highest 
 work is not done for gain, but for the pleasure of production or the 
 benefit of others.
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 Beside the sense of duty and of solidarity, beside charity and 
 love of production and activity, there are yet many motives in 
 unceasing practice which would continue to act, after the stimulus 
 of large pecuniary rewards had been withdrawn. Fame and glory 
 for the ambitious, popularity for the friends of conspicuousness, 
 the approval of the best and association with the best and most 
 esteemed members of the community for almost everybody, would 
 remain as powerful stimuli to exertion, even if every one's income 
 was fixed for life at his birth. Love of power and influence will 
 sway men, as they are doing now, irrespectively of the prospects 
 of acquisition. How many of the people who are pursuing the race 
 for wealth so keenly as to lose sight of almost everything else, covet 
 it only as an instrument of power? Those men will do the hardest 
 work imposed by the community, if hard good work confers the 
 power and influence which are now procurable by money alone, 
 and the community will earn the benefit of its wisdom in directing 
 their energies to useful ends instead of wasting them upon the 
 accumulation of means. 
 
 Small fear of the world's work not being done for want of a 
 stimulus or of willing workers, if pecuniary rewards are curtailed ! 
 What work will not get itself done on that account, may safely 
 remain undone. There is a good deal of activity carried on which 
 the world could go without and fare better.
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 Limitation of the rights of inheritance, bequest and gift. — The exteptionsx — 
 
 Entailed property. 
 
 THE regulation of working time upon the lines proposed, 
 together with a sufficiently considerable tax on speculative 
 transactions, would avail to maintain a reasonable distribution of 
 wealth amongst people starting in the race on approximately equal 
 conditions. But if we remember, that the element of chance cannot 
 be eliminated from human concerns and that our scheme does not 
 interfere with the institution of private property, we shall perceive, 
 that very great differences must still remain in existence. Our 
 proposed measures would indeed break the undue advantages of 
 property, but its inherent natural advantages cannot be taken from 
 it, the only question is, how and in whose interest they are to be 
 applied. If land and capital are allowed to remain in one family 
 for generation after generation as absolute property which may be 
 utilized for the procuration of wealth, the second generation will 
 already start with immense advantages, which will yet be increased 
 gradually in the course of time. The guaranty of personal ex- 
 cellence which we intend to secure for the possessors of exceptional 
 wealth could naturally not apply to their heirs, and we should thus 
 after the lapse of only one generation see again a great part of 
 the surplus of wealth amassed in the hands of people who have 
 done nothing to deserve it and who may be quite unfit to use it 
 properly. The difficulty is aggravated materially by the circum- 
 stance, that such a class is already in existence, that our measures 
 
 263
 
 264 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 will have to be applied to a community amongst which property 
 is distributed with a degree of inequality paralleled in the world's 
 history only under the rule of slavery. I expect from the measures 
 proposed, that they would gradually reduce these inequalities, but 
 the task is so immense, that a very long time must elapse before 
 something approaching equality could have become the rule, and 
 the new fortunes built up by men of exceptional merit would 
 always counteract the levelling tendency. Under a properly under- 
 stood system of individual and common rights and duties the com- 
 munity would hardly consent to tie the hands of future generations 
 by perpetuating privileges for all time or in such a manner, that 
 their material consequences should act into eternity to the profit of 
 individuals at the expense of the commonwealth. The idea, that 
 each generation must only dispose of its own products, that it has 
 no right to burden posterity with debts and restrictions, and that it 
 is only a holder for life, not an absolute owner of natural resources 
 and inherited advantages, is gaining ground in circles which do not 
 lie urjder the suspicion of harbouring revolutionary sentiments. 
 In national finance the principle is almost generally acknowledged, 
 although its practical application is not always possible to a 
 generation burdened so heavily with the debts of its predecessors, 
 and some striking instances of its action are afforded by the eager- 
 ness of English statesmen to commute perpetual pensions awarded 
 to the families of distinguished men in times which were less 
 scrupulous regarding the rights of future generations. 
 
 The actual condition of the lower classes is so depressed and 
 their views of the possibilities of life so restricted and so coloured 
 by dismal experience, that for the present the bulk of them would 
 be quite satisfied with a state of things under which they enjoyed 
 the right to work hard and to receive in return the wages required 
 for a mode of life which members of the more fortunate classes, 
 if they were condemned to it, would consider absolutely unworthy
 
 THE EXISTING INEQUALITIES. 265 
 
 of civilized beings. I have therefore no doubt, that the system 
 proposed by me would be accepted as sufficient by the great 
 majority of the present generation of working men, that for the 
 nonce a programme of social reform might stop there. But at the 
 same time I must admit, that something more is yet required in 
 order to give stability to the system, to render it efficient for coming 
 ages. The spread of culture teaches our growing masses the true 
 dignity of labour, renders them capable of enjoying better and 
 higher things than those with which they have been contented 
 heretofore and frees their intelligence from the fetters of blind 
 prejudices and false reverences. In proportion as they learn to 
 appreciate true greatness and worth, they must come to despise 
 sham greatness and to grudge with indignation the possession of 
 power, influence and the means for leading a nobler life to those who 
 do not prove themselves worthy of the preference. Gradually they 
 must begin to understand, that a fair chance to obtain these things 
 should be the right of every one, and that they should be secured 
 by the possessors of great qualities and the renderers of great 
 services, the born rulers of men who prove their claims by being the 
 most efficient servants of the commonwealth. Not always will the 
 workers be content to resign on account of their birth the prospects 
 of comfort and influence, not always will they allow individuals to 
 enter by the fact of their birth into rights and possessions of such 
 an exceptional nature, that the less favoured cannot hope to arrive 
 ever at the same position even by the most strenuous exertions. 
 Of course we know very well that happiness does not follow riches 
 nor power. The story of the poor man who contrives to be happy, in 
 contrast to the rich man oppressed by his wealth and his position, 
 has been dinned into the ears of the hungry masses during many 
 centuries. Religion has taken it for its text pointing the moral 
 of contentedness and resignation. But, if the theory holds good, 
 would it not be simpler for the rich minority to give up their wealth
 
 266 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 than for the poor majority to cease striving for riches in the presence 
 of individuals possessed of them and — in spite of all moral lessons — 
 sticking to them as to life itself ? What is the use of trying to 
 obscure simple manifest facts ? The people are not so childish as 
 to be deceived by such sham sentiments which are refuted by the 
 lives of the preachers themselves. The best way, most honest and 
 most politic, is to own the facts and to act upon them. Let us 
 acknowledge, that it is better for any one to earn his livelihood 
 by light work than by hard, that it is an immense advantage not 
 to be dependent upon one's work for bread from day to day. Here, 
 as in so many other instances, we recognise the facts clearly enough 
 in every individual case. We should think the man a fool who — 
 without special reasons— would work ten hours for the wages which 
 he can earn by five hours' work of the same kind. But when it 
 comes to a universal application, we get timid and take refuge 
 behind some almost superstitious feeling, that, the more hard toil 
 is performed in the world, the safer and better it is for the common- 
 wealth. I have treated of this matter in a previous chapter and 
 need therefore not enter into a detailed argument here. What 
 I want to lay stress upon in this place is, that with the spread of 
 culture and in a state of fair prosperity these facts cannot fail to 
 strike the multitude more and more, and that it behoves thinking 
 men to take account of this and direct the tendency into the right 
 channels. 
 
 Before proceeding to a consideration of the measures by which 
 a more lasting equality could be efifected without detriment to the 
 development of mankind, we must deal with the notion, that a 
 system of this kind would result in an undesirable uniformity and 
 rob human life of all its colour. The assertion is heard so 
 frequently, that it is impossible to ignore it, yet it seems to me 
 based upon an imperfect distinction between natural and artificial 
 conditions or upon a confusion of cause and effect. No doubt at
 
 THE TRUE INTERESTS OF LIFE. 267 
 
 present life gains most of its colour and diversity from the struggle 
 for necessaries, but this is not because there is nothing else in 
 existence capable of colouring and diversifying it, but because the 
 majority of men have no time or energy to devote to other motives, 
 both being absorbed by the struggle for bread, which must 
 necessarily take the first place. It seems to me, that the distance 
 between the capacities for action and enjoyment of different indi- 
 viduals is so great, and that passions and inclinations are so diverse 
 in direction and in degree, that there is not the slightest reason to 
 expect a dead level amongst people, after the fear of undeserved 
 want and the prospect of undeserved gains is lifted from them. 
 The real great interests of life are not necessarily connected with 
 pecuniary gain, although in our times the idea of wealth has 
 become so intertwined with every step and every consideration of 
 the ordinary man, that to many people it appears as the only 
 legitimate object of interest. Here again the analogy from in- 
 dividual cases does not bear out in any way the apprehensions with 
 regard to a general application. We expect the richest, fullest kind 
 of life to be the lot of those individuals who are not hampered 
 in their development and in their activity by the incessant care for 
 their daily bread, we do not believe in our hearts, that any man 
 or woman could find life poorer, emptier, less interesting for want 
 of that stimulus. We expect men born in a position which renders 
 the acquisition of wealth unnecessary to them, to do better things 
 and to enjoy life more fully and more nobly than those whom we 
 cannot help calling less fortunate. If in many cases they fall short 
 of the expectations, if they do not get beyond the state of coarse en- 
 joyment or are wrecked upon the shoals of indifference, having lost 
 interest in life altogether, we must recollect, that under our present 
 system individuals of the lowest vitality and capacity may, or rather 
 must be found amongst the rich as well as amongst the poor, and 
 that even the temptations implied in the unearned possession of
 
 268 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 an exceptionally advantageous material position must to some 
 extent explain the degeneration of a certain proportion of in- 
 dividuals so situated. Mind, that there is no question of a life 
 without work ! However far we may stretch our fancy, we cannot 
 conceive of any condition of things which does not give scope to 
 the exercise of the best powers of mankind for want of material 
 to exert itself upon. The inhabitants of such a world would have 
 ceased to be human in any sense in which we can understand the 
 term. There will always be the battle with nature and with con- 
 tending human forces, tasks will never fail to whoever is able to 
 strive, and the fact,, that the mere necessaries of life will be within 
 the reach of everybody, and the highest social advantages the re- 
 ward of the best and the strongest, will rather heighten than lower 
 the interest of the race. Would life be more interesting, if only a 
 minority was born with a covering of skin, and the majority had 
 to work for it as they must for bread now ? The energy of the 
 masses would be exhausted in the struggle for skin, as they are now 
 in that for ordinary comforts, the counters would be changed, the 
 game would not gain in interest, but the absolute gains would be 
 smaller. Just so, when the necessaries will be assured, the interest 
 of the game will not abate, but the aggregate gains will be very 
 much greater, mankind will develop at a quicker rate and in a less 
 one-sided direction. Life will be better, given more to ideal endea- 
 vours and therefore much more, not less interesting than it can ever 
 be under a system of glaring undeserved inequalities. 
 
 Another objection somewhat similar in character to the previous, 
 although urged from a different quarter is, that with the cessation 
 of misery charity would cease, and in order to meet the reproach 
 of selfishness implied in the wish for others' suffering for the 
 gratification of one's charitable longings, it is pointed out, that 
 charity of the noblest kind is practised between the poor them- 
 selves. The virtue of charity is counted so precious, that it is
 
 ARTIFICIAL CHARITY NO VIRTUE. 269 
 
 worth while to tolerate misery for the purpose of giving scope to 
 this, one of the noblest attributes of humanity. Its educating 
 influence upon the masses themselves, the ennobling and widening 
 of sympathies connected with its practice are considered to out- 
 weigh the undeniable damage caused by inequality and the con- 
 sequent misery. Well, I deny this altogether. I deny the right 
 of any one, individual or community, to arrange a system of edu- 
 cation by starvation, and by starvation not of the rebellious, the 
 ill-natured, the vicious, but of the poor. I deny the beauty and 
 desirability of any virtue which finds no scope in natural and 
 necessary conditions. Fancy, where such a theory would lead us ! 
 We might let the poor be imprisoned, that so we might find an 
 opportunity of exercising our virtuous love of freedom in liberat- 
 ing them, or we might consciously surround them with a web of 
 lies, in order to give them and others the opportunity for proving 
 themselves truthful. It is a bottomless abyss of nonsense. And 
 no conceivable case is worse than that of artificial charity, for the 
 very toleration of avoidable misery pre-supposes a want of charity 
 which is not to be made good by any subsequent patchwork in 
 mitigation. No, it is nothing but selfishness which can prompt 
 such a suggestion, not the coarse selfishness of the common 
 plunderer or sensualist, but the subtle egotism of finely sensitive 
 organisms, willing to sacrifice and to enjoy sacrifice and grown 
 fond of the practice in themselves and others. This is surely a 
 want of seriousness. Whatever life may be, it is not a histrionic 
 performance for the delectation of human beings, where any one 
 may create misery and hardship for the pleasure of making matters 
 come right in the fifth act. Some hard facts are manifest in every 
 one's view, that hunger bites, that cold hurts, that neglect eats 
 the heart away. Let us look upon the world as a reality, fully as 
 real as ourselves, let us heal the evils which we find remediable, 
 not keep the wounds open, in order to exercise the fortitude of the
 
 270 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 patient, and to give the doctors occasion to exercise, and perhaps 
 chiefly to show, their skill and benevolence. 
 
 Does not an enormous, an almost incredible presumption lie in 
 the theory, that misery ought to exist for charity's sake ? There 
 are the poor, the miserable, clamouring not for alms, but for the 
 institution of a system which enables them to do without charity. 
 Who are you to say, that they are wrong, that it is better for them 
 to be miserable and to be relieved by charity, just to awaken in 
 them the feeling of gratitude and in others the sweet consciousness 
 of having done something beyond a citizen's strict duty? And 
 this in a country which threatens to withhold political rights from 
 the poor man who has had recourse to medical relief, in a country 
 which keeps its workhouses, the last refuge of the aged and in- 
 capacitated poor, a little lower in comfort than its prisons ! We 
 may believe, that the poor know their own interest best, so far at 
 least. Let us help them, as far as in us lies, to get happy in their 
 own way, which, as all experience teaches, is the only effective 
 way. Above all let us refrain from setting up ourselves as the 
 holders of a superior theory patented for application to the poor 
 only, from which we would try to escape ourselves with all our 
 might, were we threatened with a dose of it. 
 
 Yes, charity is a great thing and a good thing. Life would be 
 poor indeed without it. But charity is not gratification of benevo- 
 lent instincts nor the wish to procure such gratification for others. 
 Charity is the sister and helpmate of justice, bound to succour 
 where justice does not reach, bound to succour, I say, whether we 
 like the work or not. Its exercise may be pleasant as that of 
 justice may be, but only selfish sham-charity — which is no more 
 charity than selfish justice is justice — can pick and choose its 
 objects according to caprice or prejudice. Of course there must 
 be division of labour in this as in any other field of activity, and it 
 is only reasonable, that personal inclinations as well as abilities
 
 FULL SCOPE FOR REAL CHARITY. 271 
 
 should be considered in the choice, but I am speaking not of 
 individual exertion, but of the system which should form the basis 
 of charitable action. An individual, having only a limited fund 
 of means and energy to bestow, is at liberty to bestow them in 
 accordance with its leanings, as far as opportunity offers, but the 
 community has to provide charity wherever there is a call for it and 
 has not the right to consider its own predilections and aversions. 
 
 And now let us suppose, that we have succeeded in abolishing 
 undeserved poverty, that every man willing and able to work can 
 lay his hands upon the means of living, that every one has a fair 
 prospect of finding scope for his best powers and of being rewarded 
 accordingly. Will there be no occasion for true charity then ? 
 Will sickness, will death, will untoward complications cease in this 
 world ? It is only our misconceived notion, that money, money is 
 at the bottom of everything, which can let any one forget the 
 great natural facts for a moment. We know, that there are a thou- 
 sand ways of proving the sympathy, which is the essential thing in 
 charity, beside the giving of help in the shape of money or alms. 
 We know, that the wealthiest stand in need of this as much as the 
 poorest, that there are sufferings as bitter as hunger and cold 
 against which no change of system can avail. Scope enough and 
 too much will there be at all times for any amount of charity 
 capable of existing amongst human beings, no need at all to create 
 artificial opportunities for it. History's pages teem with instances 
 of a want of charity, who has ever heard of any time or condition 
 when there was too much of it ? We will do our best to combat 
 the material evils of humanity wholesale and radically and we 
 may be sure, that, the nearer we come to perfection in this respect, 
 the purer and quicker will be the development of all those impulses 
 and aspirations, charity included, which distinguish man from all 
 other forms of existence. 
 
 Amongst the measures proposed in the interest of a better dis-
 
 272 
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 tribution of wealth a graduated income tax figures prominently. 
 It is recommended by some earnest friends of the lower classes 
 and might be made in a rough and ready way to temper somewhat 
 the hardships arising under the present system. According to its 
 thoroughness it might be a very insignificant reform, or it might 
 be a much nearer approach to communism than anything proposed 
 by me. If the graduation was slight and calculated only to cover 
 the necessary public expenditure, the whole effect upon the work- 
 ing classes would be to relieve them from taxation, which would 
 not go far towards the better distribution of wealth. In order to 
 produce a strong effect, the tax would have to be imposed in such 
 a manner, that it greatly diminished the existing difference between 
 individual incomes. From a certain point upwards the State 
 would have to take a very large proportion of the surplus income. 
 People used to a revenue of ^^30,000 a year would have it curtailed 
 to say i^S.ooo, those used to i^i,ooo must be satisfied with;^500 and 
 so on. Such an equalization of incomes, if carried far enough, 
 would bring the nation soon to a practical state of communism, as 
 the enormous revenue from the tax would be spent upon public 
 objects. If applied to all incomes, it would evidently impose 
 great sacrifices upon those people who earn their incomes by real 
 work with only slight assistance from capital, like eminent artists, 
 lawyers and other professional men. But should the graduation 
 refer only to incomes from land and capital, so that the earnings 
 of labour — however large— were left to the earner, an immense task 
 would fall upon the State in discriminating in each individual case 
 between the different sources of income, which under many cir- 
 cumstances is hardly practicable. The measure would then bear 
 the same tendency as the regulation of working time, but, instead 
 of going to the roots, it would occupy itself merely with the fruits 
 and sanction an injurious and avoidable grinding on condition of 
 confiscating its results.
 
 GRADUATED INCOME TAX UNSUITABLE. 273 
 
 A thorough-going graduation of the income tax would involve a 
 much more sudden change in our social conditions than anything 
 which I have proposed, besides arousing a great deal more bitter- 
 ness. If we want to be just, we must consider the peculiar position 
 of the richest equally with that of the poorest part of the popu- 
 lation. The education of members of the wealthy classes is of 
 such a kind, that many of them would be lost, if they were reduced 
 to the necessity of living in the style of comparatively poor men. 
 Without pretending, that this difficulty is an insuperable one, or 
 that it could be allowed to stand in the way of a graduation of the 
 income tax, if such seemed necessary in the interest of the common- 
 wealth, I admit, that it is a real difficulty, and that the material 
 position of the more favoured classes in this generation should 
 be handled gently and without unnecessary violence. It is easy 
 to understand, that people would rather submit to an alteration 
 of conditions which curtails exceptional opportunities of acquisi- 
 tion, than go on enjoying the former opportunities and then 
 have the results taken from them at the end of the year. Under 
 my system, which is not intended to abolish exceptional material 
 reward for exceptional service, but rather to apportion the income 
 to the value of the performance, a thorough graduation of the 
 income tax is neither necessary nor advisable. It would surely be 
 paradoxical to allow the best man to earn a fortune and then to 
 take it from him in the shape of income tax. As to property, its 
 opportunities of acquisition would be reduced to reasonable pro- 
 portions, and there would therefore be no necessity to meddle with 
 its income every year. 
 
 But in maintaining every one's right to the fruits of his legiti- 
 mate labour, I need not and do not include the right of the son to 
 his father's, any more than that of the father to his son's earnings, 
 and this applies as well to the income from labour as to that from 
 land and capital. The question of the rights of inheritance and 
 
 T
 
 274 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 bequest has been before the pubUc dunng a long time, and has 
 received full treatment at the hands of J. S. Mill and other 
 economists and philosophers. It is generally felt, that the hard- 
 ship implied in their restriction or abolition does not lie so much 
 on the side of the possible recipient as on that of the intending 
 bequeather, who is prevented from doing what he likes with his own. 
 The restriction of the right to receive property by inheritance or 
 bequest would only be on a par with a peculiar kind of taxation, 
 but the prohibition of bestowing property in whatever way the 
 owner pleases, is doubtless an act of interference with personal 
 liberty. Yet, if it is understood once for all, that property can 
 only be held on such terms, the hardship disappears, and the fact, 
 that the prohibition applies equally all round, would prevent it 
 from becoming a source of such misery and suffering as follow 
 from the present system of free disposal. We must bear in mind, 
 that in a society based upon a better understanding of aims as well 
 as of ways and means there will be no call for colossal private 
 fortunes. Where there is no fear of want, there is no need for 
 incessant hoarding. The man who can leave his children in such 
 a position, that they are reasonably certain of earning the means 
 for a decent existence by ordinary capacity and diligence, and of 
 reaching a proportionately better condition and higher rewards ac- 
 cording to what they are able and willing to perform beyond the 
 average, ought to be and will be easy about their future, and need 
 certainly not grieve at not being allowed to transfer to them as a 
 means of further accumulation property, which formed the reward 
 of exceptional work performed by him personally, provided that 
 the same restrictions apply to all those with whom his children 
 will have to compete in life. 
 
 As to the right of the community to limit or abolish the rights 
 spoken of, there will hardly be any serious difference of opinion 
 amongst those who have devoted some attention to this and
 
 LET EVERY ONE ENJOY HIS REWARDS. 275 
 
 similar subjects. Property can only be held subject to alterations 
 of the law. The community has the inalienable right to arrange 
 by peaceful means its terms of citizenship, to alter, if necessary, 
 the basis of the social structure, to accept and digest new ideas, 
 and if such alteration implies an interference with the rights of 
 property or of persons, it is the latter which must give way. I 
 admit, that such a reform is different in character from those which 
 I have proposed up to now. Whereas there it was merely in- 
 tended to restrict the undue advantages enjoyed by private pro- 
 perty, the purpose and effect of an interference with the rights of 
 bequest and inheritance would be to alter the legal status of pro- 
 perty altogether in such a way as to prevent its natural and 
 necessary rewards from falling entirely into the hands of private 
 individuals who have done nothing towards their earning. Yet 
 such an alteration will be made, when the community has once 
 fully grasped its own duty to render life bearable, as far as material 
 conditions go, to all members, not merely to a minority of the 
 population. The system of unlimited accumulations in private 
 hands, which has had a fair innings and held sway during the 
 whole modern era, has broken down under the fierce stress of 
 material progress. It has kept the masses in poverty, it has led 
 large numbers into chronic distress, it has squandered all the 
 great opportunities made ready to its hand by science and labour, 
 and it has not even succeeded in creating an aristocracy of peculiar 
 excellence or perfection which any other system could not have 
 produced. The community is therefore bound in self-defence to 
 strike at the roots of undue and unearned accumulation, just as it 
 was forced to abolish chattel-slavery and serfdom, which in their 
 time seemed also founded on social necessity and inseparably con- 
 nected with the maintenance of society. And if, in order to avoid 
 the hard pressure of great sudden changes, it consents to leave 
 the enjoyment of undue advantages to their actual possessors,
 
 276 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 there is surely nothing objectionable in restricting their use to one 
 generation. The centripetal force of property is such, that large 
 accumulations unintended by the community must occur under 
 any system of private property. As a conditio sine qua 7ion for a 
 solid foundation of society a dispersion of property at certain 
 recurring intervals is therefore required, and these are most easily 
 and efficiently fixed at the time of the passing away of the indi- 
 viduals who have effected the accumulations. The desirability 
 of such a measure was clearly understood by John S. Mill, but 
 asserted only in a hypothetical form and as a kind of pious 
 opinion, because too far removed from the sentiment of his time. 
 But since then things have come to such a pass, that it would 
 only require a moderate quickening of the progress of public sen- 
 timent to bring such a measure within the range of practical 
 politics. It is always so — the theoretical opinion of one genera- 
 tion, if not disproved in the meantime, becomes the practical task 
 of the next, thus the steps of progress are formed under the guid- 
 ance of the clearest minds of every generation. 
 
 As I have stated repeatedly, the measures which I propose do 
 not aim at the institution of a uniform level of comforts. In fact, 
 unless we resort to the strictest forms of communism, we cannot 
 conceive a practicable scheme of society, where the leaders and 
 rulers could not have opportunities of enjoyment — material and 
 otherwise — in excess of those within the reach of the common 
 labourer. It will also be inevitable, that the children of men in 
 prominent positions and in the receipt of exceptionally large 
 incomes will be brought up in such a manner, that they contract 
 habits of expenditure different from those acquired by the children 
 of poorer people. As long as these habits do not interfere with 
 the safety, morality and general well-being of the community, 
 there is no reasonable ground for interfering with them. It would 
 therefore not be equitable to condemn the children of wealthy
 
 RESTRICTION OF THE RIGHT OF BEQUEST. 277 
 
 men after the death of their parents, and before they have been 
 able to make positions for themselves, to descend to the lowest 
 mode of living. This would put them at a disadvantage against 
 those who start at the foot of the social ladder, which is neither 
 fair nor necessary. A certain amount of property, if in the 
 parents' possession at the time of their death, ought to be trans- 
 ferred to the children, but this amount should be limited so far, 
 that it could not afford to the inheritors the opportunity of obtain- 
 ing without labour incomes in excess of the average earnings of the 
 population. It would be impossible for me to fix here the figure 
 which should form the maximum, but on the basis of average 
 earnings of manual labourers, professional men, officials and others 
 it would not be a very difficult task to find a fair and reasonable 
 amount. For the present we may put it at ^^5,000. This means, 
 that a man leaving £y:>f)00 worth of property might benefit under 
 his will six individuals to the highest extent permitted by law. 
 Should he die intestate and leave three children, each of them 
 would receive i^5,ooo, and the remaining iJ" 15,000 would flow to 
 the State. Suitable provision would be reserved for widows and 
 other relations who are not in a position to earn the means of sub- 
 sistence by their labour. The amount bequeathable to the widow 
 might be fixed in excess of the ordinary maximum, and this would 
 be justified by the consideration, that the wife, as the partner and 
 coadjutor in her husband's life and work, has an exceptional claim 
 upon its fruits. Or it might even be considered right to leave 
 the whole of the property, after the claims of the children have 
 been satisfied, to the widow during widowhood. 
 
 I have stated already, that the restriction of the undue advan- 
 tages of property effected by the measures proposed previously 
 will bring about a more rational and less ostentatious mode of 
 living and spending amongst the wealthy classes. A wasteful 
 expenditure will then not form one of the so-called duties of an
 
 278 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 ill-chosen aristocracy, and the want of means to indulge in it will 
 therefore not be felt as a hardship by sensible people. Under such 
 circumstances the measure will work much less harshly than a 
 thorough graduation of the income tax would. 
 
 The purpose of the reform would be frustrated, if an unlimited 
 number of people were allowed to bequeath the maximum amount 
 permitted by law to the same individual, or if the holders of pro- 
 perty kept the power to give away during their life-time an 
 unlimited amount of property to any one person. Even if the 
 amount transferable by gift was limited by law, it would still be 
 possible, that, in order to create one very large fortune, a number 
 of people, say all the members of a large and wealthy family, may 
 combine to make gifts of the highest amount permitted to one 
 person, who might thus come into possession by gift of a much 
 larger property than the community intended him to receive in 
 this manner. I propose to meet this difficulty by imposing the 
 limitation not upon the giver, but upon the receiver. It must be 
 enacted, that no one has the right to receive as a gift more than 
 a certain amount within a certain number of years. The amount 
 should be fixed so as to represent the capitalized average income. 
 Let us say for instance, that no one must receive more than ;^5,ooo 
 by gift, inheritance or bequest within ten or fifteen years. I do 
 not conceal from myself, that the administration of such a law 
 will be connected with difficulties, because an over-strict super- 
 vision would entail an unreasonable amount of unproductive work 
 upon the community. But the difficulties are not insurmountable, 
 and the infringement in single instances would not be nearly so 
 harmful as the present unrestricted action. Wealth got in a 
 fraudulent way and under the fear of punishment would at least 
 not be flaunted in the face of the people and could not be used in 
 an oppressively ostentatious manner. Besides it is not too much 
 to hope from the spread of culture and of an enlightened under-
 
 LIMITATION OF THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE GIFTS. 279 
 
 standing of social duties, that public opinion will grow strong and 
 honest enough to serve as an efficient supervisor of social legis- 
 lation. Not by acting the spy upon individuals, but by setting 
 highest store by other things than wealth and by punishing with 
 severe contempt persons detected in anti-social acts. And lastly, 
 the increased security of obtaining the means of a decent existence 
 by labour alone will affect the estimation of wealth even in the 
 less scrupulous members at least so far, that they will not consider 
 the prospect of enriching themselves worth the trouble and danger 
 of committing a fraud upon the State. 
 
 It must not be supposed, that a limitation of the kind proposed 
 here would necessitate the breaking up of large estates or industrial 
 establishments. This would imply in many cases an unnecessary 
 loss and should therefore not be made one of the conditions. But 
 there is in reality no need for it at all. In many of our large 
 banking or manufacturing houses dozens of families are partners. 
 Limited liability and other joint-stock companies have proved long 
 ago, that the destination of the profits has little, if anything, to 
 do with the vitality of a business. If a man left a factory repre- 
 senting a value of ^100,000 and had made two bequests of ^5,000 
 each, the establishment, if prosperous, could be carried on just in 
 the same way as though it had been transferred to one person 
 in its entirety, the State receiving nine-tenths and each legatee 
 one-twentieth part of the profits. Or the legatees might make 
 arrangements with the State to receive the value of their shares 
 in money or they might sell them to a third party. Whether the 
 business should be carried on or wound up, would depend upon 
 whether buyers could be found for it on reasonable terms, but the 
 interests of the legatees would be safeguarded in either case. As 
 soon as a factory fell in to the State, proper steps would be taken 
 to sell it. As we may suppose, that there will always be buyers 
 for a going concern as long as it yields a reasonable profit, we need
 
 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 not be afraid of an undue accumulation of estates and factories 
 in the hands of the State, and, in order to obviate this danger 
 entirely, the authorities might even be entrusted with the power 
 of letting them for the highest rent they will fetch. Thus only 
 those concerns would be broken up, for which neither buyers nor 
 farmers can be found, and this can certainly not be a national 
 misfortune. 
 
 Land will not form an exception to the general rule. As I 
 have explained in a previous chapter, I expect a great change in 
 the character of the cultivation of the soil of England, which will 
 gradually lead to the division of the present large estates. Small 
 holdings, the market value of which does not exceed the legal 
 maximum of bequest and inheritance, will be perpetuated in the 
 owner's family, if he is so inclined. Large estates, the interest in 
 which has not been fully disposed of by the owner in shares within 
 the legal amount, will be sold or let by the State in the same 
 manner as factories or other forms of capital. This, in conjunction 
 with the proper safeguards of the public interests in the land as 
 proposed by me, will render a formal nationalization of the land 
 superfluous, especially if it is made a standing rule, that all estates 
 falling in must be sold or let in preference to small tenants, wher- 
 ever the nature of the estate permits a division. 
 
 By this scheme of the limitation of the rights of inheritance, 
 bequest and gift we have provided for such a distribution of 
 wealth, that we need not stand in fear of enormous accumulations 
 in private hands unwarranted by peculiar gifts and services on 
 the part of the possessor. We have also taken care, that by the 
 process the productive power of the community shall not be im- 
 paired. We shall now have to investigate, whether the highest 
 interests of the community are best served by an all-embracing 
 realization of this measure or by the allowance of exceptions. 
 
 There are classes of objects which in the interest of individual
 
 THE DESIRABLE EXCEPTIONS. 281 
 
 and national culture it is desirable to perpetuate in families. 
 Firstly things which, from the associations connected with them, 
 possess a higher value for members of a certain family than they 
 can possess for any one else, secondly objects, the transfer of which 
 from generation to generation is peculiarly suited to foster the 
 sentiment of citizenship and the consciousness of historical growth, 
 both of which ought to be furthered by all means consistent with 
 the safety of public rights. The first place amongst these belongs 
 to dwelling-houses, especially to houses in the country, but there 
 are many other things to which the same consideration applies. 
 Jewels descended from mother to daughter, collections of books, 
 pictures and other objects of art, made by a father or a more 
 remote ancestor, have a particular value for the possessor, provided 
 that he is imbued with sufficient reverence or taste to appreciate 
 them on behalf of their associations. Even things of small intrinsic 
 value may be very precious to their owners, when they have been 
 given to them by beloved persons, or when they embody the re- 
 collection of some occasion of interest to them, if to no one else. 
 The same kind of peculiar value may also attach to objects of 
 great intrinsic value, and it would be a distinct loss to the com- 
 munity, if death must deprive the family of all the external symbols 
 of family relations and thus destroy the sentimental value of 
 intrinsically valuable objects. We can imagine a time, when every 
 family will be in the possession of valuable heirlooms, when good 
 pictures will be found in every respectable home, when a well 
 stocked library will be considered as part of the necessary furni- 
 ture. What a loss to the community, if at the death of the head 
 of the family these things must be dispersed ! What a loss, I say, 
 without any compensating gain, without any valid reason ! We 
 must also bear in mind, that gifts are in many cases only attempts 
 to remunerate services for which no wages have been stipulated. 
 Public and private testimonials belong to this category. Where
 
 282 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 they are the true expression of gratitude and esteem, they are 
 earned fully as well as the wages arranged between employer and 
 employed. It would not do to put a limitation like the one pro- 
 posed upon the action of men wishing to confer a tangible proof 
 of their esteem upon individuals, whom they regard as deserving 
 of special recognition. 
 
 This matter has also a material aspect of considerable import- 
 ance. For, although I do not entertain the slightest doubt, that 
 the world's work will be done as strenuously under a system offer- 
 ing less colossal pecuniary prizes than the present is believed to 
 do, yet I doubt, whether the consciousness, that no acquisition 
 would be allowed to remain in the acquisitor's family after his 
 death, would not have a detrimental influence upon the expen- 
 diture. Many works of art are ordered with the intention of 
 conferring a distinction upon a family, many costly and beautiful 
 things are bought with the wish, that they should form a means of 
 remembrance and a tangible historical link for generations to 
 come. It is probable, that many men would not have their houses 
 built quite so beautifully and solidly, that many would refrain from 
 laying out so much money on works of art, if the immediate 
 enjoyment of them could not be transferred to those whom they 
 deemed most worthy of it or for whom they wished specially to 
 render life beautiful. The demand for objects which are capable 
 of being transmitted through long periods of time would be 
 diminished as compared with those, which by their nature must 
 be used up during one generation — a consummation to be avoided 
 in the best interest of the community. Although the State would 
 be a great patron of the arts, they would yet suffer through want 
 of private patronage, lasting monuments of artistic excellence 
 would be in less general demand, and there would be probably 
 fewer of those treasures of exceptional skill and worth, which are 
 of such essential importance to the growth of art and of culture
 
 THE PERPETUATION OF FAMILY TREASURES. 2S3 
 
 generally, to be transmitted from one generation to the next. 
 Surely this danger must be averted, if it can be done in any way 
 without prejudice to the commonwealth. 
 
 Now, if we revert to the motives of the proposed measures, we 
 remember, that the most urgent, and in fact the decisive one, 
 was the necessity of preventing the great accumulations of property 
 from absorbing an undue share of the wealth produced. It is 
 therefore clear, that objects of wealth which cannot be utilized as 
 capital might be perpetuated in families with comparative harm- 
 lessness. Those things of peculiar value, intrinsic or personal, of 
 which we have spoken before, are in themselves no helps to pro- 
 duction and no means of accumulation. As long as they remain 
 in the condition, and are used for the purpose, for which they were 
 intended by their founder or buyer, their possession by individuals 
 by way of gift or bequest would not interfere with the social 
 scheme sketched here, and they might safely be left to the family 
 or to whomsoever their proprietor wishes to convey them. Their 
 possession would naturally confer a certain distinction, but it 
 would not bring any material advantage. The presumption, that 
 a man who has a lively regard for art and science, will be able to 
 judge of other peoples' ability to appreciate his treasures, and that 
 they will therefore be bestowed in most cases where they yield 
 the largest amount of instruction and enjoyment, is an obvious 
 one. A good deal may also be said for the transfer of such things 
 by inheritance, as — with all the exceptions met with on every hand 
 — the greater average capacity of enjoying works of taste and 
 of appreciating science must lie with the children of the cultured, 
 who have themselves shown taste and appreciation of knowledge. 
 The advantage of preserving family tradition and friendly feeling 
 by aid of material symbols like a family house, inherited works 
 of art, books etc. is so great, that it outweighs the objection of 
 social inequality to a certain extent. The problem is to prevent
 
 284 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 the recipients of such gifts from turning them into instruments of 
 accumulation and thereby defeating the aims of the legislature 
 and presumably also the intentions of the donor. The means for 
 effecting this are at hand. Not quite without trouble, but with 
 perfect efficacy can it be done. It will be necessary for the 
 purpose to create a distinctive kind of property, different from 
 general property by its quality of being unsaleable. Every one 
 should have the right to register objects of any value which — 
 subject to special legislation — may not be sold or exchanged 
 against any but registered objects. It is the old method of entail 
 with this difference, that the holder of the entailed property would 
 have the power of parting with it by gift or bequest, and by this 
 act conferring upon the recipient his rights in the object. Such 
 things could then never be converted into capital and, weighted 
 with this restriction, would not even afford a basis for the loan of 
 capital. The inheritor of an entailed collection of pictures valued 
 at i;"ioo,ooo, might give them all away, if he was so minded, but 
 in return he could not receive more than the maximum amount 
 permitted to be received as a gift of unentailed property. In this 
 way the peril of accumulation of unearned capital in individual 
 hands is obviated, whilst all the advantages arising to the com- 
 munity from individual possession, the highest promotion of family 
 connexion and friendly association are fully safeguarded. By- 
 and-by it would come to pass, that all objects older than one 
 generation would be entailed, the community would get accustomed 
 to the restriction, as others have got accustomed to institutions 
 like general conscription, which mean trouble of a very different 
 calibre. Let us be imbued with the idea, that such a regulation 
 is desirable in the highest interest of the community, and who 
 would be fool enough to oppose it on the ground of difficulties, 
 which can evidently be surmounted } 
 
 It stands to reason, that the right of entail can extend only to
 
 ENTAILED PROPERTY. 285 
 
 objects which do not aid in production, neither land nor capital 
 can be registered. This is the fundamental distinction between 
 this kind of entail and that which obtains at present in the United 
 Kingdom. The house in which a man dwells may descend to his 
 son or to a favoured friend to dwell in or to exchange against 
 other registered property, but not the houses which are let and 
 made to yield a return. The capital of the nation cannot be 
 diminished by the process of registration, because the objects 
 capable of it are of such a nature, that they cannot by themselves 
 aid in production, but only might be exchanged against capital, 
 which must have been in existence before. If over nisfht all 
 palatial residences Inhabited by their owners were transformed 
 into common cottages and all pictures in private possession into 
 chromo-lithographs, the working capital of the country would 
 remain the same, and production and distribution might go on as 
 before. Only the pictures in the possession of dealers and the 
 houses in the hands of property-brokers are capital, but the dealers 
 would naturally not think of entailing objects which they intend 
 to sell. 
 
 In the preceding I believe I have met all reasonable objections 
 to the limitation of the rights of gift, bequest and inheritance, and 
 to have stated fully the desirable exceptions as well as the manner 
 to introduce them. This measure forms the coping-stone of the 
 structure which I wished to submit to the public, the last item in 
 my social programme. It is practically the nationalization of 
 land and capital as far as it is compatible with the institution of 
 private property and with free labour, in my opinion the only 
 alternative to communism, which, in the present state of culture 
 and in view of the probable development of public opinion during 
 the next generation, I deprecate. If the time comes, which finds 
 a society prepared for purely communistic institutions and capable 
 of maintaining them without over-friction and loss of civilization.
 
 286 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 well and good ! In the meantime we will strive to save whatever 
 is worthy and capable of being saved of the institutions to which 
 the civilized world has grown accustomed. The proposed system 
 will prove a salutary preparation for whatever state may be 
 ultimately in store for mankind.
 
 I 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 Recapitulation. — The ruling spirit. 
 
 N view of the greatness and complexity of the subject treated 
 in the preceding chapters it seems desirable to recapitulate 
 in short the principal conclusions at which we have arrived. 
 
 After having passed in review the most prominent explanations 
 of the insufficiency of the reward of labour, and proved, that the 
 proposed remedies do not meet the case, we have recognised the 
 fact, that material progress increases the power of capital while 
 diminishing that of labour, that the growth of poverty is therefore 
 one of its necessary concomitants. We have seen, that the power 
 of acquisition inherent to capital increases at a larger ratio than 
 its amount, and that thereby large capital is put into a much 
 stronger position than small. We have ascertained, that land in 
 civilized countries shares in the advantages of capital by reason 
 of its limited quantity, and that large property of any kind 
 acts virtually as a monopoly. We have therefore arrived at the 
 conclusion, that a certain restriction of the power of large pro- 
 perty is absolutely required in order to insure a fair reward to 
 labour. 
 
 With the wish to avoid the nationalization of land, labour and 
 capital which can only be carried through under a purely com- 
 munistic system and which does not appear a necessity, and to 
 maintain the institution of private property as far as it is com- 
 
 287
 
 288 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 patible with the intt;rest of the community, we have proposed the 
 following remedial measures. 
 
 1. A fair tax on land, whether actually in use, or kept unused 
 through the fault of the owner. 
 
 2. The community to have the right of compulsory purchase at 
 a fair market-price of any land required for purposes of public 
 
 utility. 
 
 3. Organization of industry by regulation of working time. 
 The maximum working time is to be fixed by authorities delegated 
 by Parliament for the purpose. Every branch of labour to be 
 considered according to its special possibilities and requirements. 
 Manual labour to remain unrestricted, machine labour to be re- 
 stricted in proportion to the ratio between machine power and 
 human labour employed on it and also in proportion to the size 
 of the concern, larger establishments being bound to shorter hours 
 than smaller of the same class. 
 
 4. A duty on speculation sufficient to render the manipulation 
 of markets costly and difficult, and to prevent commercial men 
 from resorting to speculation as the principal means of earning 
 their livelihood. 
 
 5. A limitation of the rights of inheritance, gift and bequest. 
 The advantages of free gift and of traditional transfer to be 
 secured by the institution of a class of unsaleable property. 
 
 For the introduction and administration of these measures we 
 must look to the State. 
 
 Besides this legislation will be required a transfer of agricultural 
 activity from the culture of wheat to other kinds of produce, and 
 a considerable contraction of the number of people employed in 
 commerce, which latter implies the giving up of the unfounded 
 social preference for commercial over industrial labour. The 
 largest possible scope is to be given to progress in skill, culture, 
 temperance and general morality.
 
 RECAPITULATION. 2 89 
 
 This is the practical issue of my investigation. In this way do 
 I propose to organize the newly acquired powers of progress so 
 as to distribute its fruits fairly amongst all workers. 
 
 My scheme will in the first place do away with the illegitimate 
 means of accumulation, by the restriction of speculation and the 
 prevention of undeserved profits from insufficient reward of labour. 
 It will further — and this is its most important feature — secure a 
 fair prospect to the manual worker employed on his own account 
 and to the small capitalist and land-owner. It will bring about 
 a full understanding of the direction which the industry and trade 
 of the country should take with a view to a reasonable employ- 
 ment of the produce, and thereby prevent the frequent unwarranted 
 disturbances of values resulting from misconceptions as to the 
 prospects of supply and demand. It will put a stop to insensate 
 extravagance and regulate the distribution of wealth in such a 
 manner, that on the whole reward will flow to merit. It will 
 finally lead to a better apprehension of the true aims, duties and 
 enjoyments of life, and to a better distribution of the opportunities, 
 which cannot fail to result in moral and intellectual elevation. 
 
 The greatest help towards the realization of these purposes will 
 be afforded by the growth and spread of individual intelligence 
 and culture, and the corresponding extension of political rights. 
 
 Men who have given some thought to the great social problems 
 will not blame me for not having put before the public a system 
 fully worked out in all particulars. Enough if I shall have 
 succeeded in directing some of the latent thinking capacity of the 
 nation to this solution of the problem. The details of legislation 
 and administration will be worked out in due course by the co- 
 operation of those best suited for the purpose. Once the principles 
 are admitted as just and reasonable, the sequel is only a technical 
 matter. Errors will be committed in this as in any other attempt, 
 but experience will bear early fruit, and the nation would soon 
 
 U
 
 290 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 enter into the expected advantages. It has been a source of 
 disappointment to me, to have been compelled to reject one by 
 one the many well-meant projects for the lasting improvement 
 of the social conditions by means of one sweeping measure or by 
 the individual exertions of philanthropists. But, in endeavouring 
 to follow the evil down to its origin, I have found it not only 
 deep-seated, but also many-rooted. In order to effect a radical 
 cure, we must cut at the different roots which are not all assailable 
 by the same kind of action, and it is therefore impossible to solve 
 the problem by any single measure. Looking to historical 
 developments as well as to existing facts, it seems certain to me, 
 that the evils can only be cured by complex remedies, that the 
 personal action of a small minority — however powerful and well- 
 intentioned — can never be efficient to abolish the evils affecting 
 the majority, and that any regulation of the relations between all 
 the members of a community requires constant watchfulness and 
 supervision. If we remember, that the ruling system injures not 
 only agricultural or industrial or commercial labour, but all three, 
 that, besides, it wastes the resources of land and lames the wings 
 of small capitalists, we shall perceive, that it cannot be sufficient 
 to touch either land or manufacture or commerce, but that some- 
 thing is required which acts upon each of them and upon their 
 mutual relations. Also, whilst acknowledging to the fullest extent 
 the good intentions and devoted sacrifices of the philanthropists 
 who expect a radical cure by the moral improvement of the poor 
 alone, I cannot repress the conviction, that — even at the best — 
 it would require generations, before the moral progress could pro- 
 duce any appreciable change in the material relations of society. 
 Neither can I forget, that with regard to social duties the bulk 
 of the middle and upper classes is as far— in some sense farther 
 — from a right conception as the lower. There is of course 
 a difference in the degree of coarseness between the man who
 
 ONE STROKE WILL NOT DO IT. 291 
 
 finds his happiness in fuddling hin:iself with gin, and the other 
 who looks upon successful speculation as the aim of a rational 
 existence, but it is open to doubt, which of the two is more anti- 
 social. To combat the former alone, is not enough. Both should 
 be attacked with vigour, both should be recognised and acknow- 
 ledged as pernicious and wrong. The measures proposed by me 
 assail the one directly, whilst the other is being met by the spread 
 of comparative refinement and will at all times offer a fruitful 
 area for the exercise of personal efforts. Lastly, as to the necessity 
 for watchfulness and constant supervision, we need only glance 
 at any successful concern of whatever kind to find the proof. If 
 you wish to keep a business going, however favourable its position, 
 you know, that you must look after it every day and every hour 
 or, what amounts to the same, employ a competent person to do 
 this for you. To keep an army, a navy, nay a cricket-club in 
 order, you must watch over it continually. It does not do to 
 put it on a sound basis and then to let it go on by itself. 
 There is nothing in the world, no principle, no theory, no 
 mechanical contrivance which can relieve you of the duty of 
 supervision, of constant work. The perpeUiiim mobile has not 
 been invented yet in spite of all progress, nor will it ever be in- 
 vented by human beings, because it is inconsistent with the funda- 
 mental perception of causality. You know, that, merely to keep 
 your shop in order or even to maintain your household, you are 
 bound to contrive ways and means, to keep watch and ward, to 
 strike balances, compare facts week by week, if not day by day. 
 What then justifies the notion, that by one measure or by a series 
 of measures we can provide once for all for the proper working 
 of the relations between millions of beings, having each divergent 
 and most various interests, bearing each in itself capabilities and 
 desires which only become apparent after they have begun to 
 show their effects ? In this case of superlative extension and
 
 292 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 complexity we should be able to create order by doing one stroke, 
 for instance by nationalizing the land once for all, and then folding 
 our arms ? No, it will and cannot be done like that, it would 
 be contrary to all reason and experience, if we found such action 
 to suffice. The regulation of human relations is the greatest 
 task of mankind, requiring the constant exertion of its best in- 
 telligence, and, the more energy and acumen we are prepared to 
 devote to it in honest and kindly intention, the better will it be 
 for mankind and for ourselves amongst others. 
 
 There is indeed one thing which might render all legislative 
 measures superfluous and would effect the desired improvement 
 better and with less friction than any State action could. This 
 is : a thorough change of spirit affecting all classes of the com- 
 munity. If we could bring ourselves and others to understand 
 and to accept practically, that it is desirable to keep the race for 
 wealth within bounds, that it is better to let others earn and enjoy 
 reasonably than to spend unreasonably ourselves or to hoard 
 what we have no legitimate use for, that reward ought to be 
 awarded according to merit only, and that ordinary service can 
 lay claim only to an ordinary income, that property by itself 
 should not and must not confer influence and power, unless it 
 stands as a proof of the owner's exceptional capacity and useful- 
 ness in the widest sense, — then we might dispense with super- 
 vision, with all interference, almost with all laws. Then we mieht 
 safely leave land, labour and capital free to settle their relations 
 between them. 
 
 We hope and expect, that instruction and culture will gradually 
 bend the public mind towards these ideals, but, looking at the 
 opinions held and the aims pursued by the great majority of the 
 cultured classes in our time, we cannot help feeling, that this action 
 can only be a very slow and gradual one. Without neglecting 
 anything of the slightest tendency to bear in this direction, we
 
 A CHANGE OF SPIRIT WOULD SAVE US. 293 
 
 must recognise the necessity of meeting the practical evils by- 
 practical steps of the most incisive vigour. The change of spirit 
 mentioned, the idealization of merit and service instead of pos- 
 session and acquisition, must, consciously or unconsciously, form 
 the ultimate aim of every reformer, who intends to improve the 
 state of mankind without brutalizing it. Any public or private 
 action calculated to counteract it, can never be more than a 
 temporary make-shift bearing within itself the danger of damage 
 immeasurably greater than the material gain which it is expected 
 to bring. I claim for my propositions, that they keep the ideal 
 steadily in view, and that their adoption would do much to 
 quicken the pace of the community towards a purer and higher 
 conception of life. With a more equal and a juster distribution 
 of wealth according to willingness and capacity for work, the 
 desirability of mere accumulation would be diminished, and the 
 ideas of nations and individuals would be directed more upon 
 what may be useful, good and beautiful than upon what brings 
 an opportunity of acquisition and accumulation. The great idea 
 of solidarity, the feeling, that every one has a claim on all and 
 all a claim on every one, which is the root of development from 
 tyrannical Mammonism to just and free labour-rule, from all but 
 chaos to organization and stability, is fertilized by education and 
 by the extension of political rights. Compared with the difference 
 in the degrees of culture between the educated and the unlettered 
 classes only one or two generations ago, the actual distance be- 
 tween the upper and lower classes in this respect is practically 
 inconsiderable. The man who is capable of reading his newspaper 
 intelligently and following the course of events from day to day 
 or from week to week, stands much nearer, in point of capacity 
 to grasp great facts and to abstract the governing ideas, to the 
 most finished scholar of any time, than the wholly uneducated 
 and brutalized individual stands to the average man of the present.
 
 294 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 He will be found fully capable of valuing measures and endeavours 
 according to their social or anti-social tendency. As to political 
 rights, it may be objected, that even in countries where manhood 
 suffrage prevails, the idea of solidarity does not seem to have 
 gained much ground. But the objection is superficial, for, although 
 in countries like Germany and France it has not yet gained uni- 
 versal approval, it is making rapid progress nevertheless, as 
 evidenced by the growth of Socialism, which — however incom- 
 pletely — represents the principle, in spite of oppression and dis- 
 couragement, by the altered way of thinking of educated men, 
 and by the tribute paid to it unwillingly in the adoption ot 
 socialistic principles by men like Bismarck. Besides, it must not 
 be forgotten, that, although a very great, in fact the greatest task, 
 this is unfortunately not the only thing with which nations have 
 to occupy themselves. Think of what France and Germany have 
 had to work and to suffer during and by the war of 1870, and 
 consider, whether the exertions implied in preparing, retrieving 
 and watching, in national reconstruction and maintenance of the 
 national standing, must not have been a strain sufficient to absorb 
 almost the whole of their surplus energy. But all the time the 
 idea is growing and spreading, and one day it will be strong 
 enough to claim a place before any consideration of prestige and 
 national ascendency. 
 
 Those men who have been able to discern the eternal truth 
 through the complex machinery of society, who have pierced the 
 web of class-interest and prejudice, of individual short-coming and 
 relative necessity, have always been praying and preaching for the 
 great change of spirit. Carlyle put the whole strength of his 
 fiery, earnest soul to the task. It underlies Ruskin's teachings 
 and gives to them a real consistency, which it is sometimes difficult 
 to trace at a cursory glance. But, although by the instruction 
 emanating from their great teachers men can be induced — at least
 
 THE IDEA OF SOLIDARITY. 295 
 
 to a certain extent — to acknowledge the evil, they lack in most 
 cases the capacity of making the change practical, even in them- 
 selves. What can a man do, trained for commerce and incapable 
 in his own opinion of any other pursuit ? What scope is there 
 for the ordinary worker, reduced to the alternative of working at 
 whatever he finds ready to his hand, or starving? Granted that 
 there are men in every class and in every generation who under- 
 stand and appreciate the true principles of life, how rarely does 
 it happen, that they have also the power and opportunity of utter- 
 ing or of giving any practical effect to them ? Therefore it is 
 the task of thinking men in all stations of life to try their best 
 to quicken the process by all means in their power. And, as 
 the experience of the latest times teaches, that great effects are 
 only to be expected from State-action, the machinery of the State 
 must be set in motion. The doctrine of laissez faire has landed 
 us in a ditch, we have grown accustomed not only to resent 
 State-interference, but to refrain from interference ourselves which 
 might have rendered State-action unnecessary. Now we have 
 lost the art altogether, and only the combined organized efforts 
 of the whole nation, which finds its legitimate expression on 
 legislation, can put matters to rights again. Positive, most 
 arduous duties are imposed upon the legislator and consequently 
 upon those who appoint him, tasks which may prove painful as 
 well as difficult. Some say, that public opinion does not demand 
 such measures, that public opinion is not ripe for them. Well 
 then, some one must be in the van of public opinion, as others must 
 be in the rear of it. Do not be afraid of leading, only have a 
 care to lead in the right way according to your best lights ! In 
 matters of expediency, where several solutions of equal justice and 
 reasonableness are possible, it is right that the opinion of the 
 majority should be accepted without demur, but, where principles 
 are concerned, no one has the right to sacrifice his convictions
 
 296 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 to the voice of a majority any more than to his own material 
 interests. Besides, what is that so-called public opinion and 
 how do we arrive at its true expression ? Every day's experience 
 shows, that the clamour which is conventionally honoured by that 
 name, does not always represent the ideas of the majority, and 
 that, even when there is no doubt about the momentary pre- 
 dominance of a certain tendency, it is liable to be turned in the 
 opposite direction by the lightest change of wind. It is generally 
 right in the long run, but before arriving at a sound conclusion, 
 it has to pass through many phases, has to look at facts from 
 different standpoints and, unlike individuals in this respect, it 
 does all its thinking aloud. There are times when public opinion 
 is in course of formation and when its utterances are absolutely 
 worthless as a guide of conduct. Then you have no more pro^ 
 spect of arriving at a true conclusion by following its indications, 
 than you have of reaching the port in safety, if you let your 
 ship follow all changes of wind. A proper discernment, whether 
 public opinion has become settled or whether it is still in its liquid 
 state, a fair appreciation of the fact of it in the former case, and 
 independence from it in the latter belong to the equipment of 
 every man who values the good of the community above temporary 
 popularity and who is not unduly afraid of responsibility. Very 
 frequently too we cannot hear the voice of the majority, because 
 it is drowned by a noisy clique. Then we have different opinions 
 prevailing on different days, and, whoever manages to make the 
 most noise and to keep the last word, carries the point, aided 
 frequently by extraneous and quite irrelevant circumstances. Let 
 us not be afraid of popular opinion, let us try to influence it by 
 all fair means, always with pure intention and in the light of our 
 best knowledge ! We shall then be doing a better work than by 
 following blindly the clamour from day to day. And there is 
 even not much danger to apprehend in case we should be mistaken
 
 SIGNS OF THE TIMES. 297 
 
 in our ideas, for, if truth is in the field — and, to be true, a thing 
 must be possible — it will come out of the struggle strengthened 
 and purified, and if the choice lies only between our error and 
 other errors, there is at least a good prospect, that from the friction 
 of conflicting errors truth may be born. Better in any case to 
 combat one error or wrong by another, than to leave one in un- 
 disputed sway and let judgment go in its favour by default. 
 
 No one will be able to strive effectually for the abolition of 
 social evils who is not animated by the spirit of solidarity, who 
 does not feel at least, that the spirit pervading our present system 
 is not the right one. And, I am glad to say, signs are not wanting, 
 that the general feeling is veering round from naked Mammonism to 
 the recognition of things beside and above property. The creed is 
 confessed by many and felt by many more. Not always are its 
 expressions pleasing, on the contrary, they take often an offensive 
 shape, as for instance when we hear men in political debate im- 
 puting to each other motives of personal greed or ambition and 
 neglect of public interests. Probably in most cases the reproach 
 is made only in a Pickwickian sense, but the idea is in the air 
 nevertheless, and, whether applied rightly or wrongly in each par- 
 ticular case, the conviction takes hold more and more of speakers 
 and hearers, that public men ought not to act for personal aims in 
 the public service and that they must subordinate their private 
 interests to those of the community. Disagreeable as these ebulli- 
 tions are in most cases, they are yet proofs of returning health. If 
 you accuse your opponent of being a humbug, you imply at least a 
 condemnation of humbug. Much better this than the pusillani- 
 mous toleration entertained universally not so very long ago and 
 ruling still certain circles, better than the unconditional approval of 
 all success, by whatever means obtained, better than the unthink- 
 ing acceptance on equal terms and with equal esteem of the 
 successful humbug and the solid worker. It is no matter for
 
 298 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 surprise, that the reproach of pursuing personal ends under the 
 cloak of political work is frequently applied to the wrong person. 
 Even the opposition to the payment of members of Parliament 
 shows the growth of the feeling, that men should not even seem 
 to act for public interests while serving their own. By-and-by the 
 principle will be applied in the right place, to those members who 
 do not want payment and do not even mind spending a good deal 
 of money for the opportunity of representing and serving them- 
 selves or their cliques in Parliament. More practical, although 
 hardly more significant proofs of the subordination of personal to 
 common interests are afforded by the factory legislation and the 
 Irish land acts, whilst in this connexion the activity of the Temper- 
 ance League cannot be ignored. Up to this point public opinion 
 has advanced already, and there is absolutely no ground to fear, 
 that it will prove restive to further attempts in this direction, if 
 they are made reasonably and with sufficient earnestness. I put 
 faith into education and full citizenship and feel sure, that the time 
 will not be long delayed, when the nation will be fully ripe for the 
 most sweeping measures of organization. 
 
 Once measures like those proposed by me have been introduced, 
 they cannot fail to help on that most desirable change of spirit 
 and thus to pave the way for further development. The rewards 
 and opportunities of labour will be so distributed, that it will 
 be not only wrong, but also unnecessary to keep up the frantic 
 stupefying dance round Mammon's altar. The ordinary man, if 
 honest and willing, will then be able to consider the interests of the 
 commonwealth as the commonwealth will consider his, and nations 
 as well as individuals will be gainers. Let it not be forgotten, 
 that nothing has been done during the whole reign of Industrialism 
 to organize the newly found powers, to define properly their scope 
 and limitation, in one word, to do a civilized world's duty by its 
 agents ! Nothing can be worse than the anarchy towards which
 
 THE LIBERTY AND PROPERTY DEFENCE LEAGUE. 299 
 
 we are drifting for want of organization, nothing clearer than the 
 duty of the community to control and direct, nothing more criminal 
 than the neglect of this duty by those who can see, hear and 
 judge. Better even a misdirected attempt to stop the blind rush 
 on the inclined plane, before the nation is hurled into the abyss, 
 than this shutting of eyes and folding of hands in apathy or 
 despair. Only the intention must be pure and kindly, not hate or 
 the wish to destroy, but love, the desire to create and organize 
 must inform the movement. 
 
 But, I hear it said, you sap the foundation of the people's inde- 
 pendence. You teach them to lean upon the State and to expect 
 from it, what they should obtain by their own individual exertions. 
 The objection sounds serious and is certainly meant so by some 
 of the objectors, conspicuous amongst whom is a combination of 
 influential men styling itself the Liberty and Property Defence 
 League. To the scheme proposed by me the objection does hardly 
 apply, as no one will obtain a penny without being willing to work 
 for it. Whoever works better than the average, will obtain more, 
 whoever works worse, will obtain less, only the skilled and willing 
 worker will not be debarred from exercising his skill and diligence, 
 as he is now only too frequently in consequence of all the oppor- 
 tunities being monopolized by a minority. And as to the better 
 distribution of opportunities by the action of the State, for what 
 in all the world is the banding together of men good, if not 
 for that } Is not that a proper purpose for a community ? We 
 do not want a State merely to protect lives which it helps to 
 render worthless, nor do we consider it to exist in the sole inte- 
 rest of the wealthy, nor for ornamental or sentimental purposes. 
 Patriotism and national feeling presuppose the existence of the 
 State, which must therefore have been founded on other neces- 
 sities. One of these necessities is the maintenance of reasonable 
 relations between the different members and classes and the pre-
 
 300 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 vention of the virtual enslavement of one by the other. If the 
 present system satisfied these demands as well as it satisfies that 
 for the protection of life and property, there would be no call for 
 a change, but the condition of the world furnishes incontestable 
 proof, that under present circumstances individual exertion is not 
 sufficient to give to the common man a reasonable security of 
 independence and a decent living. There is no necessity to defer 
 action until wholesale starvation or rebellion or a general down- 
 break of civilization has rendered the position physically untenable. 
 Being forced, after long and patient endeavour, to despair of their 
 capacity of helping themselves, the labourers have not only the 
 right, but the duty to look to the State for the support, the organi- 
 zation, of which they stand in need. They are willing to work in 
 return for the means of subsistence, their idleness is not of their 
 own seeking, and they are unwilling to resort to unlawful means 
 for bettering their condition. There are methods of State-help 
 which by their nature must endanger the spirit of self-reliance and 
 the individual efficiency. A system of State-guaranty of work in 
 any state short of communism might carry these evils with it, 
 and the machinery required for counteracting the tendency seems 
 to me so complicated, that I should not like to recommend it. 
 But here is a method of offering a much increased prospect of 
 useful work and solid reward to every worker, connected with no 
 danger to moral or practical efficiency, and we should certainly not 
 be prevented from availing ourselves of it because the subject is 
 too big for individual enterprise and must therefore be undertaken 
 by the State. 
 
 There is a great deal of exaggeration in this estimate of the 
 effects of State-intervention. We are all agreed, that the State 
 must protect property, and are not troubled with fears, that thereby 
 the foundation of the wealthy man's character will be sapped. 
 Why then should a secured opportunity or an increased prospect
 
 CONFUSION SOMEWHERE. 
 
 of work have such disastrous demoralizing effects which we do not 
 apprehend from a secured income from land or capital ? John S. 
 Mill, not an advocate of unnecessary State-interference himself, has 
 written some words upon this subject which the fanatical oppo- 
 nents of State action should lay to heart. In his " Principles of 
 Political Economy " book v. chapter xi. we read : " Energy and 
 self-dependence are, however, liable to be impaired by the 
 absence of help, as well as by its excess. It is even more fatal to 
 exertion to have no hope of succeeding by it, than to be assured 
 of succeeding without it. When the condition of any one is so dis- 
 astrous that his energies are paralysed by discouragement, assist- 
 ance is a tonic, not a sedative : it braces instead of deadening the 
 active faculties : always provided that the assistance is not such 
 as to dispense with self-help, by substituting itself for the person's 
 own labour, skill and prudence, but is limited to affording him a 
 better hope of attaining success by those legitimate means." I 
 suppose, there is no one who does not consider the present con- 
 dition of the labourer disastrous enough to justify assistance, and 
 the assistance proposed by me is of such a character as to fulfil in 
 every respect the conditions defined above. 
 
 A curious instance of the fear of destroying the self-dependence 
 of the people I find in a published letter from Lord Wemyss to 
 the secretary of the Shop Hours' Labour League, which I think 
 worth citing, because it is typical of the objections raised in all 
 similar cases. The shop-assistants, wishing to influence legisla- 
 tion for early closing, requested Lord Wemyss to become a patron 
 of their league. In his reply he said : "This perpetual invocation 
 of State-interference, I care not by what names it may be backed, 
 is a bad sign of the times, and shows how a morbid, sentimental, 
 ill-advised humanitarianism is eating out the spirit of independ- 
 ence of the people." Truly, in one thing Lord Wemyss is right. 
 The fact, that State help is called for perpetually and from all
 
 302 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 sides, is a bad sign. People are not in the habit of applying to the 
 State, as long as they can help themselves. But under the circum- 
 stances the application to the State may nevertheless be the best 
 possible thing. A malady is not stopped by refraining from 
 calling in the doctor, although the frequent summons to him is a 
 very bad sign indeed. I have no means for entering into the 
 merits of this particular case. It is quite possible, that the associa- 
 tion in question had not yet exhausted its individual resources to 
 such an extent as to be justified in considering private exertions 
 inefficient. But what has this to do with the general reproach 
 of " morbid etc. humanitarianism " t Why should a question like 
 this not be considered on its merits and, if found deserving, be 
 promoted by Parliament, which is after all the appointed repre- 
 sentative of the whole people including shoppers, shop-keepers, 
 and shop-assistants 1 There can never be a necessity of conceding 
 every claim raised by classes or individuals, but it is quite con- 
 sistent with the dignity and efficiency of Parliament to sift the 
 evidence in each case and to put a stop to conditions which are 
 found wrong and anti-social. It seems to me, that in this respect 
 the morbidity is all on the side of Lord Wemyss, who invests the 
 existing state of affairs with a kind of artificial sacro-sanctity and 
 fails to see, that to others it may appear less sacred and satisfactory, 
 not on that of the people who ask for some real work from the 
 State of which they form a component part. 
 
 In order to be able to draw the line so sharply and to determine, 
 that the functions of the State should not be extended further, one 
 must either believe, that the actual relations of society are as satis- 
 factory as they can be made, or, that the powers of the State are 
 already too far reaching. The former view, which would perpetuate 
 to the land-owner the right to depopulate whole districts, to the 
 capitalist the power to starve labour, to crush his smaller com- 
 petitors by his superior weight, and to confiscate the fruits of
 
 THE STATE AND THE INDIVIDUAL. 303 
 
 labour by speculation, to the labourer the alternative of submitting 
 to the most unfair terms or starving, is not only in glaring contra- 
 diction to actual facts, but also morally indefensible. For, that 
 there are evils, is not denied by anybody, and as long as we can 
 see evils and possess energy to try their cure, we have no right to 
 declare them incurable. Resignation in such case implies weak- 
 ness, cowardice or ignorance. The second view opens a very wide 
 perspective. It is impossible to say, what might or might not 
 be effected by decentralization. But, by taking from the State its 
 social functions, you destroy the greater part of its raison d'etre, 
 and gradually its very existence. If you follow this principle out, 
 you must be prepared to see England split up in hundreds or 
 thousands of autonomic communities. Every village would have 
 an equal claim to independence, and it would be hard to say, where 
 the process of disintegration would stop finally. The gains from 
 such a development are extremely problematical, the dangers 
 implied in the absence of any unity of direction are manifest. You 
 could not even reckon upon united action for purposes of defence, 
 and we may therefore safely assume, that this change is not con- 
 templated by the opponents of State-interference. Besides it is at 
 least doubtful, whether the latter would concede to the municipality 
 the rights which they wish to withhold from the State, and almost 
 certain, that the interference of the municipality in social matters 
 would be invoked in time by the weaker or poorer part. I am far 
 from casting any doubt upon the intentions of the self-appointed 
 defenders of individualism. The circumstance, that their principles 
 coincide with their material interests, as they understand them, 
 does not render the former any the worse. Whether they consider 
 a lasting improvement impossible and therefore wish to save the 
 community the trouble of interference, or whether they expect, that 
 affairs will right themselves, if the actual conditions are allowed to 
 continue, it is not my business to investigate, but for the present
 
 304 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 their attitude can only tend towards the maintenance and aggrava- 
 tion of inequality and the practical enslavement of the poor by the 
 rich. In proper recognition of its effects their association should 
 be called the " Liberty of Property Defence League." 
 
 Sometimes the opposition to State-action appears as objection to 
 so-called class legislation. The term "class" being so very elastic 
 and applicable to divisions of the people from different points of 
 view, I suppose, that the objection refers to all legislation which is 
 not intended to affect all individuals or all families in the same 
 direction. Now it can hardly be the intention to convey, that the 
 legislative functions of the State should be circumscribed by such 
 narrow limits, which would be equivalent to restricting them to 
 purposes of police and defence, and to bar the way to all political 
 progress. If we look upon legislation in its true light as authori- 
 tative adjustment, we recognise at once, that the regulation of the 
 mis-relations occurring between different parts of the population 
 which we may call classes, if we like, belongs essentially to the 
 functions of the State. If it is found, that a certain class of men, as 
 capable and trustworthy as those endowed with the franchise, has 
 been left outside of its pale, the State confers the franchise" on it by 
 legislation. If the large towns show the ability and desire for an 
 increased measure of self-government, the State passes the legis- 
 lation enabling them to exercise it. Legislation of this kind 
 can from its nature refer only to fractions of the population, and 
 it would be a lame sort of State indeed which was denied the 
 power of redressing grievances, unless they affected all individuals 
 directly. 
 
 It is most curious to notice the peculiar attitude of mind which 
 sanctions all advantages which under the conditions existing at 
 any given time, one class may obtain by its own force — within the 
 letter of the law, — and at the same time deprecates the appeal ot 
 the oppressed to the common conscience represented in the State.
 
 CLASS LEGISLATION^. 
 
 As though it was not manifestly better, less dangerous and more 
 efficient, to settle in council of the whole nation divergent opinions 
 between different classes and their conflicting claims, than to set up 
 the ideal of brute force by declaring, that men shall get what they 
 can take, that justice and reason carry no claim with them, unless 
 they have proved the material strength and the willingness to 
 enforce it if denied. There is yet another aspect of the question. 
 Who but the proper representatives of the whole nation is able 
 to protect the interest of the whole .'' The shop-assistants may 
 clamour for enforced early closing, the shop-keepers may insist 
 upon their right to keep their shops open at all hours. These 
 claims ought to be weighed carefully, but beside or above them 
 there is yet the nation as a whole to be considered, whose interest 
 is involved in any change of relations occurring within it. It is 
 therefore fit, that the nation, the State, should be called upon to 
 decide the case. Frequently the gain to the community is so con- 
 siderable, that even those members who have apparently been 
 prejudiced by reform gain more in their quality of citizens, than 
 they lose as members of a particular class. Only our unthinking 
 Mammonism, which accepts money alone as the standard of value, 
 and material profit alone as the standard of gain or loss, obscures 
 the gain in many cases, whilst casting a fierce light upon the loss. 
 
 Of course those devotees of progress who conceive of liberty as 
 the right of the individual to exercise all powers, given to it by 
 nature or by social arrangements, according to caprice or for per- 
 sonal ends without consideration for others, will call my proposals 
 retrogressive. Well, hard names break no bones and would cer- 
 tainly not prevent me from advocating any measure which I 
 honestly believed just and advisable. But in fact my scheme is 
 not retrogressive. There is progress and increase of power in 
 moderation, in amelioration as well as in mere growth, the tower 
 of Babel, if the biggest effort of architecture, does not denote the 
 
 X
 
 3o6 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 summit of architectonic art. My scheme is simply a necessary 
 acknowledgment of the results of material progress and an earnest 
 attempt to regulate it for the advantage of the whole, instead of 
 letting it run riot to the prejudice of the majority. It is the 
 proper recognition of the fact, that mankind has attained a new 
 phase in its development and is bound to put its relations on an 
 altered basis. Many things are forbidden to the man which are 
 allowed to the child, yet the restrictions are not the marks of 
 retrogression, but of conscious progress. In the same manner the 
 degree of individual freedom in the utilization of material resources 
 which was appropriate to a state of comparative weakness of 
 capital, when the world had to rely chiefly on direct labour, is not 
 compatible with the higher material civilization, which has trans- 
 ferred the centre of gravity to capital. The present sufferings 
 are the growing pains of the social body, and indicate, that a 
 change of diet is urgently needed. It requires only a clear 
 comprehension of the facts developed in former chapters to recog- 
 nise, that the proposed scheme is not retrograde, which means, 
 that it does not tend to abolish or ignore the results of progress 
 or to hinder its future course, but that it attempts in a truly pro- 
 gressive manner to organize progress and secure its fruits to the 
 world at large. 
 
 The laws and customs which rule industrial life at present do 
 not deserve the name of system, which I have employed only in 
 default of a more significant term. It is almost as bad, as though 
 the administration of justice in the England of to-day was based 
 exclusively upon the feudal principles which formed the basis of 
 society hundreds of years ago. There is a crying need of con- 
 struction, organization, of an intelligent adaptation of the new 
 means to reasonable ends. Every one knows, that things cannot 
 be allowed to go on, as they have gone on during the last half 
 century. Hence it comes, that Liberals and Conservatives alike
 
 TRUE PROGRESS. 307 
 
 are for ever shoring up here, pulling down there and patching up 
 a bit all round, only to find every time, that more is wanted, before 
 any piece of patchwork is fairly completed. In this way the foun- 
 dations of the social structure — not by any means over-strong at 
 their best — are whittled away without others of sufficient strength 
 being substituted, until one day the whole must give way and 
 chaos supervene. Already, as Mr. Matthew Arnold said in an 
 address at Whitechapel, " one hears formidable crackings and sees 
 swayings to and fro." The cracks are growing wider and the 
 swayings becoming more vehement from year to year, until an 
 earnest attempt at reconstruction with the new materials supplied 
 by progress is made by the nation itself. This disease, which 
 besets the world at present, if left alone, will not work its own 
 cure, on the contrary, it will grow more and more disastrous and 
 culminate in a general down-break of civilization, engulfing even 
 those who for the time being appear to reap advantages from the 
 disorganized condition of the community. And the collapse, if 
 we let it come to that, will be of a magnitude which the world has 
 never yet witnessed. For what are the catastrophes of former 
 periods, caused either by irremediable or by purely local or 
 national circumstances, in comparison to the phenomenon of the 
 whole civilized world hurled to destruction in the midst of all the 
 materials required for its salvation ? Do not let us forget, that 
 the modern Tantalus, unlike his antique prototype, has at least 
 the resource of suicide and the power to destroy what he is not 
 allowed to enjoy ! 
 
 Our age is frequently called a period of transition and, con- 
 sidering the enormous changes of which this and the previous 
 generation have been witnesses, and the general consciousness of 
 instability, it does deserve the name pre-eminently. But the great 
 question for us is, what it will lead to. Under the rule of Mam- 
 monism, which does not possess the power of organization, the
 
 3o8 SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 transition will be to anarchism or to tyrannism, but if we face the 
 problem boldly, if we view the modern conditions in the light of 
 solidarity, Mammonism will take its flight, and a sound organi- 
 zation become possible at once. We shall be masters again of 
 our resources instead of their slaves, as we are at present. Let us 
 not neglect the golden opportunity, who knows, how soon it may 
 vanish ! Let us grapple earnestly with the great social problems 
 and do thoroughly what we have found just and necessary, to clear 
 the road and leave the public mind free for further real progress 
 towards light and true happiness !
 
 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Chapter I. — The habit of resignation dying out. The ruling system 
 held responsible for much want and misery. The spread of education, 
 in drawing the different strata of the population closer to each other and 
 offering increased prospects of fruitful social work, brings the duty of 
 earnest work of this kind to every one able to take a share in it. — Reform 
 only advocated, where it is found necessary for improvement, other- 
 wise the preference is given to existing institutions. — State interference 
 cannot be interference with the laws of political economy, which are fixed 
 and immutable, but only with the conditions under which those laws are 
 acting. Such interference may be as necessary and legitimate as protec- 
 tion against inundations or avalanches. — Impracticability not to be 
 confounded with difficulty and inconvenience. — The reproach of selfish- 
 ness mostly raised like the cry of fire or murder, without reference to the 
 nature of the danger and merely in order to attract attention. — The claims 
 of the whole are treated by many upon the footing of charity instead of 
 that of justice. Robin Hood the patron saint of those who give up their 
 own rights together with those of the whole people, merely to spare the 
 susceptibilities of antagonists. — The timidity of the masses with regard to 
 large reforms. — The opportunities of peaceful reform created by the exten- 
 sion of political rights. — The right of the community to reform. The 
 preservation and happiness of mankind its paramount duty. Elementary 
 limits to the exercise of the power of reform. — ^The ideal of humanity 
 implies the highest development of individual well-being consistent with 
 the maintenance of the whole. Absolute equality neither possible nor 
 desirable, but too great artificial discrepancies certainly not wholesome. 
 Our present system causes a great waste of power. The community's 
 right to arrange its conditions on such a basis, that this waste is avoided, 
 and that every individual finds its happiness in the exercise of its best 
 
 1
 
 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 
 
 powers. — Illustration by the suppression of slavery in America and by 
 military conscription. — Prescriptive rights, necessary in the intercourse 
 between individuals and nations, but the community must keep the right 
 to suspend them in its own interest, otherwise improvement becomes 
 altogether impossible. Even the right of the living to live is suspended in 
 war and in the case of condemned criminals, there must then surely be 
 circumstances which justify the suspension or abolition of the prescriptive 
 rights of property. — Tinkering cannot be carried on for ever, the social 
 conditions require a thorough overhauling. Unforeseen developments 
 must be taken into account. — Illustration by the case of dynamite. 
 
 Chapter II. — The bad housing and the present deep distress of the 
 poor easily traceable to the insufficiency of the reward of labour. Excep- 
 tional measures can only afford a short temporary relief. — Insufficiency of 
 the reward of labour appears not only in the cases of absolute want, but 
 also in an enormous number of cases where it results in an unduly low 
 degree of comfort and security. — The earth produces probably, and can be 
 made to produce certainly, enough for the satisfaction of all reasonable 
 wants. — What we might have expected from the great material progress of 
 modern times. — The growth of culture in the masses brings new neces- 
 sities. — Definition of labour. Its share in the reward of production was 
 larger in former times. Comparisons of money-wages or of quantities con- 
 sumed are inconclusive and frequently misleading. — The cult of the average 
 is overdone in our time. — It is necessary to allow for the growth of the 
 standard of comfort in proportion to the growth of the world's production 
 and of the consumption by the wealthy. Even the idea of bare neces- 
 saries is changing and expanding as a consequence and condition of 
 material progress. A thing once accepted as a necessary of life becomes 
 such for good. — The latter state worse than the former inasmuch as it 
 increases the range of desires without abolishing the possibility of the very 
 deepest misery and absolute want. — Improvements which must be counted 
 as gains independently from their influence upon the reward of labour. 
 Their advantages going chiefly to the well-to-do. — The growth of discon- 
 tent as a proof of the growing indequacy of the reward of labour. Man- 
 kind appears choked by an over-growth of its own power. — Nearly all pro- 
 ductive and distributive labour suffering equally with manual. The want 
 of rentability in business does not arise from falls of prices, but from the 
 fall of profits, which form partly the reward of labour. — Competition is no 
 explanation of the dwindling of profits below a reasonable level. — ^Neither 
 is the reason to be found in the overcrowding of special branches of labour,
 
 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 
 
 as the phenomenon appears in nearly all fields and is merely another form 
 of stating the fact of the insufficiency of the reward of labour. 
 
 Chapter III. — The doctrine of over-population, dangerous by its 
 apparent simplicity and conclusiveness, but in reality either a truism or a 
 mere juggling with words. — The danger of over-population cannot take 
 practical shape for thousands of years yet and need therefore not concern 
 us at present. — The prospects shortly considered. — Want means usually in 
 our time not the non-existence of the things required, but the want of 
 means to get them. The passwords to a share of wealth are land, capital . 
 and labour, by far the most people having only the last to offer. — The 
 amount of the world's work is not fixed independently of the number of its 
 inhabitants, every producer is also a consumer. Over-population does not 
 explain, why any one willing to work should be useless and in the way. — 
 The general conclusion drawn from the comparison of the prospects of 
 men with small and with large families, are obviously fallacious, the advan- 
 tage of the former and disadvantage of the latter lying in the exceptionality 
 of their positions. The relative fact is mistaken for an absolute one. — 
 The principle of over-population shown as self-destroying and therefore 
 truly impracticable. — Its popularity is owing to its acceptance of the wealth 
 of the wealthy and of the power of the powerful. — No compromise possible 
 with this doctrine. — Prudence decidedly advisable in reproduction as in 
 other respects, but only in the individual interest, by no means a universal 
 remedy. 
 
 Chapter IV. — Appreciation of the efforts for the moral improvement 
 of the poor, which are in some sense contradictory to the doctrine of over- 
 population. Drink. No objection taken to the moderate use of alcohol. — 
 Intemperance chiefly a form of extravagance, the desire for change and 
 excitement, not an accident by any means, but deeply rooted in human 
 nature and inseparably connected with civilization. — Labourers would 
 have more to spend on other things, if they did not drink, might perhaps 
 be quite happy, if they were content to live upon potatoes and water alone. 
 But the state of production and its possibilities do not warrant such a 
 reduction of the standard of comfort for the poor, whilst that for the rich 
 is being raised constantly. — Average wages are adapted to the average 
 expenditure and include therefore the average expenditure on drink. 
 The temperate man obtains an advantage not so much through his tem- 
 perance as through his neighbours' intemperance, and a total abolition or 
 general restriction of drink would not help any one except the drunkard. — 
 A general_fall of wages would follow such a step, and then the temperate
 
 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 
 
 man of to-day would be an absolute loser. Here again the relative fact is 
 mistaken for the absolute. — If drink was abolished, something else must be 
 substituted, thus the gain would be purely a moral one, worth striving for 
 on its own merits, but not calculated to improve the material condition of 
 the average labourer. — Thrift means in itself the power and habit of saving 
 beyond the ordinary power of habit and can therefore never be universal, 
 being exceptional by its nature. The standard of comfort must be 
 reckoned with. The world cannot consume more than it produces, why 
 should it produce, unless it wishes to consume? — Universal idleness is 
 indeed not impossible, but highly improbable in a world working chiefly 
 for gain. — As long as willing labour is unemployed, there is no reason in 
 the interest of the community or of labour to exact more work from that 
 part which is employed. — The evil is apparently not that there is not 
 enough, but that there is too much produced, too much work performed. 
 No normal working day in nature, but the maximum determined by 
 physical causes, and the minimum by the desire of the labourer to supply 
 his wants with the least possible expenditure of time and labour. — A 
 general increase of activity would be no more eflficient than general tem- 
 perance. — In many cases more to be gained for work itself by increased 
 recreation than by increased work. — Increased intensity of work would 
 probably lead to the dismissal of labourers and enforced idleness on their 
 part, or to a reduction of wages.— Different degrees of activity and tem- 
 perance prevailing in different countries, but all equally badly off at 
 present, and discontent most severe in those where the standard of com- 
 fort is comparatively low. These differences are the necessary handicap- 
 pings in the international race and must be respected, unless actual force 
 is to be resorted to. By neglect of these conditions wars are caused. — 
 Enghsh labourers by reducing their pretensions, may depress the condi- 
 tion of labour abroad and ultimately cause a great war, but they cannot 
 thereby improve their own condition in the least. 
 
 Chapter V. — Work is popularly accepted as a thing desirable in itself, 
 independently of its results. This idea is fostered by the necessity and 
 difficulty of finding [profitable employment. — Work is indeed necessary for 
 maintenance and progress, but it should always be considered as a means. 
 The sham cult of indiscriminate work and production. — With the ruling 
 idea of the necessity and desirability of work and production for their own 
 sake the state of the world could not be much improved, even if the 
 necessaries could be produced without work. — In reality labour is re- 
 warded, not according to its hardship, but in proportion to the .desirability
 
 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 5 
 
 of its results.— The value of work and production is proportionate to the 
 degree in which they contribute to the well-being and progress of the com- 
 munity, including, within the limits imposed by solidarity, the well-being 
 and progress of the worker and producer himself. — Capacity of work 
 distinct from actual performance, the former is always desirable, the latter 
 may be absolutely mischievous. — Genius is an apparent exception, but 
 not a real one. — Amongst competing individuals he who produces most 
 has the best chance of success, but a general increase of production would 
 not benefit the whole world in the same manner. — The underlying fallacy 
 is acted upon practically with very evil consequences. — The saying of the 
 two blades of grass is only conditionally true. — Essential is the main- 
 tenance of a reasonable proportion between production and consumption. 
 There is at all times a certain point, always shifting, but fixed for the 
 moment, which in the interest of the community production should reach 
 and not exceed. — Production should be adapted to the appetite of the 
 consuming world. — Work as a preservative of the labourer from evil 
 courses, only as good as, and no better than any other reasonable occu- 
 pation. Arts of enjoyment require cultivation like those of production. 
 Brutalization by overwork. The alternative between hard work and vice 
 applies only to a minority, which will decrease still, as other sources of 
 enjoyment are opened to the poor. — Work is noble and necessary above 
 everything, but not the work of Mammonism, which ought to form only a 
 small part of the world's activity. Indiscriminate work is as much non- 
 sense and as hurtful as indiscriminate medicine. 
 
 Chapter VI. — Education considered in its results as skill and culture. 
 — Material progress has lowered the average skill of the common labourer, 
 skill being rendered superfluous in many cases by machinery and the 
 desire for cheapness in preference to other qualities. — An increase of 
 average skill all over the world could effect no change for the better in 
 the reward of labour. — If reward went strictly according to skill, young 
 workmen would on the average earn more than middle-aged ones, -wliich 
 could hardly be maintained. — The instance of commercial clerks showing, 
 that an increase of average efficiency does not bring an increase of reward. 
 
 The striving after perfection in skill is commendable in itself, but not 
 
 as a means of improving the average reward of labour. Under our con- 
 ditions labour can only obtain the strict necessaries, whatever its produce 
 may be. — The subject considered from a national point of view. The 
 most skilled nations are suffering fully as much as the less skilled. The 
 skill of the labourers is a national asset and is reckoned with in inter-
 
 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 
 
 national competition in the same way as natural resources. A certain 
 balance of conditions between the more and less favoured nations is kept 
 up at all times.— The differences of skill refer less to common labourers 
 than to managers and employers. Any further advance on the part of 
 England will be followed by enhanced exertions on that of her com- 
 petitors.— Great differences are impossible in these times of quick and 
 constant communication. — Culture is of no importance as an element of 
 competition. Not much scope at present for the exercise of its humanis- 
 ing' influence upon common labour. But education is now acknowledged 
 as a right and therefore accepted as a necessity, regardless of consequences. 
 Spread of culture desirable in the interest of all strata. — The blessings of 
 education are shared by the governing classes with the poor, because the 
 stock of culture is not diminished by increased numbers of participators, 
 as the stock of material goods would be. — Growth of independence and 
 increase of opportunities for healthy enjoyment subsequent upon increase 
 of culture. Ultimately culture will prove the great power making for 
 peace, but first a competency must be insured to honest labour. Then 
 "not to work at all" will be no recommendation, as it is now. — The 
 practical value of culture is, that it enables more people to devote atten- 
 tion and energy to social problems, and thus increases the prospect of 
 finding a solution. — The people will have the opportunity of solving their 
 problems themselves without guidance from members of the privileged 
 classes. There is hope in the narrowing of the struggle by the advance 
 of the standard of comfort and the increased prospect of a satisfactory 
 solution of the social problems, which are both contained in the extension 
 of culture. 
 
 Chapter VII. — The idea of internationalism contains a germ of hope 
 akin to that roused by the idea of universal education. — For the present, 
 nationalism is in the ascendant, which is necessary as a preparation and 
 consolidation. — The scope of cosmopolitanism with regard to social ques- 
 tions. — International combinations of labourers more difficult and much 
 less efficient than federation of states. — Emigration the most effective 
 manner of coping with congestion, but congestion only a symptom of the 
 evil. — How emigration affects the emigrants themselves. Only those are 
 fit to emigrate who are most likely to succeed at home, the young, steady 
 and energetic, who are able and willing to rough it. In the new country 
 a lower standard of comfort is accepted than the ordinary standard of the 
 old country. The really miserable and hopeless do not succeed in a new 
 country any better than they did at home. Thus by emigration some of
 
 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 
 
 the best elements are drawn off and the average quahty of the remainder 
 is lowered. — Openings in new countries chiefly for primitive kinds of 
 labour, whereas all kinds of labour are depressed. — In the country left by 
 the emigrants the abatement of competition subsequent upon their with- 
 drawal is insignificant. If the emigrants are successful, they become the 
 competitors of their mother-country. — Real relief afforded only by emigra- 
 tion to new countries, but countries tend to grow old very quickly now. 
 The area of undiscovered land diminishes constantly. Emigration can 
 therefore at the best be only a makeshift, a temporary resource. — Inter- 
 national trade, its extension regarded as a remedy for bad trade by the 
 advocates of competition as opposed to co-operation.— The chief value of 
 foreign trade lies in the imports. — A contraction of international trade in 
 view, unless some great new countries are opened, or political disturbances 
 supervene. — Foreign trade is only a branch of the division of labour, 
 depending upon relative cost of production. — Its advantages to the civi- 
 lized world are chiefly derived shortly after the opening of the connexion, 
 later extension does not bring corresponding increase of profits and 
 advantages. — The area for new trade decreasing equally with that for 
 emigration.— Trade between civilized countries contracting, because the 
 conditions of production are more and more equalized, and the diff'erences 
 in the relative cost of production become so small, that it does not repay 
 the trouble. — By federation England may preserve her colonial markets 
 for some time longer, but not for ever. — Protective tariffs not only ineffec- 
 tive, but directly injurious by fostering over-production of the protected 
 objects, engendering an artificial and unprofitable foreign trade. The 
 essence of protection is differentiation. It does not stifle foreign trade, but 
 only diverts it and changes its objects. Therefore no extension of inter- 
 national trade can be expected from an abolition of protective tariffs.— An 
 export trade is only profitable, if it allows fair wages. To make it pay by 
 starving labour is tantamount to stealing part of the labour and no better 
 than stealing the material. Starved labour is on a par with adulteration of 
 commodities. — The fact is generally ignored in consequence of the habit 
 of producing at haphazard and trusting to accidents. — No blame must be 
 attached to individuals, the system is responsible and requires alteration, 
 but in any case a contraction, not an extension of international trade is to 
 be expected. 
 
 Chapter VIII. — Tenant-right, judicial rents etc., change only the rela- 
 tions between landlord and tenant and cannot produce considerable effects 
 outside of these classes. — Peasant-proprietorship, tending to break up large
 
 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 
 
 estates, which cannot be done by simple free trade in land. Everything 
 would depend upon the attitude of the State with regard to the conditions 
 of purchase. State-help by advances to intending small purchasers could 
 not be restricted to agriculture, other branches of labour would raise the 
 same claim. — The results of peasant proprietorship in other countries are not 
 very encouraging. — Nationalization of the land. Rent cannot be abolished 
 under any system short of absolute communism, but it may be disposed of 
 in different ways. — The unreasonable condition of land tenure in England, 
 conferring undue arbitrary powers upon a small minority, can be remedied 
 without nationalization. Proposed to confer upon the community the 
 right of expropriating at a fair valuation any land-owner using the land 
 in a manner injurious to the interests of the community. Entail and 
 primogeniture doomed in any case. — The holding of land for speculative 
 purposes should be met by taxing all land according to its capacity. — 
 Nationalization of the land is not the short cut to the solution of the 
 social problem. If compensation is given to the owner, very much de- 
 pends upon the rate. — Consideration of Mr. George's proposal to appro- 
 priate all rent without compensation to present holders. The amount to 
 be gained probably not sufficient to cover the running public expenditure, 
 but even if it left a surplus for other purposes of public utility, it would 
 not effect anything radical. In England the chief gain would flow to the 
 intemperate workman, until wages are reduced in proportion to the average 
 saving on taxes. In America and other countries where heavy protective 
 tariffs obtain, the reduction of wages would follow at once. — The shifting 
 of taxation from capital to land does not seem desirable so long as the 
 position of the former remains as strong as at present. — You cannot eat 
 your cake and keep it. — Expected stimulation of production would be 
 no gain in these times. — In countries, where peasant-proprietorship is the 
 rule, nationalization would be a mere farce. — Nationalization of the land 
 does not supply to labour that something to fall back upon, that alter- 
 native beside starvation, of which it stands in need. — Only one-sixth of 
 English labourers gain their living by direct application to the soil. An 
 improvement of their condition would influence the remainder very slightly, 
 probably it could not even be maintained. — Mr. Wallace's scheme, to give 
 to every citizen the option of taking up a piece of ground, offers no better 
 prospect than peasant-proprietorship or confiscation of rent. If capital 
 was supplied on easy terms, every one would make the experiment, and 
 a fearful waste would ensue, the competition for agricultural work being 
 driven to an unreasonable degree. — The interests of labour and capital
 
 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 
 
 are not identical, as represented by the land-nationalizers, and this lump- 
 ing together of the two merely obscures the issue. 
 
 Chapter IX. — It is ever becoming more difficult to earn a competency 
 by ordinary labour alone, but some branches of labour are suffering less 
 than others. — Those branches which are most afifected by material pro- 
 gress suffer most, more than they would in a stationary state. — Modern 
 progress has not increased the power and productiveness of labour, but 
 of tools, which are capital. Consequently capital obtains the whole fruits 
 of progress. The share of labour in the act and in the result of produc- 
 tion grows smaller. — The new centre of gravity. — Illustration by an as- 
 sumed state of things, where capital is being rendered useless by labour. — 
 Where machinery does not play an important part, the condition of labour 
 is fairly maintained, in the other cases the condition of labour deteriorates. 
 — Domestic service. — Every improvement of machinery renders some 
 amount of labour superfluous, unless consumption increases fully at the 
 same rate as the ease of production. — Experience does not warrant the 
 assumption, that these things regulate themselves to the benefit of the 
 community. — Skill is also rendered less necessary by the perfection of 
 machines. The labour spent on the building and erection of machinery 
 can obviously be only a small part of the amount saved by their use.— The 
 effect of progress on agricultural and distributive labour the same as on 
 industrial. The great complaints of want of business and shrinking of 
 profits are two forms of the insufficiency of the reward of labour and trace- 
 able directly to material progress. Capital can always -obtain a reward, 
 and better now than ever before. — The motto of small profits and quick 
 returns. Returns cannot be increased in proportion as profits tend to 
 decline. Consequently merchants are driven to speculation. — The depre- 
 ciation of labour and growing inadequacy of its reward under our industrial 
 system are not accidental or traceable to transitory causes, but necessary 
 consequences of material progress and can be provided against only by a 
 modification of the system. — Inventors and discoverers obtain a share by 
 means of their monopoly. — Land gets a large share in virtue of its character 
 as a monopoly — at least within each country — and of the preference of the 
 ordinary man for the land of his birth. A steady decline of rent is going 
 on nevertheless, and a further decline is probable. — About the develop- 
 ment of production. Its determinants during different phases of civiliza- 
 tion. Different effects of progress in modern times than in former slower 
 times, because progress is now so much faster, and all improvements of 
 such a cliaracter as to require large capital for their utilization. — Practical
 
 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 
 
 return to slavery under the industrial system. — Large capital has become 
 the most powerful of all monopolies. — It is impossible at present to deter- 
 mine the amount of individual exertion necessary to produce a share of 
 wealth sufficient to sustain the workman and the capital employed. The 
 highest amount of exertion exacted in exchange for the lowest wages 
 compatible with the ruling standard of comfort. — As progress cannot be 
 stopped, and is not likely to stop of its own accord, our only resource 
 lies in an alteration of the system ruling the relations between land, labour 
 and capital. 
 
 Chapter X. — Capital and interest. — No special justification of interest 
 is required, as capital is an independent element in production and as 
 such carries a self-evident claim to a share of the result. — But the reward 
 is obtained by capital through its monopolistic position, its not being at 
 the call of every one who wants it. This is proved by the fact, that in- 
 terest is paid also on capital employed unproductively by the borrower. — 
 The crucial questions are, How much reward does capital deserve ? and 
 how much does it obtain ? — Labour ought to obtain a sufficiency for a 
 decent existence, and undeserved distress should be swept away. The 
 surplus might go to land and capital. — Reward of co-operation between 
 labour and capital is now appropriated wholly by the latter. Consequently 
 small establishments are being constantly eaten up by larger ; independent 
 artisans are exceptions. — The proper reward of co-operation cannot be 
 fixed in figures, but it is easy to discern roughly between normal and ex- 
 ceptional returns. ^ — The latter are due to monopoly, either formally granted 
 by the State, or consisting in natural gifts or in opportunity or in property. 
 — Monopoly of natural gifts accepted as reasonable and useful, but in fact 
 large fortunes owe their origin rarely to the exercise of special gifts in the 
 service of, or for the benefit of the community. The monopoly of property 
 is becoming more and more dangerous by its tendency to accumulate and 
 to grow in power in a geometrical ratio. Already capitalists are the most 
 powerful men, and capital the most powerful factor of the time. Such 
 immense powers ought not to be entrusted to irresponsible individuals 
 who have given no proofs of ability and trustworthiness. — The action of 
 credit, which is a monopoly of property, exercised chiefly through capital. 
 By credit land is enabled to participate in the advantages enjoyed by 
 capital. — The power of credit used anti-socially under our system, render- 
 ing the distance between rich and poor wider. — Use and abuse of the 
 monopoly of property. Starvation of labour no better than robbery in a 
 moral and economic sense. — Not individuals, but the system is blamed
 
 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 
 
 and condemned. — Rise of competition may succeed in reducing the gains 
 of capital, but cannot increase the reward of labour, particularly where 
 large capital is required. In these cases either competition is crushed or 
 allowed to share in the gains of monopoly. — The joint-stock principle 
 works to the advantage of large capital, which obtains the control and lead 
 of small capital. — The chief abuse of capital in speculation. — The infection 
 of this is in the air and men cannot be blamed for catching it. — In specu- 
 lation capital need not be really employed, it is merely a pre-requisite. 
 Neither is speculation labour in any proper sense any more than thieving 
 or swindling. It is an abuse of labour and capital. — Distinction between 
 legitimate and professional speculation. The former steadies markets, the 
 latter disturbs them. In the latter profit is only expected from the fluc- 
 tuations of values, no reward for distribution is claimed or obtained. — 
 Capital is actually required only by the speculator on a large scale, and, 
 as he is the chief gainer in the end, large capital obtains through him the 
 spoils of speculation. — Immoral means employed by professional specu- 
 lation. It puts a premium on unscrupulousness. — Speculation in land is 
 essentially the same as in securities or commodities. 
 
 Chapter XI. — In times of general depression it looks as though capital 
 and land were losers equally with labour. Yet this cannot be the case 
 with a growing production and accumulating stocks. — The aggregate of 
 the world's wealth can be affected only through action of either natural 
 forces or labour, taken in the widest sense, by growth and decay, produc- 
 tion and destruction. — The apparent contradiction is explained by our 
 manner of computing wealth through one of its objects, money or gold. 
 The gains and losses on commodities are calculated by every holder of 
 wealth, whereas appreciation or depreciation of money are necessarily left 
 out of account. — The minority, which holds the bulk of money as well as 
 of commodities, has consequently nothing to gain or to lose by altera- 
 tion of the standard of prices, which are equivalent to fluctuations in the 
 value of money. — An increased output of gold would have prevented the 
 fall of prices, but not the fall of profits, it could not have improved the 
 reward of labour. — The distinction between purchasing power and lending 
 value of money. — To capital movements of prices, fluctuations are essen- 
 tial, because it applies itself to either money or commodities according to 
 the advantages which either offer at the moment. — Capital's direct and 
 most vital interest is, to keep wages as low as possible, in proportion to 
 general prices. — The interests of labour are directly opposite, namely 
 steadiness of prices and high wages in proportion to general prices. — The
 
 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 
 
 advantages of cheapness come last to the working classes. The benefits 
 of a low range of prices are much over-rated, as a matter of fact they are 
 enjoyed by those classes which are beyond the reach of absolute want, and 
 are expressed in a lower poor-rate and less pressure for charitable gifts. 
 Cheapness of necessaries is the consequence, not the cause of abundance. 
 — Depressions of trade. They are not necessarily accompanied by falls of 
 prices. — Besides the fluctuations in the value of money there are always 
 many other disturbing elements at work. — The natural causes for advances 
 and falls in value. — It is clear, that the tendency of our time is towards 
 depression of prices. This becomes of importance by the fact, that all 
 commodities are not affected in the same degree. Hence depression of 
 special branches. Stimulation of demand is precarious and difficult, as 
 always many branches are in a depressed condition. Even at its best it 
 means mostly a transfer of depression from one branch to one or several 
 others. Special depressions must lead ultimately to a reduction of wages 
 in one or more branches. — Transfer of labour from one to another just as 
 difficult as stimulation of demand. — Neither special nor local depressions 
 can account for general depression of trade. This means in reality only 
 insufficiency of the reward of labour and is traceable directly to material 
 progress. — We must look upon depression under our system as the normal 
 condition of trade.— The rate of progress is so quick, that the world has 
 no time to accommodate itself to the consequences of one forward step, 
 before another is already made. Those who are not in the front rank of 
 productive capacity must always be working without profit, some of them 
 even with a loss. — Different effects produced upon labour by the different 
 kinds of progress. — By extension of the area of production labour need 
 not lose, as it must by improved methods of production. — The results of 
 progress appear either as over-population or as over-production according 
 to the point of view of the observer, but in fact our unsatisfactory state is 
 owing to mis-adjustment, which prevents the wealth produced from coming 
 into the hands of those who have an urgent need of it. — The system of 
 blind trust in the self-checking action of economic forces has broken 
 down, and we must devise a system of more efficient and reliable checks. 
 
 Chapter XII. — It is practically unimportant, whether we consider that 
 labour employs capital or vice versa. — Any decrease of the demand for 
 capital is tantamount to a decreased demand for labour, but a decrease of 
 the demand for labour can take place without diminishing that for capital. 
 — The demand for small amounts for individual purposes of production 
 has diminished, but that for large amounts and for purposes of com-
 
 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 13 
 
 bination is steadily increasing. — Besides, capital grows in power, whereas 
 labour becomes weaker. — Co-operation between labourers does not raise 
 the reward of labour, it only gives them a share in the reward of capital. 
 Labour cannot compel capital to associate with it on reasonable terms, 
 and co-operation in those branches which require large capital has there- 
 fore gained no footing. — The strength of the position of property lies in 
 the fact, that every land-owner and capitalist is a potential labourer. — 
 Capital can obtain the means of living without employing itself produc- 
 tively or directly, and this circumstance gives it a very strong position as 
 compared with labour. — The stakes are grossly unequal, convenience on 
 the part of capital, necessity on that of labour.— The freedom of labour 
 under existing conditions is a sham, slaves were also free to die, if they 
 would not accept the terms of their masters. — About strikes, which are 
 possible only in the superior classes of labourers, and successful only, 
 when the demands are very moderate. — The statistical comparisons of the 
 increase of income from labour and from capital are misleading, as also 
 those of consumption. The immense sums which capitalists have drawn 
 off to unproductive uses are not considered, nor the increased efficiency of 
 capital. — I contend, that the basis of the relations between labour and 
 capital is wrong and anti-social, and must be re-adjusted. — The plea for 
 large incomes on the necessity of keeping up appearances. — Differences in 
 the positions of land and capital do not seem essential. — If the nation has 
 still a claim to the land, it has also a claim to the fruits got by its wrongful 
 possession. — The risk of total loss run by capital is compensated by a 
 higher rate of reward. — The natural monopoly of land could only be kept 
 up by monopolising capital also. — The growth of capital is not taken into 
 account sufficiently. — Any radical reform must deal with all kinds of 
 property capable of aiding the possessor to claim a share of wealth. — 
 Nationalization of capital only possible under a system of complete com- 
 munism, when labour is also directed and apportioned by the State. 
 
 Chapter XIII. — The position of labour must be strengthened and that 
 of property weakened correspondingly, but the community must obtain 
 the full advantage derivable from progress. — Proposed a regulation of the 
 maximum working time in all branches where machinery is used, deter- 
 mined by the figures of consumption, by the proportion between the 
 labour and the machine power employed, and varying according to the 
 size of establishments. — A general uniform restriction of working time 
 would not produce the desired effect. — The remedy is not quite easy of 
 application, but all the more trustworthy on that account. It pre-supposes 
 
 Y
 
 14 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 
 
 a thorough study and consideration of all facts concerned, it applies to 
 different cases with varying degrees of strength according to the necessities 
 of each, and it imposes a continuous care and watchfulness on the com- 
 munity. — Impossible to propose a cut-and-dried scheme, illustration taken 
 at random. — Purely manual or personal labour remains unmolested. Allow- 
 ance to be made for work which from its nature cannot be carried on 
 without machinery, also for those branches, like agriculture, which are 
 naturally dependent upon seasons. — In the beginning the limitations 
 would be somewhat tentative, and large discrepancies would appear, but 
 these would be the most salient proof of the necessity of regulation, they 
 would be the result of the present mis-adjustment, not of the new order. 
 The large differences would not endure, soon the proper formula would 
 be found for fixing the most desirable maximum in each case almost 
 mechanically.— Some things which this measure will effect. — It will prevent 
 the concentration of production in the hands of a few and its ultimate 
 absorption by the State, towards which we are drifting. — About artificial 
 cheapness, which is not a source of profit to the community and only 
 affords an extra opportunity to the large capitalists. Our measure will 
 force the latter to keep their production within the same bounds as smaller 
 competitors, and prevent them from making additional profits by the mere 
 magnitude of their enterprise, which does not deserve an exceptional 
 reward. — Illustration by the action of the American cable companies. — 
 The claims of ability, inventiveness, diligence will be safeguarded far 
 better than they are now. — The necessity of graduation according to the 
 proportion between machinery and labour employed. — A return to purely 
 manual labour in those branches, where it can produce better work than 
 machinery, will follow spontaneously, benefiting producer and consumer 
 alike. Under our present system any movement in favour of hand labour 
 can only have a very limited result. — Some of Mr. Ruskin's ideas, imprac- 
 ticable under present conditions, will be reahzed without any strained 
 effort with the regulation of working time. Wood and stone will supersede 
 iron again for many purposes.— It will be possible for the small capitalist 
 to make a living, he will be relieved from the danger of being crushed by 
 the wealthier man.— Gain moral as well as material. — Not intended to fix 
 a minimum rate of wages, but labour will then be able to take care of 
 itself. Public opinion, based upon facts and worth something, will act as 
 a sufficient check upon the unscrupulous.— Increased steadiness of values 
 and early recognition and redress of difficulties created by legitimate 
 changes in the conditions of production and consumption. This is a
 
 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. I5 
 
 gain to every one except speculators. — How wages will regulate themselves 
 in proportion to the varying working time in establishments of different 
 sizes and branches. — The influence of the measure will extend beyond the 
 cases immediately affected.— It cannot guaranty employment, but it strikes 
 a blow at those things which are the chief cause of the want of employ- 
 ment or of the insufficiency of the reward of labour. — The scheme can be 
 introduced and administered only by the State, and the people have the 
 means of promoting it in their own hands. In a more enlightened state 
 of society the same result might be attained without interference of the 
 State.— The people must make up their minds first of all. — The future 
 belongs to that nation which puts the social relations of its citizens upon 
 the most satisfactory footing. This is more important than temporary 
 triumphs in war or diplomacy, and it is fully understood by statesmen like 
 Bismarck and acted upon by him in spite of his monarchical and oli- 
 garchical predilections. — It is also borne out by the history of the leading 
 nations. — Regulation of working time is therefore a great and worthy task 
 also in a national sense. 
 
 Chapter XIV.— The figures of import and export may be diminished, 
 but only that part will be given up which is not profitable to the com- 
 munity, although it may enrich individuals at the expense of the majority. 
 —England's comparative position for the production of wealth.— Great 
 saving of power under the new system, which is now wasted upon the 
 impossible task of making profits in trade without giving anything useful 
 in return. — No virtue in great accumulations. — The import of wheat into 
 England unavoidable, unless the country consents to tax itself heavily for 
 the purpose of raising her wheat at home.— In this case wheat-growing 
 would have to be subsidised or taken over by the State. The cost would 
 be enormous.— Means of obviating the danger of dependence upon foreign 
 supplies.— Part of the labour employed in this branch will be transferred 
 to manufactures, and a great devolution of labour will take place upon other 
 branches of agriculture, like fruit-growing and petite culture generally. 
 Emigration of agricultural labourers into those parts which are exporting 
 wheat to England will be resorted to, and this is much better, than to send 
 into new countries artisans and town- labourers, who will there be neither 
 so efficient nor so comfortable.- The poor parts of Scotland and Ireland 
 will probably go on producing whatever the land may yield for the use of 
 the cultivator. Until the people there have been taught to transfer their 
 activity to manufacture, they will be forced to put up with harder living than 
 the inhabitants of more fertile parts. But this is merely a question of time
 
 i6 . SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Chapter XV. — Commerce cannot be relieved by regulation of working 
 time. — Large capital invested in trade must be divested of its mono- 
 polistic opportunities by measures rendering speculation more difficult and 
 costly. — The enhanced steadiness of values resulting from the proposed 
 measure must not be disturbed arbitrarily by individual manipulations. — 
 Opportunities for legitimate speculation will remain still, in the profits of 
 which the community ought to share. — Proposed to impose a perceptible 
 tax ad valorem upon speculative transactions, requiring a written and 
 stamped contract in every case. Transactions for prompt delivery, where 
 the goods change hands actually, are excepted. Also contracts for bona 
 fide absolute consumption. — Speculation is a most proper object of taxa- 
 tion, from a material and a moral point of view. — This will put trade upon 
 a solid basis, but it will not provide remunerative work for all people 
 nominally employed in trade, because this branch of labour is over- 
 manned. — This state of things is growing worse, the public getting more 
 and more impatient of middlemen. — Commercial men must resort to 
 industrial occupations, the social barrier between commercial and manual 
 labour must be broken down. Already it has no justification. — Large 
 fortunes will only be built up by exceptional abilities and services or by 
 rare strokes of luck, speculation will not be a means of undue accumulation, 
 as it is not deserving of a reward. — The ostentatious display and senseless 
 waste of wealth will be checked, when the most deserving give the tone to 
 society. — This evil has taken hold of the middle classes as badly as of the 
 rich. — Only such powers must be sacrificed by the wealthy as they have either 
 no right to or which they cannot be prevented from using in a manner dan- 
 gerous and injurious to the community. — The talk about levelling up or 
 down. — The ridiculous fear, that the world's work will not be done, if the 
 prospect of large pecuniary reward is curtailed. The reward is at present 
 rarely obtained by those who do the work. — The world's work is carried 
 on so indifferently, that a change is desirable in any case. — What work will 
 not get itself done in consequence of a curtailment of the prospect of pecu- 
 niary profit, may safely remain undone. There is a good deal of acdvity 
 carried on which the world could go without and fare better. 
 
 Chapter XVI. — The proposed measures would secure a reasonable 
 distribution of wealth amongst people starting in the race upon approxi- 
 mately equal conditions, and give the highest reward to the most deserving. 
 — But after the lapse of one generation unequal conditions are again in 
 existence, and the guaranty of personal excellence ceases to apply. — The 
 idea, that each generation must provide for its own wants and has no right
 
 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. . 17 
 
 to tie the hands of posterity, is gaining ground. — The common stock 
 phrase, that riches are a burden, and the poor man happier than the rich. 
 — An increased equality of condition need not render life monotonous or 
 rob it of its colour. Everybody's security of means of subsistence would 
 no more interfere with the interest of life, than everybody's possession of 
 a skin does now. — Charity in its proper sense will not cease, there will 
 always be an immense field for its exercise on natural and necessary cases. 
 Artificial charity is nonsense and mischievous. Life is a serious affair and 
 must be treated as such. — Plain facts cannot be shirked, hunger, cold 
 neglect and their consequences cannot be ignored on any pretext. — The 
 people do not want continual charity, but institutions which enable them 
 to do without it. — Graduation of income-tax would not meet the case. 
 Besides, it does not tally with the idea of exceptional reward for excep- 
 tional service. — Proposed restriction of the rights of inheritance, bequest 
 and gift. — Society would reconcile itself soon to such a measure, which 
 lies doubtless within the rights of the community. — Then the eager desire 
 for colossal fortunes will vanish. — Something must be done to stop the 
 unreasonable accumulations in individual hands, and the time of disper- 
 sion is most naturally fixed at the death of the possessor. — The restriction 
 to be applied in such a manner, that no one is allowed to receive by gift, 
 bequest or inheritance more than a certain amount within a certain time. — 
 This would not interfere with the maintenance of large concerns, as long 
 as they are profitable. — Classes of objects which it is desirable to exempt 
 from this limitation, in order to foster family and historical feeling, to 
 further the spread and growth of taste and solidness, and to allow scope 
 to the material expression of gratitude and reverence. — In order to meet 
 this, proposed to create an entail for objects of wealth which cannot be 
 utilized as capital. Entailed objects may be transferred by gift or 
 exchanged against other entailed objects, but not against money or other 
 unentailed property. 
 
 Chapter XVII. — Recapitulation. — The evil is many-rooted and cannot 
 be cured either by one sweeping measure, or by the exertions of philan- 
 thropists. — A change of spirit might render all legislation unnecessary. 
 Our measures are tending towards this change. — The progress of the idea 
 of solidarity. — Individual exertion is inadequate, legislation must be applied- 
 Individual efforts should be directed towards bringing this about. — Public 
 opinion must be led, in questions of principle majority of numbers can- 
 not be decisive. — What is considered the expression of public opinion, is 
 frequently only one phase of its reasonings, often it is not even genuine,
 
 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS. 
 
 but only the clamour of a noisy clique. A statesman or politician ought 
 to know, when it is settled and when it is in a liquid state,— The idea of 
 solidarity and common rights is in the air, many straws showing, which 
 way the wind blows. — Something comprehensive must be attempted to 
 organize the forces gained by material progress.— The objection, that the 
 people's independence is destroyed by State-interference does not apply to 
 my scheme. — The Liberty of Property Defence League. — So-called class 
 legislation forms a necessary part of the State's functions, all legislation 
 being authoritative adjustment. — My proposals are not reactionary. Many 
 things forbidden to the man which are allowed to the child. My scheme 
 is only the recognition of the growth of civilization, attempting to organize 
 the forces and secure the results of progress to the world at large. — The 
 general feeling of instability and insecurity. — The modern Tantalus has at 
 least the resource of suicide and the power of destruction. — We live in an 
 age of transition, but where does it lead ? — Mammonism shows the way to 
 anarchy or tyranny, but if we view the new conditions by the bright light 
 of solidarity and dare to act reasonably, Mammonism takes its flight, a 
 sound organization becomes possible, and the way is paved for real pro- 
 gress towards light and true happiness. 
 
 Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London.
 
 >
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 779 527 i 
 
 HN 
 
 389 
 
 K327C