On this page
-
Text (5)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
ancient Bomish Church . "We all of us reverence the sacred volume ; but , surely , those persons who are so stoutly striving to have the writings of St . Basil and the " Holy Fathers " of the fourth and fifth centuries considered as equal authority to the Bible itself , ? , " not be acting otherwise than as " enemies to thefaith , \ certainly not as wise and discreet promoters of " civil and religious liberty . ^ I am , Mr . Editor , your obedient servant , April 4 , 1850 . Alfbxd
Untitled Article
BIGHT TO THE SOIL AND ITS FBUITS . 3 , Old Square , March 1 . gIB > —Your correspondent , Mr . Thomas , has asked for a brief and convincing answer to the question , «« What right has any man to claim a subsistence out of the soil ? " I will give him an answer which shall at least be brief , and I hope may be convincing . Because each man has a right to require that those conditions of existence under which God originally placed man on the earth shall be preserved substantially in all the stages of human progress . this
Now , consider what these conditions are in matter of property and work ; that is to say , in what state do men find themselves in these matters when they begin to occupy any unpeopled country ? 1 st . They must work to exist at all ; and if they work , nothing but violence can deprive them of the fruits of their work . They have , therefore , a natural right to property in these fruits : and property is not merely the assertion of ' « might , " as Mr . Thomas supposes . 2 nd . There is room enough for everybody to work who pleases , and at whatever occupation he pleases- ; and each man will be rewarded , in the absence of violence , according to his work . No one is or can be " hedged in by property to starve . "
Now , I ask Mr . Thomas , or any one else who shares his views , to give me a « ' brief and convincing " answer to the auestion , By what right have human societies , as they in fact have , altered these original conditions ? By what right , except that " right of might" to which Mr . Thomas alludes" That good old rule , that simple plan , That they should take who have the power , And they should keep who can . "
Have men carefully provided for the retention of the first of the above conditions only , the right of those who do work to enjoy the fruits of their labour , without troubling themselves about the second condition , that those who are ready to work shall always have the power of working , and the choice of the work which they prefer . I do not ask how , historically , they have done this ; but by what right they have done it . . Mr . Thomas assumes that the two rights , the right of property and the right to work , are irreconcileable . But if we look to the beginning of society as God starts men in the earth , we see that this is not true . How is it , then , that there appears to be at
the present day , in our present society , an inconsistency between the two ? I will again endeavour to give a brief answer . Because men have fallen into the fallacy into which Mr . Thomas falls , of assuming that property can be claimed in the earth itself , in the same manner and to the same extent as it can be claimed in the produce served from the earth . Because they have forgotten that , while there is no inconsistency in claiming a property in the proceeds of human labour , inasmuch as these can be multiplied indefinitely , and by claiming a property in a part of them I do not interfere with the right of any other men to claim an equal property in some other part ; yet that , so soon as the same
principle is applied to the raw materials , which God gives men freely , to land which is in its nature of limited extent , the right of property in some men amounts to an exclusion from all property in other men , and therefore the simple notion of unlimited property , as it exists in respect to those things of which the quantity is unlimited , is not inapplicable , and must be modified by some such qualification as that implied in the " Bight to Subsistence out of the Soil , " or , as I should phrase it , the "Bight of Labour ; " the right to work at any object of work which I select , under such regulations as may be necessarv to ensure the peace and well-being of the community to which I belong . Without further trespassing upon your space , I beg to subscribe myself , your well-wisher , Edward Vansittabt Neale .
Untitled Article
Coventry , April 1 st . Sib ,-Your correspondent , Mr . Thomas , asks " Upon what right other than the right of might does property repose . " I should answer that , if it has no other foundation for its right than might , its right is not a right at all , but a wrong . The earth and all that it will spontaneously produce are properly common property ; no man produced them , and he cannot claim them for his exclusive use without either fraud or force . Had men been originally wise and just , the earth would never have been parcelled out and divided among a few . but would have been
cultivated for the common advantage of all . But in the infancy of man ' s existence such a state of society could not be realized , if it ever can be . The great body of the people have lost their common birthright by their incapacity and ignorance , and if they ever gain it again it will be by unity and intelligence . In the meantime I should urge with you that those who need it have a right to subsistence out of the soil , because in almost all other kinds of property a great deal of labour must be expended before they are of much value , and also because that property which is not derived from labour ought to be made responsible for poverty .
Your other correspondent , Alexander Sommerville , in my opinion , makes a great error when he says ' * the principles of Communism give the right to consume property without a power to enforce the duty of producing it . " In the American communities no difficulty of the kind stands in the way of production ; for they can and do produce more than they require . He also says that Communists admit what that should be
I , as a Communist , do not admit , men perfect before they can work out a system based on the principle of common property . Man is necessarily imperfect , and liable to be influenced by temptation , and it is because of this liability ^ that evil influences and the main causes of contention ought to be removed . —I remain , sir , with hopes for the success of your undertaking , yours , A Subscriber , C . S .
Untitled Article
COMMUNISM DEFENDED FROM THE CHARGE OF SENTIMENTALITY . Sir , —Twenty years ago , when the accumulation of a shilling was the effort of weeks , I remember subscribing one for the liberation of your correspondent , " Mr . Somerville , " from the Scotch Greys , at the time when he was first known to the public . As is , therefore , natural , I somewhat reluctantly demur to the words of one who excited both the interest and admiration of my youth—yet demur I do to the letter ( inserted in your " Open Council" last week ) , characteristic of a school in political economy whose memory is written in the tables of interest , rather than on the tables of the heart of the people .
" With the air of an appointed monitor of all sentiment he cautions you on that head . I have trod the weary steps of progress , or rather leaped with lifeconsuming energy the chasms which competitive society has made in the path of the operative ; the merely sentimental is as little to my taste , and has as little of my tolerance as of any ' Whistler at the Plough ; " but I can say that I read your prospectus , and ended with the impression that there were strong veins of earnestness and reality running through it ; distinguishing the work to be done , and indicating a quiet intention of initiating some of it—despising cant—and what is more to the purpose ^ braving cant , with the air of one able to lead opinion .
Deferentially and respectfully I say it ; but I question the accuracy of Mr . Somerville ' s diagnosis of the Socialist manifestation . Earnest in conviction , and bold as earnestness naturally is , Communism spoke to society in uncouth tones . I grant it . But ^ fullgrown society answered it with no more wisdom than that displayed by infantine innovation . ^ Socialists , however , outraged none of the Christian charity of society , for society had none to outrage . Society hooted , hated , defamed the Socialists who sought its ear . In these accomplishments society knew no superior , and feared no rival in Socialism . The offence of Socialism was what your
correspondent describes as its " sentimentality . ' It believed in human duty as well as interest , and it believed that duty was a nobler , and sought to make it a stronger , sense than interest . There is a formula of obligation very much like that which Mr . Somerville lays down— most sacred in the eyes of societyviz ., «* Get money— -get it honestly if you can—but get it . " Socialism did not believe in this . To reject so golden a maxim argued no doubt much inexperience , was no doubt very presumptuous , Utopian and " sentimental "; but it will come to be regarded yet as rather a salutary strength than an effeminating weakness .
"What makes political accusation so gross and offensive as the constant declaration which we hear in popular quarters that rulers do wrong , knowing it to be wrong , yet doing it because it is their interest to do it ? Half the ferocity of mere political revolutions has been engendered by this belief . Far higher and more just is the conviction Socialism has sought to diffuse , the conviction that men are governed by ideas rather than by interests . And the belief is as salutary in wealth-making as in morals . Communism havwealth
is as sensible as Mr . Somerville , that to e is the basis of enjoyment ; but it seeks a more generous mode of getting it than he appears to inagurate . To accept as incentives to industry , ideas of duty , honour , and good-will , he regards as the 11 sterility" of productive schemes . Thus he ignores the nobler half of human nature . Possibly Socialism does not sufficiently guard against knaves m its theories : but since human experience has demonstrated nothing more universally than this—that if
you lay down a dogma for treating men as knaves , you will end by making them knaves — that system is more practical for " order" which inclines to treat men as being what they should be . To ideas of duty and not of interest , " sterile" as Mr . Somerville ' s school of thinkers pronounce the plan , we owe whatever of patriotism and martyrdom have made sacrifices for liberty , and raised humanity from its grossness . The ' moral sentimentality of the unfortunate Socialists of Harmony Hall , " merits a somewhat different recognition from that which Mr . Somerville accords it . Their sentimentality took a very practical turn . Even intellectual exercises they considered a foregone gratification . They worked early and lateand cheerfully ate the bread of carefulness : and those whose little fortunes were lost utter now no
complaint , but remember their efforts as generous men should , who make sacrifices to realize a more genial system of life . Like a half-executed railway whose shares are not paid up , Harmony Hall failed . Mr . Somerville must know of many experiments which have come to a similar end , whose originators are not usually set down as " unfortunate moral sentimentalists "
Let me pray , Mr . Somerville , not to include me under this last description . With hands horny with the use of the file and blistered at the forge , I am no dreamer . I have had no time to dream . Nor have I the slightest notion of a " rose-water world , " never having become acquainted with any such place . ^ I expect no betterance and desire none save that which my own exertions can create , but I also pray Socie . ty to leave those exertions free .
With this bald , hasty , and brief vindication of a class of Reformers , whose faults have been sedulously noted and whose aims and efforts sedulously ignored , I beg to subscribe myself , A Believer in Humanity as well as the Stock Exchange , Ion .
Untitled Article
Besides the letters above we have received a shoal of others , too many and too much alike in general drift for insertion : and must perforce content ourselves with extracts . " Homo " answers " One who has "Whistled at the Plough " : — " Communism is , in principle , * each labour for all , that all may enjoy equally the fruits of that labour . ' A community regulated as it should be , would possess the power of enforcing the duty of producing property before consuming it . * * * * The great works reared by associations are strong proofs of the power of co-operation ; and as a Communist I can have no objection to these associations . I regard them as a step in the right direction . But all their good consists in their being common efforts for the common benefit . Which is , in fact , Communism . "
" Justus" says : — " The question of Mr . W . Thomas' What Hight has any Man , ' &c . —cannot , I think , be better replied to than by asking if it is not the duly of society to care for every member of its body ? If it is the duty of society to do so , which I think even Mr . W . Thomas will not be so ' truculent' as to deny , then must the converse be true , that it is the right of every one to be cared for by society . Mr . Thomas asks , why should he be required to provide for the poor and sickly ? But the assertion is , not that he should be required to do so , but that society should . "
" God and Nature , " writes E . H ., " inculcate the rights [ of labour and ?] the rights of property , if honestly acquired , are alike sacred ; but property bequeathed by a tyrant bequest ought to be null and void . If by court favouritism I get a park ten miles in circumference , and have in it thirteen hundred head of fat deer revelling and fattening in idle luxuriance while human beings are dying of want of food , while thousands are perishing of want , disease , and premature death by inanition , the animals should be sacrificed on the altar of public good , and the selfish , useless owner be compelled to earn his
right . If it is true that money begets money in the same ratio that people beget population , judgment and care are necessary to regulate property as well as population . Feudal tenures are powerful if not sacred . William the Conqueror got possession of the land , as the Bank of England has possession of nineteen millions of gold , and possession has been held to be nine points of the law ; but we want a committee to regulate the tenure of land and to regulate the fair distribution of the capital of the country . On Mr . Carlyle ' s proposal for the . nomination by the Crown of " the half dozen or half score officers of
the administration , whose presence is thought necessary in Parliament , to official seats there , " each person so nominated to have seat and vote there , Mr . F . Espinasse makes a critical remark : — " Let it be proposed that' the half dozen or half score officers of the Administration whose presence is thought necessary in Parliament , ' shall have seats there , and in no case be allowed to have votes ; that no official whatsoever , though welcome to a seat , shall be allowed to
have a vote in Parliament . —Let this be proposed , and I venture to say all and sundry will jump at the arrangement . Officials are servants of the country , and though they should be allowed to make to its representatives any needful statements , explanations , or even pleadings , they , surely , should not be allowed to vote in Parliament on their own schemes and merits , any more than a secretary , traffic-manager , head-clcrk , or chief engineer in a railway board . How often is a Ministry savcu from defeat and expulsion by its own votes !"
Untitled Article
April 6 , 1850 . ] «©* ULtatott . a 7
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), April 6, 1850, page 37, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1839/page/13/
-