ing to avenge a defeat, at the cost of more mortality and misery to •our own soldiers and their antagonists, cannot have so much " en- thusiasm of humanity " as protests like that indicated above would lead one to expect. Indeed, along with this sensitiveness which they profess will not let them look with patience on the pains or "the battle of life " as it quietly goes on around, they appear to have a ^callousness which not only tolerates but enjoys contemplating the pains of battles of the literal kind; as one sees in the demand for illustrated papers containing scenes of carnage, and in the greedi- ness with which detailed accounts of bloody engagements are read. We may reasonably have our doubts about men whose feelings are Buch that they cannot bear the thought of hardships borne, mostly by the idle and the improvident, and who, nevertheless, have de- manded thirty-one editions of "The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World," in which they may revel in accouni s of slaughter. Nay, even still more remarkable is the contrast between the professed tender- heartedness and the actual hard-heui'tedness of those who would reverse the normal course of things that immediate niiscriea may THE SINS OF LEGISLATORS. 71 be prevented, even at the cost of greater miseries heieafter pro- duced. For on other occasions you may hear them, with utter dis- regard of bloodshed and death, contend that in the interests of humanity at large it is well that the inferior races should be ex- terminated and their places occupied by the superior races. So that, marvellous to relate, though they cannot think with calmness of the evils accompanying the struggle for existence as it is carried on without violence among individuals in their own society, they contemplate with contented equanimity such evils in their intense und wholesale forms, when inflicted by fire and sword on entire communities. Not worthy of luuch respect then, as it seems to me, is this generous consideration of the inferior at home which is accompanied by unscrupulous sacrifice of the inferior abroad.
Still less respectable appears this extreme concern for those of our own blood which goes along with utter unconcern for those of other blood, when we observe its methods. Did it prompt per- sonal effort to relieve the suffering, it would rightly receive approv- ing recognition. Were the many who express this cheap pity like the few who patiently, week after week and year after year, devote large parts of their time to helping and encouraging, and occasion- ally amusing, those who, in some cases by ill-fortnne and in other cases by incapacity or misconduct, are brought to lives of hardship, they would be worthy of unqualified admiration. The more there are of men and women who help the poor to hel.) themselves — the more there are of those whose sympathy is exhibited directly and not by proxy, the more we may rejoice, But the immense majority of the persons who wish to mitigate by law the miseries of the unsuccessful and the reckless, propose to do this in small measure at their own cost and mainly at the cost of others — sometimes with their assent but mostly without. More than this is true; for those who are to be forced to do so much for the distressed, often equally or more require something doing for them. The deserving poor are among those who arc burdened to pay the costs of caring for the undeserving poor. As, under the old Poor Law, the diligent and provident labourer had to pay that the good-for-nothings might not suffer, until frequently under this extra burden he broke down and himself took refuge in the workhouse — as, at present, it is admitted that the total rates levied in large towns for all public purposes, have Qow reached such a height that they " canuofc be exceeded 72 THE MAN VE12SUS THE STATF..
without infllctinf^ great hardship on the small shopkeepers acd artisans, who already find it diliicult enoui^h to keep themselves free from the pauper taint;"* so in all cases, the policy is one which intensifies the pains of those most deserving of pity, that the pains of those least deserving of pity may be mitigated. In short, men who are so sympathetic that they cannot allow the struggle for existence to bring on the unworthy the sufferings consequent on their incapacity or misconduct, are so un- sympathetic that they can, without hesitation, make the struggle for existence harder for the Avorthy, and infl.ict on them and their children artificial evils in addition to the natural evils they have to bear!
And here we are brought round to our original topic — the sins of legislators. Here there comes clearly before us the commonest of the transgressions which rulers commit — a transgression so common, and so sanctified by custom, that no one imagines it to be a trans- gression. Here we see that, as indicated at the outset, Government, begotten of aggression and by aggression, ever continues to betray its original nature by its aggressiveness; and that even what on its nearer face seems beneficence only, shows, on its remoter face, not a little maleficence — kindness at the cost of cruelty. For is it not cruel to increase the sufferings of the better that the sufferings of the worse may be decreased?
It is, indeed, marvellous how readily we let ourselves be deceived by words and phrases which suggest one aspect of the facts while leaving the opposite aspect nnsuggested. A good illustration of this, and one germane to the immediate question, is seen in the use of the words " protection " and " protectionist " by the antagonists of free-trade, and in the tacit admission of its propriety by free- traders. While the one party has habitually ignored, the other party has habitually failed to emphasize, the truth that this so- called protection always involves aggression; and that the name aggressionist ought to be substituted for the name protectionist. For nothing can be more certain than that if, to maintain A's pro6t, B is forbidden to buy of C, or is fined to the extent of the duty if he buys of C, B is aggresssed upon that A may be " protected." Kay, " aggressionists " is a title doubly more applicable to the anti-free-traders than is the euphemistic title • Mr. Chaoiberlain in Fortnightly Review^ December, 1883, p. 772.
THE SINS OF LEGISLATORS. T6 " protectionists; " since, tliat one producer may gain, ten con- sumers arc fleeced.
Now jusb tlio like confusion of ideas, caused by looking at one face onlj'- of the transaction, may be traced throughout all the legislation which forcibly takes the property of this man for the purpose of giving gratis benefits to tliat man. Habitually when one of the numerous measures thus characterized is discussed, the dominant thought is concerning the pitiable Jones who is to be jorotected against some evil; while no thought is given to the liard-rworking Brown who is aggressed upon, often much more to be pitied. Money is exacted (either directly or through raised rent) from the huckster who only by extreme pinching can pay her way, from the mason thrown out of work by a strike, from the mechanic whose savings are melting away during an illness, from the widow who washes or sews from dawn to dark to feed her fatherless little ones; and all that the dissolute may be saved from hunger, that the children of less impoverished neighbours Tuay have cheap lessons, and that various people, mostly better ofP, may read newspapers and novels for nothing! The error of nomenclature is, in one respect, more misleading than that which allows aggressionists to be called protectionists; for, as just shown, protection of the vicious poor involves aggression on the virtuous poor. Doubtless it is true that the greater part of the money exacted comes from those who are relatively well-off. But this is no consolation to the ill-off from whom the rest is exacted. Nay, if the comparison be made between the pressures borne by the two classes respectively, it becomes manifest that the case is even worse than at first appears; for while to the w^ell-off the exaction means loss of luxuries, to the ill-ofF it means loss of necessaries.
And now see the Nemesis which is threatening to follow this chronic sin of legislators. They and their class, in common with all owners of property, arc in danger of suffering from a sweeping application of that general principle practically asserted by each of these confiscating Acts of Parliament. For what is the tacit assumption on which such Acts proceed? It is the assumption that no man has any claim to his property, not even to thai; which he has earned by the sweat of his brow, save by permission of the community; and that the community may cancel the claim to any extent it thinks fit. No deience can be mado for this appropriation of A's possessions for the benefit of B, save one which sets out with the postulate that society as a whole has an absolute right over the possessions of each member. And now this doctrine, which has been tacitly assumed, is being openly pro- claimed. Mr. George and his friends, Mr. Hyndman and his supporters, are pushing the theory to its logical issue. They have been instructed by examples, yearly increasing in number, that the individual has no rights but what the commnnity may equitably over- ride; and they are now saying — " It shall go hard bat we will belter the instruction," and over-ride individual rights altogether.
Legislative misdeeds of the classes above indicated are in large measure explained, and reprobation of them mitigated, when we look at the matter from afar off. They have their root in the error that society is a manufacture; whereas it is a growth. Neither the culture of past times nor the culture of the present time, has given to any considerable number of people a scientific conception of a society — a conception of it as having a natural structure in which all its institutions, governmental, religious, industrial, commercial, &c. &c., are inter-dependently bound — a structure w^hich is in a sense organic. Or if such a conception is nominally entertained, it is not entertained in such way as to be operative on conduct. Contrariwise, incorporated humanity is very commonly thought of as though it were like so much dough which the cook can mould as she pleases into pie-crust, or puff, or tartlet. The communist shows us unmistakably that he thinks of the body politic as admitting of being shaped thus or thus at will; and the tacit implication of many Acts of Parliau;ent is that aggregated men, twisted into this or that arrangement, will remain as intended.
it may indeed be said that even irrespective of this erroneous conception of a society as a plastic mass instead of as an organized body, facts forced on his attention hour by hour should make every one sceptical as to the success of this or that proposed way of changing a people's actions. Alike to the citizen and to the legislator, home-experiences daily supply proofs that the conduct of human beings baulks calculation. He has given up the thought of managing his wife and lets her manage him. Children on whom, he has tried now reprimand, now panishment, nmv jbuaiiion, THE SINiS OF LEGISLATU::S. 75 now reward, do not respond satisfactorily to any method; and no expostulation prevents their mother from treating them in ways he thinks mischievous. So, too, his dealings with his servants, whether by reasoning or by scolding, rarely succeed for long: the falling short of attention, or punctuality, or cleanliness, or sobriety, leads to constant changes. Yet, difficult as he finds it to deal with humanity in detail, he is confident of his ability to deal with embodied humanity. Citizens, not one-thousandth of whom he knows, not one-hundredth of whom he ever saw, and the great mass of whom belong to classes having habits and modes of thought of which he has but dim notions, he feels sure will act in certain ways he foresees, and fulfil ends he wishes. Is there not a marvelloas incongruity beiween premises and conclusion?
One might have expected that whether they observed Li:e implications of these domestic failures, or whether they cc:7- templated in every newspaper the indications of a social life too vast, too varied, too involved, to be even vaguely pictured in thought, men would have entered on the business of law-makii g with the greatest hesitation. Yet in this more than in anythii g else do they show a confident readiness. Nowhere is there bO astoundiug a contrast between the difticulty of the task and the unpreparedness of those who undertake it. Unquestionably among monstrous beliefs one of the most monstrous is that while for a simple handicraft, such as shoe-making, a long apprenticeship is needful, the sole thing which needs no apprenticeship is making a nation's laws!
Summing up the results of the discussion, may we not reason- ably say that there lie before the legislator several open secrets, which yet are so open that they ought not to remain secrets to oco who undertakes the vast and terrible responsibility of dealiii;:;- with millions upon millions of human beings by measures whicl;,] if they do nob conduce to their happiness, will increase their miseries and accelerate their deaths?
There is first of all the undeniable truth, conspicuous and yet absolutely ignored, that there are no phenomena which a society presents but what have their origins in the phenomena of indi- vidual human life, which again have their roots in vital phe- nomena at large. And there is the inevitable implication that unless these vital phenomena, bcdily and mental, are chaotic in 7b THE MAN VERSUS THE STATE, their relations (a supposition excluded by the very maintenance of life) the resulting phenomena cannot be wholly chaotic: thero must be some kind of order in the phenomena which grow out of them when associated human beings have to co-operate. Evidently, tlien, Avhen one who has not studied such resulting phenomena of social order, undertakes to regulate society, he is pretty certain to work mischiefs.
In the second place, apart from a priori reasoning, this con elusion should be forced on the legislator by comparisons of societies. It ought to be sufficiently manifest that before med- dling with the details of social organization, inquiry should be made whether social organization has a natural history; and that to answer this inquiry, it would be well, setting out with the simplest societies, to see in what respects social structures agree. Such comparative sociology, pursued to a very small extent, shows a substantial uniformity of genesis. The habitual existence of chieftainship, and the establishment of chiefly authority by war; the rise everywhere of the medicine man and priest; the presence of a cult having in all places the same fundamental traits; the traces of division of labour, early displayed, which gradually b3Come more marked; and the various complications, political, ecclesiastical, industrial, which arise as groups ai'e compounded and re-compounded by war; quickly prove to any who compares them that, apart from all their special differences, societies have general resemblances in their modes of origin and development. Theyi^resenfc traits of structure showing that social organization has laws which over-ride individual wills; and laws the disregard of which must be fraught with disaster.
And then, in the third place, there is that mass of guiding information yielded by the records of legislation in our own country and in other countries, which still more obviously demands attention. Here and elsewhere, attemj)ts of multitudinous kinds, made by kings and statesmen, have failed to do the good intended and have worked unexpected evils. Century after century new measures like the old ones, and other measures akin in principle, have again disappointed hopes and again brought disaster. And yet it is thought neither by electors nor by those they elect, that tliere is any need for systematic study of that law-making which in bygone ages went on working the ill-being of the people when it tried to achieve their AveJl-bcing. Su.cly there can be no fitness TiiE SINS OF LEC.ISLATOKS. 77 for lesrislative functions wiUicut "wldc knowledge of those legislative experiences which the past has bequeathed.
Reverting, then, to the analogy drawn at the outset, we must say that the legislator is morally blameless or morally blameworthy, according as he has or has not acquainted himself with these several classes of facts. A physician who, after years of study, has gained a competent knowledge of physiology, pathology and therapeutics, is not held criminally responsible if a man dies under liis treatment: he has prepared himself as well as he can, and has acted to the best of his judgirjent. Similarly the legislator whose measures produce evil instead of good, notwithstanding the exten- sive and methodic inquiries which helped him to decide, cannot be held to have committed more than an error of reasoning. Contrari- wise, the legislator who is wdiolly or in great part uninformed concerning these masses of facts which he must examine before his opinion on a proposed law can be of any value, and who nevertheless helps to pass that law, can no more be absolved if misery and mortality result, than the journeyman druggist can be absolved when death is caused by the medicine he ignorantly prescribes.
iH THE GREAT POLITICAL SUPERSTITION.
The great political superstition of the past was the divine right of kings. The great political superstition of the present is the divine right of parliaments. The oil of anointing seems unawares to have dripped from the head of the one on to the heads of the many, and given sacredness to them aJso and to their decrees.
However irrational we may think the earlier of these beliefs, we must admit that it was more consistent than is the latter. Whether we go back to times when the king was a god, or to times when he was a descendant of a god, or to times when he was god-appointed, we see good reason for passive obedience to his will. "When, as under Loais XIV., theologians like Bossuet taught that kings " are gods, and share in a manner the Divine indepen- dence," or when it was thought, as by our own Tory party in old days, that " the monarch was the delegate of heaven;" it is clear that, given the premise, the inevitable conclusion was that no bounds could be set to governmental commands. But for the modern belief such a warrant does not exist. Making no preten- sion to divine descent or divine appointment, a legislative body can show no su23ernatural justification for its claim to unlimited authority; and no natural justification has ever been attempted. Hence, belief in its unlimited authority is without that consistency which of old characterized belief in a king's unlimited authority.
It is curious how commonly men continue to hold in fact, doctrines which they have rejected in name — retaining the substance after they have abandoned the form. In Theology an illustration is supplied by Carlyle, who, in his student days, giving up, as he thought, the creed of his fathers, rejected its shell only, keeping the contents; and was proved by his conceptions of the woild, and man, and conduct, to be still among the sternest of Scotch THE GEEAT POLITICAL SUPERSTITION. 7\) Calvirists, Similarly, Science furnislies an instance in one viho united naturalism in Geology with supernaturalism in Biology — Sir Charles Lyell. While, as the leading expositor of the uniformi- tarian theory in Geology, he ignored wholly the Mosaic cosmogony, he long defended that belief in special creations of organic types, for which no other source than the Mosaic cosmogony could be assigned; and only in the latter part of his life surrendered to the arguments of Mr. Darwin. In Politics, as above implied, we havo an analogous case. The tacitly-asserted doctrine, common to Tories, Whigs, and Radicals, that governmental authority is unlimited, dates back to times when the law-giver was supposed to have a warrant from God; and it survives still, though the belief that the law-giver has God's warrant has died out. " Oh, an Act of Parliament can do anything," is the reply made to a citizen who questions the legitimacy of some arbitrary State-interference; and the citizen stands paralyzed. It does not occur to him to ask the how, and the when, and the w^hence, of this asserted omnipotence bounded only by physical impossibilities.
Here we will take leave to question it. In default of the justi- fication, once logically valid, that the ruler on Earth being a deputy of the ruler in Heaven, submission to him in all things is a duty, let us ask what reason there is for asserting the duty of submission in all things to a ruling power, constitutional or repujplican, which has no Heaven-derived supremacy. Evidently this inquiry com- mits us to a criticism of past and present theories conc-erning political authority. To revive questions supposed to be long since settled, may be thought to need some apology; but there is a sufficient apology in the implication above made clear, that the theory commonly accepted is ill-based or unbased.
1 he notion of sov ereignty is that which first presents itseir; and a critical examination of this notion, as entertained by those who do not postulate the supernatural origin of sovereignty, carries us back to the arguments of Hobbes.
Let us grant Hobbes's postulate that, " during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditio Q which is called war...of every man against every man;"* though this is not true, since there are some small uncivilized societies in which, without any "common power to keep * Hobbes, Collected Works, vol. iii. pp. 112-13.
80 THE MAN VERSUS THE STATE.
them all in awe," men maintain peace and harmony better than it IS maintained in societies where such a power exists. Let us sup- pose him to be right, too, in assuming that the rise of a ruling power over associated men, results from their desires to preserve order among themselves; though, in fact, it habitually arises from the need for subordination to a leader in war, defensive or offensive, and has originally no necessary, and often no actual, relation to the preservation of order among the combined individuals. Once more, let us admit the indefensible assumption that to escape the evils of chronic conflicts, which must otherwise continue among them, the members of a community enter into a " pact or covenant," by which they all bind themselves to surrender their primitive freedom of action, and subordinate themselves to the will of a ruling power agreed upon:* accepting, also, the implication that their descendants for ever are bound by the covenant which remote ancestors made for them. Let us, T say, not object to these data^ but pass to the conclusions Hobbes di^aws. He says: — *' For where no covenant hath preceded, there hath no light been trans- ferred, and every man has right to every thing; and consequently, no action can be unjust. But when a covenant is made, then to break it is unjust: and the definition of injustice, is no other than the not performance of covenant Therefore before the names of just and unjust can iiave place, there must be some coercive power, to compel men equally to the performance of their covenants, by the terror of some punishment, greater than the benefit they expect by the breach of their covenant.' t Were people's characters in Hobbes's day really so bad as to warrant his assumption that none would perform their covenants in the absence of a coercive power and threatened penalties? In our day "the names of just and unjust can have place" quite fipart from recognition of any coercive power. Among my friends I could name half a dozen whom I would implicitly trust to per- form their covenants without any " terror of some punishment;" and over whom the requirements of justice would be as imperative in the absence of a coercive power as in its presence. Merely noting, however, that this unwarranted assumption vitiates Hobbes's argument for State-authority, and accepting both his premises and conclusion, we have to observe two significant implications. One is that State-authority as thus derived, is a means to an end, and has no validity save as subserving that end: if the end is not subserved, • Hobbes, Collected Works, vol. iil. p. 159. f Ibid. pp. 130-1.
THE GREAT POLITICAL SUPERSTITION. 81