A GREAT REFORMER [COPYRIGHT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BY THE New York Tirites.]
Tins is an excellent as well as a very timely book. The first thing to remember about Lord Shaftesbury is that he was a Puritan—a man who sought the counsel of the Lord in every act of life. Christianity with its imperative humanity was not a part, but the whole, of his life. The sense of duty to God lay in his bed and walked up and down with him. If ever a man yearned to bring light to those who sit in darkness, it was Lord Shaftesbury. But he was no visionary. He was not like the Hebrew prophets, or even like the man whom he most revered, John Wesley. Wesley was first of all
a revivalist, a reawakener of souls. In public affairs Shaftesbury was not content to inspire opinion and to say what the nation and its leaders must do to avoid the ruin of the State. He showed the rulers not only '4vhat to do, but how to do it. He descended into the Parliamentary arena and fought there, often single-handed.
His patience, his persistence, his judgment, his caution in the work of pressing his measures through the House of Commons were often models for the Parliamentary politician. Even when he was heart-broken by his knowledge of the daily passion of the poor, he could command his temper and his indignation, and plead with the Tapers and Tadpoles of his day for some special form of words which would save the face of a Minister and give the Whips no excuse for saying that they could not ask " their men " to swallow all this Socialism at one gulp. A proof of his balance is shown again and again in Shaftesbury's speeches. Ills constant endeavour was to heal, not to punish. Diagnosis, inquiry, knowledge were all important as preliminaries, yet of little worth if they did not lead to a practical remedy. When he found an evil remediable by legislation, the immediate reaction in his mind was to draft the clauses of an Act of Parliament. He fully understood the Parliamentary machine and he used it to the limit of its power. Though a first-hand inquirer, one who shook the vermin of the slums front his clothes, who himself witness0 the agonies of the little girls working in the coal mines, who saw with hii own eyes the tragedies of the infants and women in " the satanic mills," he never yielded to that curious obsession which sometimes overtakes investigators and seems to make them content. with fording out " the exact facts." He was suspicious of mere rumours, but once convinced that the evidence was sound, he would not rest a moment from action. What dd you mean to do about it ? You cannot as men and Christians leave these horrors untouched. You must end the evil. You cannot stop your ears with cant about the dangers of inter- ference. No remedy can be worse than such a disease 1 That is a summary of his saintly attitude ; but Shaftesbury was something besides a saint. He was also a man of intellect,: not a first-class mind perhaps, but a man, to copy the phrase' in the old controversy over Determinism, of intellect' " sufficient " for his act of national salvation. Besides, he had a natural instinct to discern the essentials from the accidents of Political Economy. He could, and did, " dis- tinguish " on the limitations of free exchange. Therefore he was able to say in effect, " Your working of women and children of tender years to death, or, at any rate, into moral' and physical depravity, means ruin. But that is not only a crime for which God will call you to answer. It is also bad' business. What would you think of the business capacity of a man who not only overworked and underfed his horses but kept them in dark, reeking, insanitary stables full of the germs of glanders, and fever ? Yet you call me a liar, a hypocrite,' an enthusiast for telling you of the much worse things that are being done to your own flesh and blood ! "
With wisdom and hardihood of mind he stood up in his place in Parliament and denounced the callous fatalism of those who said, almost in so many words : " It's all very sad, but you -cannot have industrial progress without the sufferings of child-labour and long hours. Therefore we must . try to forget it." Shaftesbury, inspired for the time with the eloquence of -a new Isaiah, would not endure such excuses.
He made the Commons see the children of sorrows, with their marred faces and shrunken frames and imploring eyes. He dared to give the lie to the smug defenders of the system which could not, they hinted, have arisen unless it was necessary. He challenged them to say aloud that they would not try to mitigate the horrors of infant labour in the mines, and of the cant of free choice " for women and children.
He worked miracles of conversion by his speeches on the Mines Bill. Take the incident of Macaulay's speech. Macaulay, intellectual Whig and trained Economist, had always inclined to take the view of free exchange and free contract, but when he studied the facts of the Report and heard them vouched for by Shaftesbury, he determined that righteousness must be greater than reason, humanity than the so-called principles of Free Trade. He not only voted, but spoke on Shaftesbury's side.
Macaulay declared himself to be as firmly attached to the principle of free trade ' as any gentleman in that house ; but he contended that where the health of the community was con- cerned, the principle of non-interference did not apply ' ; while in the case of public morality, the same exception was even more pronounced. Then analysing his opponent's arguments, he took the institution of the Sabbath to illustrate their inconsistency. The probihition of Sunday labour, he pointed out, stood in direct conflict with non-interference. Would they dare challenge the wis- cloth of this religious institution ? If not, the principle of inter- ference was already conceded, and the only question remaining was how to use it most wisely Would you treat the free labourer of England,' asked Macaulay, ' like a mere wheel or pulley ? Rely on it that intense labour, beginning too early in life, continued too long every day, stunting the growth of the body, stunting the growth of the mind, leaving no time for healthful exercise, leaving no time for intellectual culture, must impair those higher qualities which have made our country great. Your over-worked boys will become a feeble and ignoble race of men, the parents of a more feeble and more ignoble progeny ; nor will it be long before the deterioration of the physical and moral energies have been sacri- ficed.' Man,' continued this eminent historian, is the great instrument that produces wealth' ; . . . man is the machine of machines, the machine compared with which all the contrivances of the Watts and the Arkwrights are worthless.' Then, forestalling the inevitable argument that British manufacturers would fall before the unrestricted hours of foreign ccinpetition, Macaulay continued : ' Never will I believe that what makes a population stronger, and healthier and wiser and better, can ultimately make it poorer. . . . If ever we are forced to yield the foremost place among commercial nations, we shall yield it not to a race of degenerate dwarfs, but to some people pre-eminently vigorous in body and in mind.' "
Wilberforce, then Bishop of Oxford, made a speech in the Lords almost as moving as Macaulay's in the Commons.
" Wilberforce maintained that it was wrong to create wealth by sacrificing the souls and bodies of men.' The Bill was designed to suppress an unchristian exploitation of life, and therefore all moral and religious considerations exacted interference at its hands.' But, proceeding further, he struck a very modern note : Capitalists and great manufacturers can make their own terms ; the working classes have only the option of working at the wages offered, or not working at all. The capitalists can exert complete power over the working classes. How can these men resist ?—only by combina- tion. Are your lordships prepared to make them see that the only way to resist is by -combination against their masters ? ' Finally Wilberforce reverted to the sentiment of Macaulay, a sentiment which might well have acted as text for hundreds of Shaftesbury's utterances : Depend upon it, that if you neglect, the people, in order to make the nation rich, you will in the end make the nation poor by debasing the people."
Shaftesbury's own words were often as wise and eloquent. He had plenty of weaknesses and failings, and could on the religious side show a narrowness of view that was sometimes almost childish ; but his defects were never mean, or degrading, or due to selfishness or pride. They were not defects so much as spots of intellectual deficiency. For example, he would almost certainly have been with Mr. Bryan and the Tennessee Jury in the issue of Fundamentalism. But such occasional impotence of mind would never have prevented him setting his lance in rest against anything that was unjust or un- merciful. He was like Cromwell, always very tender to sufferers.
The spirit of Shaftesbury is still needed. Though the industrial world is vastly better than it was before his reforms, there is plenty of cause to be up and doing. The man was a spiritual statesman. As his new biographer, Mr. Wesley Bready, notes, quoting Shaftesbury's own word, " Nothing is economical, but justice and mercy to all." The book as a whole is of great practical value and should be read by every politi i.In and every publicist of our period.
J. ST. LOE STRACHEY.
Previous page
