MERIT AND REWARD

By THE RT. HON. LORD MACMILLAN

THE elimination of economic insecurity from our lives is a laudable aspiration, and all friends of humanity must welcome the introduction of measures designed to promote this object. But, like all ideals in this imperfect world, its complete realisation is un- attainable. Fortunately so, for, human nature being what it is, the achievement of universal material security would not only be fraught with disappointment, but would be a moral disaster. This may seem an unwelcome paradox, but it is common to all human endeavour. We need not thereby be discouraged. When Lord Acton declared that "ideals in politics are never realised," he hastened to add, "but the pursuit of them determines history." If we cannot reach the summit of "perfection's sacred height," -that is no reason why we should not ascend as high as we can. We are so consti- tuted that for us the whole zest of life, its joy and interest, lie in the effort to progress, and a static Nirvana of accomplishment would be the negation of happiness. "All life is an adventure," said Mr. Attlee, in deprecating "the most fatal slogan ever put forward," Safety First. And risk is inseparable from adventure.

The precariousness of our lot has been the theme of thinkers and writers in all ages. Our health, our fortunes, our days on earth are all uncertain, all the seeming sport of incalculable chance.- No Act of Parliament can alter this. Insurance, whereby we seek to obey the injunction," Bear ye one another's burdens," can alleviate the consequences of some, but not of all, the risks of life. Factory legislation and Workmen's Compensation are necessary just because accidents will happen, and no one wquld be so foolish as to seek to enact that accidents shall not happen. ,Let us take our account with this fundamental matter of the insecurity of life. Like so many of the seeming ills which afflict humanity, it is not an unmixed evil. Indeed, it has some of the elements of a blessing in disguise. It is a question of degree. So far as insecurity is a handicap it is bad ; so far as it is a spur it is good. When it is a discouragement to effort It is an evil ; when it is an incentive to effort it is beneficial. The problem is to bring about a state of matters in which it shall cease to be the former but continue to be the latter. As in all problems of social politics, controversy concerns itself with the question of where the equilibrium, the sensible compromise, is to be found. -

It is axiomatic in civilised society_that it is the duty of the com- munity to secure at least that none of its members, however un- deserving, shall be allowed to starve, to suffer unnecessary dis- ease or to be without some shelter. The statute book is littered with well-meaning, if not always wise, attempts to give effect to this. It is not merely a matter of conscience, but of self-preserva- tion, for the existence of a starving, diseased and homeless class is a menace to the well-being of the Whole community. The question of merit does not enter into this aspect of the matter. But where Is the line to be drawn? The ideal has been defined as the adjust- ment of social conditions so as to ensure for all not equality of achievement but equality of opportunity. But opportunity for what? Surely, opportunity, in the Victorian phrase, for bettering ourselves, opportunity to secure the rewards which merit deserves. Man is a competitive animal. Let the competition be open to al,I. But the prizes, glittering or modest, cannot be for all, and the merit that is rewarded with a prize is a social asset of the highest value.

There is no use in shutting our eyes to the essential facts of human nature. It is a common mistake to assume that, if we remove

economic inequalities, then all will behave ideally. Some human beings will always be shiftless and lazy, even criminal ; some will always be zealous, hardworking and ambitious. Inequalities Of

character and of gifts is an inherent feature of humanity...As Tur- got said of all legislative attempts to produce equality among men, "Their strength, their intelligence, their passions would be perpetu-

ally overthrowing that momentous equilibrium among them which the laws might have established." Accepting this ineluctable fact, we must reconcile ourselves to seeing that the inequalities do not lead to injustices. That.is the best we can do, but it is a great deal. And it is as unjust to deprive the well-doing of their rewards as to

keep the less fortunate from the opportunity of doing well. As

Mr. Bevan said the other day, "There must be some reward for zeal and some punishment for lack of it." And the Spens Report on the Remuneration of Doctors contains the timely reminder that "If the recruitment and status of the profession are to be main- tained, men must be able to feel that more than ordinary ability and effort receive an adequate reward. . . . Any satisfactory system of remuneration must involve differentiation dependent on ability and effort."

The moral aspect of the clusade for security is often overlooked. Security ought not to be a gift ; it ought to be earned. The State is entitled to ask in return for such security as it can confer that it

shall be deserved. Up to a minimum it may be necessary in the public interest to disregard merit, but, that point passed, the

encouragement to merit must be preserved at all costs. The return which the State asks for its benefits is that its beneficiaries will put forth their best efforts by their work and service to be deserving of

these benefits, but they will not do so unless they are assured of

reward. The stimulus which it is now sought to administer to production, that is, to hard and honest work, is thus seen to be the

fitting concomitant of improved economic security. The gospel of

work is not always welcome to its hearers. The stern rule that "in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread" is apt to be regarded as man's primordial curse, instead of his truest blessing. "To rejoice in his labour, this is the gift of God," says the Preacher. And the Apostle adds the assurance that "every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour."

An unhappy and mistaken feature of the campaign for security is the denigration of charity, that most lovely and lovable virtue.

The "taint of charity" has become a lamentable political catch- phrase. In truth, the whole scheme of social amelioration is charitable in the sense that it involves the sharing of our own good fortune with others less fortunate. If this is effected by compulsion through taxation, it is none the less charity in effect if not in spirit. One hesitates in these days to quote that demoded philosopher Herbert Spencer, but is there not some truth in his saying that I "daily legislation betrays little anxiety that each shall have that which belongs to him, but great anxiety that he shall have that which belongs to somebody else "? What is this but involuntary charity? There will always be room for charity, and it is a pity to discredit the thirteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

Moderation in all things is to the enthusiast an unpalatable admonition. These desultory reflections are not designed to quench zeal, but only to serve as a reminder that the divorce of reward from merit has its perils, both social and economic ; that it is only at the price of labour that the gods sell all things, and not least security, to mortals ; and that the substitution of compulsion for free will does not alter the economic effect of charity though it may rob it of all its spiritual grace.