tions, this disposition to attribute power to entities continues even after science has made great progress; and thus we find that in our own day the old fetishism still lingers in the regard shown to crooked sixpences, wart- charms, and omens.
It hngers, moreover, as already hinted, in less suspected forms. Many much-reverenced social instrumentalities, also, have ori- ginated in this primitive necessity of ascribing all causation to special workers — this inabihty to detach the idea of force from an individual something. Just in proportion as natural phenomena are regarded by any people as of personal instead of impersonal origin, will the phenomena of national life be similarly construed: and, indeed, since moral sequences are less obvious than physical ones, they wiU be thus construed even more generally. The old belief that a king could fix the value of coinage, and the cry raised at the change of style — " Give us our eleven days," obviously implied minds incapable THE REGULATION OF COMMERCE. 303 of conceiving social affairs to be regulated by other than visible, tangible agencies. That there should be at work some unseen but universally-diffused influence determining the buyings and sellings of citizens and the transactions of merchants from abroad, in a way the most advantageous to all parties, was an idea as foreign to such minds as was that of uniform physical causation to the primitive Greeks ^; and, conversely, as the pri- mitive Greeks could understand the operations of nature being performed by a number of presiding individuahties, so to the people of the middle ages it was comprehensible that a proper production and distribution of commodities should be ensured by acts of Parhament and government officials. Whilst the due regulation of trade by a natural indestructible force was inconceivable to them, they could conceive trade to be duly re- gulated by a force resident in some material instrumentality put together by legislators, clothed in the robes of office, painted by court flatterers, and decorated with "jewels five words long."''
But with the complex phenomena of commerce, as with the simpler phenomena of the inorganic world, constancy of sequence has gradually undermined the theory that power dwells in entities. Irresistible evidence is at length estabhshing a belief in the law of supply and demand, as some thousands of years ago it esta- blished a belief in the law of gravitation. And the development of politico-economical science, being thus a further conquest of the faith in impersonal agencies over the faith in personal agen- cies, must be regarded as one of that series of changes which commenced with the first victory of natural philosophy over superstition.
Fortunately it is now needless to enforce the doctrine of commercial freedom by any considerations of poHcy. After making continual attempts to improve upon the laws of trade, ' See Grate's History.
^ A metaphor that "has been nsed to denote the pride with which the German officials regard their titles.
304 THE KEGULATION OF COMMERCE.
from the time of Solon downwards, men are at length be- ginning to see that such attempts are worse than useless. Pohtical economy has sho'^n us in this matter — what indeed it is its chief mission to show — that our wisest plan is to let things take their own course. An increasing sense of justice, too, has assisted in convincing us. We have here learned, what our forefathers learned in some cases, and what, alas! we have yet to learn in many more, that nothing hut evil can arise from inequitable regulations. The necessity of respecting the principles of abstract rectitude — this it is that we have had another lesson upon. Look at it rightly and we shall find that all the Anti-Com-Law League did, with its lectures, its news- papers, its bazaars, its monster meetings, and its tons of tracts, was to teach people — what should have been very clear to them without any such teaching — that no good can come of violating men's rights. By bitter experience and a world of talk we have at length been made partially to believe as much. Be it txue or not in other cases, we are now quite certain that it is true in trade. In respect to this at least we have declared that, for the future, we will obey the law of equal freedom.
CHAPTEE XXIV.
CHAPTEE XXIV.
RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS.
As a matter of routine, it is needful here to point out what the reader -will have inferred irom Chap. XXII., that, by devoting a portion of its revenues or a part of the nation's property to the propagation of Christianity or any other creed, a government necessarily commits a wrong. If, as with ourselves, such go- vernment forcibly takes a citizen's money for the support of a national church, it is guilty of infiinging the rights it ought to maintain — of trespassing upon that freedom to exercise the faculties which it was commissioned to guard. For, as already shown, by diminishing a subject's hberty of action more than is needful for securing the remainder, the civil power becomes an aggressor instead of a protector. If, on the other hand, the right to ignore the state is recognised, as, in considering the question abstractedly, we must suppose it to be, then, by insisting upon conditions which drive some men to abandon its aid, and which unnecessarily restrict the freedom of those who do not, the state fails to that extent in discharging its duty. Hence, specifically applying the principle lately set forth in general terms, we find that a government cannot undertake the teaching of a reUgious faith without either directly reversing its function, or partially incapacitating itself for the performance of that function, In the conduct of English churchmen we have a curious illustration of the way in which men will re- adopt, when it is X 306 EELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS.
thinly disguised, a belief they had iDdignantly cast from them. That same Romish dogmatism, against -which our clergy ex- claim with such vehemence, they themselves defend when it is exercised on behalf of their o-mi creed. Eveiy state-church is essentially popish. We also have a Vatican — St. Stephen's. It is true that our arch-priest is a composite one. It is true that -with us the triple tiara is separated into its parts — one for monarch, one for peers, and one for commons. But this fact makes no difference. In substance, popeiy is the assumption of infallibiUty. It matters not in principle whether this assump- tion is made by one man, or by an assembly of men. No doubt the astounding announcement — "You must believe what we say is right, and not what you think is right," comes less offensively from the hps of a parHamentary majority than from those of a single individual. But there still arises the question — By what authority do these men assert tliis? Whence do they derive their infalUbility?
That in establishing any religion a government does claim to be infallible, scarcely needs proof Before a church organization can be set to work, a distinct understanding as to what it is to do must be arrived at. Before state-paid ministers can be set to preach, it must first be decided what they are to preach. And who is to say? Clearly the state. Either it must itself elabo- rate a creed, or it must depute some man or men to do so. It must in some way sift out truth from error, and cannot escape the responsibihty attending this. If it undertakes itself to settle the doctiines to be taught, it is responsible. If it adopts a ready-made.set of doctrines, it is equally responsible. And if it selects its doctrines by proxy, it is still responsible; both as appointing those who chose for it, and as approving their choice. Hence, to say that a government ought to set up and main- tain a system of rehgious instruction, is to say that it ought to pick out from amongst the various tenets that men hold or have held, those wliich are right; and that, when it has done this — when it has settled between the Roman Catholic, the G-reek, the Lutheran, and the Anglicaii creeds, or between EELIGIODS ESTABLISHMENTS. 307 the Puseyite, BQgh Church, and Evangelical ones — when it has decided whether we should he haptized during infancy or at a mature age, whether the truth is with Trinitarians or Unitarians, whether men are saved by faith or by works, whether pagans go to hell or not, whether ministers should preach in black or white, whether confirmation is scriptural, whether or not saints' days should be kept, and (as we have lately seen it debating) whether baptism does or does not re- generate— when, in short, it has settled all those controversies which have split mankind into innumerable sects, it ought to assert that its judgment is incapable of eiTor — is unquestionable — is beyond appeal. There is no alternative. Unless the state says this, it convicts itself of the most absurd inconsistency. Only on the supposition of infaUibihty can its ecclesiastical doings be made to seem tolerable. How else shall it demand rates and tithes of the dissenter? What answer can it make to his expostulations? "^Are you quite sm'e about these doctrines of yours?" inquires the dissenter. " No," rephes the state; "not quite sure, but nearly so." " Then it is just possible you may he wrong, is it not?" "Yes." "And it is just possible that I may he right, is it not? " " Yes." " Yet you threaten to inflict penalties upon me for nonconformity! You seize my goods; you imprison me if I resist; and all to force from me the means to preach up doctrines which you admit may be false, and by im- plication to preach down doctrines which you admit may be true! How do you justify this? " No reply. Evidently, therefore, if the state persists, the only position open to it is that its judgment cannot he mistaken — that its doctrines cannot he erroneous. And now observe, that if it says this, it stands committed to the whole Roman Catholic discipline as well as to its theory. Having a creed that is beyond the possibility of doubt, and being commissioned to disseminate that creed, the state is in duty hound to employ the most efiicient means of doing this — is bound to put down all adverse teachers, as usurping its function and hindering the reception of its un- questionable doctrine — is hound to use as much force as may 308 RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS.
be needful for doing this — is bound, therefore, to imprison, to fine, and if necessary, to inflict severer penalties, so that error may be exterminated and truth be triumphant. There is no half-way. Being charged to put men in the way to heaven, it cannot without sin permit some to be led the other way. If, rather than punish a few on earth, it allows many to be eternally damned for misbelief, it is manifestly culpable. Evidently it must do all, or it must do nothing. If it does not claim infallibility, it cannot in reason set up a national re- ligion; and if, by setting up a national rehgion, it does claim infaUibnity, it ought to coerce all men into the belief of that religion. Thus, as was said, every state-church is essentially popish.
But there has been gradually dawning upon those who think, the conviction that a state-church is not so much a rehgious as a political institution. " Who does not see," inquires Locke, speaking of the clergy, " that these men ai-e more ministers of the government than ministers of the gospel V Probably in Locke's time there were few who did see this; but there are now many. Nor, indeed, is the fact altogether derded, as you shall hear firom some poUtic supporter of rehgious estabhsh- ments during an after-dinner confidence. " Between ourselves," will whisper such an one, " these churches and parsons, and all the rest of it, are not for sensible men, such as you and I; we know better; we can do without all that; but there must be something of the Mud to keep the people in order."' And then he will go on to show what influential restraints religious services are; how they encourage subordination and content- ment; and how the power which the clergy obtain over their parishioners strengthens the hands of the civil ruler. That some such view widely prevails may be gathered fi-om the acts and proposals of our statesmen. How otherwise can we under- stand that avowed wilUngness in the pohtical leaders of all par- The writer has himself been thus addressed.
RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS. 309 ties to endow the Koman Catholic Church in Ireland if the religious piihlic of England -would let them? Or what but a political motive can that States' lieutenant — the East India Company — have for giving an annual subsidy of 23,000 rupees to the temple of Juggernaut, reimbursing itself by a tax upon the pilgrims? Or why else should the Ceylon government take upon itself to be curator of Buddha's tooth, and to commission the Buddhist priests ^?
Of the clergy who, on the other hand, commonly advocate a state-church as being needful for the upholding of reUgion, it may be said that by doing this they condemn their own case, pass sentence upon their creed as worthless, and bring them- selves in guilty of hypocrisy. What! will they allow this faith, which they value so highly, to die a natural death if they are not paid for propagating it? Must all these people, about whose salvation they profess such anxiety, be left to go to perdi- tion if livings, and canonries, and bishoprics, are abohshed? Has that apostolic inspiration, of which they claim to be the inheritors, brought with it so little apostolic zeal that there would be no preaching were it not for parsonages and tithes? Do they who, on ordination, declared themselves " inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost," now find that they are inwardly moved only by the chink of gold? This would be called slander coming from any but themselves. And then their flocks — what say they of these? Do these care so httle for the faith they have been taught, that its maintenance cannot be entrusted to them? After centuries of church-culture, has Christianity got so little root in men's hearts that but for government watering-pots it must wither away? Are we to understand that these perpetual prayers and sacraments, these homilies and exhortations, these visitings and scripture-readings, have not even generated as much enthusiasm as can keep itself alive?
' See letter of Sir Colin Campbell to Lord Stanley, May 2, 1845.
310 RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS.
Have ten thousand sermons a week done so little that the hearers will not contribute a sum sufficient for the sustenta- tion of a ministry? Why, if this he true, what is the system good for? These advocates do but open their briefs, and then straightway argue themselves out of court. They labour to prove either how powerless is the faith they teach, or how miserably they teach it! The sum and substance of their plea for the state propagation of this creed is, that it has failed in animating its ministers with its owa spirit of self-sacrifice, and failed to arouse in its devotees a spark of its own generosity!
It is needless, however, in this year of grace 1850, with its Gorham controversies and Puseyite divisions, with its Romish and Rationahst secessions, with confusion inside the church, and a hostile association outside — to debate the question at greater length. Events are proving to most of the reflective — -even to many of the clergy themselves — that a state-sup- port of any particular faith is wrong, and that in England at least, it must shortly cease. For those who do not yet see this there are already volumes of argument to which addition is almost superfluous. The conclusions above come to, that the state cannot establish a rehgion without assuming infallibiUty, and that to argue an estabhshment of it needful is to condemn the rehgion itself, will sufficiently enforce, for present purposes, our abstract proposition.
CHAPTER XXV.
POOR-LAWS.
In common with its other assumptions of secondary offices, the assumption hy a government of the office of Reliever- general to the poor, is necessarily forbidden by the principle that a government cannot rightly do anything more than pro- tect. In demanding from a citizen contributions for the mitigation of distress — contributions not needed for the due administration of men's rights — the state is, as we have seen, reversing its fanction, and diminishing that liberty to exercise the faculties which it was instituted to maintain. Possibly, un- mindful of the explanations already given, some will assert that by satisfying- the wants of the pauper, a government is in reality extending his liberty to exercise his faculties, inasmuch as it is giving him something without which the exercise of them is impossible; and that hence, though it decreases the rate- payer's sphere of action, it compensates by increasing that of the rate-receiver. But this statement of the case imphes a confounding of two widely-different things. To enforce the fundamental law — to take care that every man has freedom to do aU that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal free- dom of any other man — this is the special purpose for which the civil power exists. Now insuring to each the right to pursue within the specified limits the objects of his desires with- out let or hindrance, is quite a separate thing from insuring him satisfaction. Of two individuals, one may use his hberty 312 POOR-LAWS.
of action successfully — may achieve the gratifications he seeks after, or accumulate what is equivalent to many of them — pro- perty; whilst the other, having like privileges, may fail to do [_^o. But with these results the state has no concern. All that . lies within its commission is to see that each man is allowed to I use such powers and opportunities as he possesses; and if it 1 takes from him who has prospered to give to him who has not, \ it violates its duty towai'ds the one to do more than its duty \ towards the other. Or, repeating the idea elsewhere expressed S (p. 278), it breaks down the vital law of society, that it may 1 effect what social vitality does not caU for.
The notion popularized by Cobhett, that every one has a right to a maintenance out of the soil, leaves those who adopt it in an awkward predicament. Do but ask them to specify, and they are set fast. Assent to their principle; tell them you will assume their title to be valid; and then, as a needful pre- liminary to the hquidation of their claim, ask for some precise definition of it — inquire " What is a maintenance? " They are dumb. " Is it," say you, " potatoes and salt, with rags ^ and a mud cabin? or is it bread and bacon, in a two-roomed cottage? WiU a joint on Sundays sufiice? or does the de- mand include meat and malt liquor daily? Will tea, cofiee, and tobacco be expected? and if so, how many ounces of each? Are bare walls and brick floors aU that is needed? or must there be carpets and paper-hangings? Are shoes considered essential? or will the Scotch practice be approved? Shall the clothing be of fustian? if not, of what quality must the broad- cloth be? In short, just point out where, between the two extremes of starvation and luxury, this something called a maintenance hes." Again they are dumb. You expostulate. You explain that nothing can be done until the question is satisfactorily answered. You show that the claim must be reduced to a detailed, intelligible shape before a step can be taken POOR-LAWS. 313 towards its settlement. " How else," you ask, " shall we kaow whether enough has been awarded, or whether too much?" Still they are dumb. And, indeed, there is no possible reply for them. Opinions they may offer in plenty; but not a pre- cise, unanimous answer. One thinks that a bare subsistence is all that can fairly be demanded. Here is another who hints at something beyond mere necessaries. A third maintains that a few of the enjoyments of Ufe should be provided for. And some of the more consistent, pushing the doctrine to its le- gitimate result, will rest satisfied with nothing short of com- munity of property. Who now shall decide amongst these conflicting notions? Or, rather, how shall their propounders be brought to an agreement? Can any one of them prove that his definition is tenable and the others not? Yet he must do this if he would make out a case. Before he can prosecute his claim against society, in the high court of morahty, he must "file his bill of particulars." If he accompUshes this he is en- titled to a hearing. If not, he must evidently be non-suited.
The right to labour — that French translation of our poor- law doctrine — may be similarly treated. A criticism parallel to the foregoing would place its advocates in a parallel dilemma. But there is another way in which the fallacy of this theory, either in its Enghsh or its continental form, may be made manifest — a way that may here be fitly employed.
And first let us make sure of the meaning wrapped up in this expression — right to labour. Evidentlyif we would avoid mistakes we must render it hterally — right to the labour; for the thing demanded is not the Uberty of labouring: this, no one disputes; but it is the opportunity of labouring — the having re- munerative employment provided, which is contended for. Now, without dwelling upon the fact that the word right as here used, bears a signification quite different from its legitimate ong — that it does not here imply something inherent in man, but something depending upon external circumstances — not something possessed in virtue of his faculties, but something springing out of his relationship to others — not something true 314 POOR-LAWS.
of him as a solitary individual, but something which can be trae of him only as one of a community — not something ante- cedent to society, but something necessarily subsequent to it — not something expressive of a claim to do, but of a claim to be done unto — without dwelhng upon this, let us take the ex- pression as it stands, and see how it looks when reduced to its lowest terms. When the artizan asserts his right to have work provided for him, he presupposes the existence of some power on which devolves the duty of providing such work. What power is this? The government, he says. But the govern- ment is not an original power, it is a deputed one — is subject therefore, to the instruction of its employer — must do that only which its employer directs — and can be held responsible for nothing save the performance of its employer's behests. Now who is its employer? Society. Strictly speaking, therefore, the assertion of our artizan is, that it is the duty of society to find work for him. But he is himself a member of society — is consequently a unit of that body who ought, as he says, to find work for every man — has hence a share in the duty of finding work for every man. Whilst, therefore, it is the duty of all other men to find work for him, it is his duty to help in finding work for all other men. And hence, if we indicate his fellows alphabetically, his theory is that A, B, C, D, and the rest of the nation, ai-e bound to employ him; that he is bound, in company with B, C, D, and the rest, to employ A; that he is bound, in company with A, C, D, and the rest, to employ B; is bound, with A, B, D, and the rest, to employ C, with A, B 0, and the rest, to employ D; and so on with each individual of the half score or score millions, of whom the society may be composed!
Thus do we see how readily imaginary rights are distin- guishable from real ones. They need no disproof: they dis- prove themselves. The ordeal of a definition breaks the illusion at once. Bubble-hke, they wiU bear a cursory glance; but dis- appear in the grasp of any one who tries to lay hold of them.
POOR-LAWS. 3 1 5 Meanwhile we must not overlook the fact that, erroneous as are these poor-law and communist theories — these assertions of a man's right to a maintenance, and of his right to have work provided for him — they are, nevertheless, nearly related to a truth. They are unsuccessful efforts to express the fact, that whoso is bom on to this planet of ours thereby obtains some interest in it — may not be summarily dismissed again — may not have his existence ignored by those in possession. In other words, they are attempts to embody that thought which finds its legitimate utterance in the law — all men have equal rights to the use of the Earth (Chap. IX.). The pre- valence of these crude ideas is natural enough. A vague per- ception that there is something wrong about the relationship in which the great mass of mankind stand to the soil and to hfe, was sure eventually to grow up. After getting from under the grosser injustice of slavery, men could not help beginning in course of time to feel what a monstrous thing it was that nine people out of ten shoTild live in the world on sufferance, not having even standing room, save by allowance of those who claimed the Earth's surface (p. 114). Could it be right that aU these human beings should not only be without claim to