LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
WHAT IS THE CURE? (TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.) SOME one who has a keen eye to a fact, has drawn up a petition to be signed by the labouring classes out of work, asking that the vast bodies of unimproved lands in the Colonies of England be appropriated to those who are willing to work, but cannot find it in England, and that the proper steps be taken by the Govern- ment to put them on the land.
Here is the nub of a great peril which threatens London and every great city, —there is more population than work ; that is, there are mouths to feed, and there is no food for them. It seems that to-day in London are some 130,000 registered paupers, mouths which must be fed by public charity, if at all ; if not fed, they are most dangerous, if fed, they are still useless. An idle man feeding on charity does not long retain his self-respect, and with- out that he cannot long be a good member of society. Besides that is another fact ; your tables show that the births exceed the deaths in London at the rate of over 1,000 a week. If, then, you have already 130,000 paupers or people without work, and you are increasing them at the rate of 50,000 a year, the evil, already fearful, is not likely to become less so by letting it alone.
Is "letting it alone" government ? I am free to say that I cannot think so.
As an outsider, a looker-on, it is impertinent to attempt to offer advice ; but I may perhaps show in a degree how" letting it alone" works ; and as the English, if not a logical, are at least a practical people, this may do no harm. By letting things alone, the inter- prising, the intelligent, the hopeful, the ambitious are more and more leaving you and going to us in America ; we want this class, they are the life of a new land ; they make wheat and railways and fill our workshops, and make themselves rich and us strong. But they go away from you, and leave the dull, slow, unhopeful, incompetent to cumber your acres and to fester and corrupt your streets. We do not prefer this latter class, we wish just what we
now get. But does England wish to deteriorate her population in this way ? Do we wish to see England go down ? I speak for the best of my land, and say we do not ; we wish to see England strong and healthy and just ; and these she cannot be with a population of paupers. Now you have neither war, pestilence, nor famine to keep down your population—all these are out of fashion. You have not work for all your people "and the cry goes up" not only in London, but all over England, "We have no work." What is the cure? Is it increasing the rates, by loading the wealth of the nation? Can you make the paupers love the hand that feeds them so ? Is it by free-trade, which some have fancied was the new Gospel from Heaven and Cobden, which was to Save men from poverty and crime ? Is it by Government work-shops, where labour shall make what no one will buy?
You may try any and all of these things, but it is clear that none of them will work the cure. Some of you are asking, "Why does not the Government do something to relieve the distress ? Why does not the Queen give banquets, and so inspire trade?" In the days of the French Revolution, you remember some simple soul asked, "Why, if the people can't get bread, do they not eat cake !" Why not ?
We know there are some fools in England, but, we suppose, there are some wise men. We suppose that those wise men will not try to mend a leaking ship with putty ; we suppose them to be awake to the evil which threatens society here, and, indeed, which threatens it in all great centres. We suppose them to be looking for a radical cure, and that they know full well that it can only be found in work, productive work, and that this cannot be found in an old and overproducing society, where there is no land to be had for the new workers ; we suppose they know that it is not safe for the most capable to emigrate, leaving the incapable behind. Now we come to the poiut,—Can, the smplas workers be put upon the surplus land, and how ?
That is a question for the statesmanship of England to answer, and, as it seems to some, it is a question compared with which the Church question and the Irish question are small.
Already one of your writers says that England has given away all of her colonial lands ! Is this so ? is it indeed true that she has not an acre to give to her hungering workers? I am slow to believe it. But if so, can she not get it back? Can she longer "let things go" safely ? If she does, the pauper will be her portion, the doing men will go to us or to some other land. Every statesman knows that each incompetent pauper, if properly placed and directed, will become self-supporting, and more, wealth-pro- ducing. Is it not the business, the duty, the imperative work of a statesman to place and direct the people he is set to govern so as to secure this result. But "letting things go" will not secure it, nor will free-trade do it, nor will patching-up do it, here or elsewhere.
The moment a man, by admitting that he is a pauper, makes confession that he has no work and is incapable of finding it, it would seem to be proper for " Society " or " Government " to say, "We will take you and put you where you can and must work until you are able to support yourself." But this must interfere in some cases with the liberty of the subject and the rights of man,—among which rights may be that of starving in London rather than emigrating to Canada or Australia! What does "Society" think about it ?—I am, Sir, &c., CHARLES IV. ELLIOTT.
Previous page
