case; and they have not so much as contemplated the notion of any large legislative movement, which shall benefit the class on a large scale. There was doubtless one special reason for this inertness, which we shall presently mention; but its main cause has been, that the labourers could not agitate in their own behalf. And so it has happened that,-while the keenest political interest has been felt, and political parties have stood or fallen on questions of immeasurably less real importance,-by tacit consent all care of the agricultural labourers has been left, either to literary disquisition or to private and isolated benevolence. The nearest approach to any organized movement in their behalf which has existed previously to the existing agitation-and this dates only a very few years back-has been the admirable and sustained exertion of a zealous Anglican clergyman, Canon Girdlestone, for the purpose of facilitating the migration of labourers, from those parts of England where wages are lower, to those parts where wages are higher. Even this was violently opposed by the farmers of his neighbourhood, and has been quite a solitary and exceptional enterprise. Now, however, what is called "education" has in some sense penetrated the lowest stratum of society; and the labourers are thus enabled to combine with each other, to agitate, and to become a political power. From this moment it has become possible to make political capital out of the question. Accordingly it seems as if scales had dropped from the eyes of some public men, and as though now for the first time they saw the real magnitude of the interests involved. Such is the practical working of modern constitutional government. "Never," says Bentham, "except by making the ruling few uneasy, can the oppressed many expect to obtain relief." Striking contrast to those centuries when the Church was able to exercise her divinely given authority in the political order! We are convinced that the present movement is substantially just; and that the Legislature cannot, without great culpability, allow the lot of the agricultural labourer to remain what it now is. The Archbishop of Westminster, since his appointment, has rendered the Church service of quite a new kind and of singular importance, by his habit of politically co-operating with Protestants, in whatever may be common ground between him and them, against the enemies of religion and of social amelioration. And never in our judgment did he act more wisely, than when he identified himself with this labourers' movement, and attended their demonstration at Exeter Hall. We have no thought on the present occasion however of exhibiting their case in full; of attempting a photographic picture of the English labourer's life, throughout the day and throughout the year: for such an enterprise would be quite beyond the present writer's power. Far less have we any thought VOL. XX.NO. XXXIX. [New Series.] E of speculating on the political future; of considering the effect which may probably be produced on the course of social and public events by this agitation, which as yet is, not so much beginning, as immediately proximate. We believe indeed that the most sagacious statesman would be at fault if he attempted any such augury; unless indeed so far as he might safely pronounce, that its effects must be very momentous in one direction or another. In the present article we have no higher aim, than to throw a little light on one corner of the subject; but then that corner has hitherto been very dark, while it may not improbably be the battle-ground on which the coming controversy will be chiefly waged. There is one argument then in particular, which every one who dislikes this labourers' movement at once discharges against its supporters he complains that they disregard the lessons of political economy. Accordingly the "Times," on the very day after the Exeter Hall meeting, represented Archbishop Manning as having exhorted his hearers to treat that science with contempt; though a writer in the "Spectator," who had evidently been present, promptly corrected this mistaken impression of the Archbishop's meaning. Now there are two opposite reasons, which would lead us to regret extremely, if many persons came to think that such a movement as we are considering conflicts in any kind of way with the genuine lessons of political economy. On the one hand, many are led to resist the movement by unconscious promptings of mere cowardice or selfishness; but they might easily disguise from themselves their true state of mind, if they had such a support to fall back upon as the utterances of an important science. On the other hand, Christian and other philanthropists would be led by such an opinion to hold political economy in light estimation: whereas it is certain that no amount of zealous philanthropy will enable them to effect the noble purpose on which they are bent, unless they guide their steps from first to last by the light of that science. Our purpose then, in the present brief article, is to defend two propositions. Firstly we wish to show, that those who think it possible that any objection drawn from political economy could be valid on such a matter, fundamentally misunderstand the true character and place of that science. Secondly we wish to show, that that particular doctrine of political economy, which is commonly alleged in objection, is no true doctrine at all, but altogether false. Firstly then, we say that Archbishop Manning, or any other philanthropically disposed person, may have fullest grounds for demanding large legislative measures in the labourer's favour, though he may neither have studied political economy nor consulted those who do study it. Our reason is, that political economy is not supreme, but subordinate to moral and social science. We will not attempt any methodical exposition of this statement, though in its place such exposition would be of great value; but we will give a sufficient notion of our meaning by an obvious illustration. We would point out then, as illustrating what is meant respectively by a "supreme " and a "subordinate" science, that the science of cookery is "subordinate" to that of medicine. The man skilled in medicine lays down, e.g., that food, possessing certain qualities A, B, C, is eminently wholesome to some particular person or to mankind in general; while food possessing certain other qualities D, E, F, is universally prejudicial to health. Here the subordinate science steps in, accepting the dicta of the higher. The science of cookery, we say, investigates how, by means of accessible materials, food may be most easily and largely prepared, which shall possess qualities A, B, C, and shall be exempt from qualities D, E, F. But suppose some one were to lay down, that no practitioners, however learned in medicine, had a right to pronounce qualities D, E, F unwholesome till they had studied the science of cookery. All the world would be amused by the quaintness of such a notion; and yet this is exactly a parallel case to the one before us. Let us draw out, then, this parallel. Moral and social science,* we will suppose, pronounces (1), that a certain condition of the labouring classes is an intolerable evil which the Legislature is bound to redress; (2), that property by God's Law possesses certain indefeasible rights; (3), that certain imaginable laws, on marriage and kindred subjects, are immoral and anti-Christian. We assume for our present purpose that these are genuine pronouncements of moral and social science; for our argument is directed only to this, that political economy cannot sit in judgment on them at all. It is after these dicta have been sufficiently established by the supreme science, that the subordinate science is called in. The proper work of political economy, is to investigate certain fundamental laws which predominantly regulate the production and distribution of wealth. On the present occasion it accepts those three dicta of moral and social science which we have just recounted; and it proceeds to consider how, by help of those laws with which it is itself conversant, the first of the said three dicta may be carried into practical effect, without opposition to the other two. The science, e.g., may imaginably decide, that no relief worth mentioning can be given the labouring classes except by some large and systematic scheme of emigration or it may decide that large remedy (whether or no altogether sufficient) may be The Catholic, of course, considers moral and social science again subordinate to theological; but we need not speak of this at length. obtained, by better methods of cultivating the land at home; * by some different adjustment of taxation; by some alteration in the legal attributes of property, which shall not interfere with its indefeasible rights. All these are questions entirely within the limits of the science, and which the political economist with great advantage may pursue; but he has no right whatever, as political economist, to call in question the determinations of the higher science. We must by no means forget however, that one important supposition is imaginable, though we shall proceed to maintain that it is not possible. Imaginably, political economy, when legitimately consulted, may respond, that there is no means of practically harmonizing the three dicta of moral and social science; that there is no means of effectually relieving the labourer, without tampering either with the indefeasible rights of property or the divinely given laws and counsels as to marriage. But we contend, that in the judgment of every Theist such a supposition must be accounted impossible. If the three dicta mentioned above be genuine utterances of the higher science, it follows, in the Theist's judgment, that God commands legislators to redress the evils commemorated in the first dictum, without violating the principles declared in the other two. But God does not command impossibilities; and we know therefore with certainty, that He must have given man means for obeying His precept. Here it may perhaps be worth while to repeat a remark, which we made in an earlier number. Several piously disposed persons are under an impression, that political economy is an anti-Christian science; and they think so, because its very purpose is to facilitate the increase of personal and national wealth, whereas wealth is regarded by the Christian religion as a snare and peril. Now we certainly think that a ruler, animated by the true Christian spirit, would aim so far as possible at adapting his legislation to the diminution at once of extreme private wealth and extreme poverty. But so far would this be from bringing him into conflict with political economy, that on the contrary he could not effect his pious purpose except by help of that science Then as to national wealth in particular, is there really any spiritual danger to be dreaded from its increase, if that wealth were distributed very far more equally than now it is? As things are now in England, the labouring class suffer grievous calamity even in spirituals, by their deplorable destitution. Is there really any opposite danger? Is there any danger lest the poorest class of any country-through any possible increase and distribution of national wealth-be so *Here it uses again another science, subordinate to itself-the science of agriculture. well off as to injure their religious interests? We shall be greatly surprised if this question can be answered in the affirmative. So far as we have gone, our conclusions are these. On the one hand a person, who has neither studied political economy himself nor taken counsel with those who have, may nevertheless have amply sufficient ground for urging confidently, that the Legislature is under an obligation of amending the labourer's position. But on the other hand, as to the means of effecting this important purpose, he must put himself into the hands of genuine political economy; and should he fail to do so-however otherwise accom plished he may be, however zealous, however self-sacrificing-he will but injure those interests which he most desires to serve. But now secondly, what is that particular teaching of political economy, of which any one can allege that it is contravened by those who plead for legislative relief to the labouring class? The doctrine commonly alleged in this point of view, is the Malthusian doctrine of population. It is with special reference to this doctrine, that we have named Mr. Greg's work at the head of our present article. It is a volume of unusual ability; but animated throughout by a spirit profoundly opposed to what Christians in general regard as Christian.* Our present concern with it, however, relates only to Mr. Greg's treatment of Malthusianism; and this is to our mind the most complete and satisfactory with which we happen to be acquainted. We the more regret on that account, that the chapter, to which we refer, is as objectionable in its pervading tone and spirit as the rest of the volume; and that it is especially repulsive to a Catholic, where it treats of marriage and kindred themes. But it is on our points. of agreement with Mr. Greg, not on our points of difference, that we propose here to dwell; and though we do not think he has arranged his matter quite so clearly as he might have done, the matter itself seems to us of extremely great value. Mr. Greg sets forth with great effect (p. 54) the shock given to philanthropists by the first appearance of Mr. Malthus's famous Essay in 1798; and he adds (p. 57) that there is no substantial difference of doctrine, between that author's first and last publicacations on the subject. Mr. Malthus built his argument on an alleged tendency of population in every age to outrun its means of subsistence; and Mr. Greg states his doctrine with much clearness and precision, from p. 57 to p. 59. It will suffice for our present purpose, if we explain generally that, according to Malthus, the mass of population tends always and everywhere to endure constantly increasing pain and privation; and that * We express ourselves thus circumlocutorily, because we find that Mr. Greg takes exception to our having called him in our last number (p. 282) an anti-Christian writer." 66 |