THE VAGUENESS OF THE PHILANTHROPISTS.
manner of controversy, for, though newer in form, it is nothing but the old doctrine that wealth, like every other power, ought to be held in trust for Him who gave it, which, if there is a God at all, must inevitably be true. We cannot, indeed, accept fully Mr. Fletcher's idea of the Sermon on the Mount, for it seems to us occasionally directed to the extinction of the °utilities which Christ eulogised,—to mean, in truth, not "Blessed are the meek," but "Blessed are they who cause meekness to be no longer possible." There is a kind of par- tiality in it as well as of obedience, as if the virtues, meek- ness for example, were not obligatory on all, but only on those possessed of this world's goods,—which is not, we take it, the true Christian teaching. It is not only the employer who is to be poor in spirit, but also the trades-union. Still, it is per- fectly true that Christ, though he associated often with the rich, considered them specially liable to temptation, and pleaded earnestly the cause of the poor; and true, also, that this side of his teaching needs a much more complete acceptance in European society than it has hitherto ob- tained. So far, we are with Mr. Fletcher ; but then, he goes so much further. He interprets the doubtful phrase about the poor in spirit as meaning those who sympathise actively with the poor—does it not rather mean those who, in regard to things spiritual, are as humble as the poor P—and would write it over the doorway of the House of Commons, meaning thereby, we cannot doubt, that all legislation should be directed to further the interest of the poor. We should say, rather, that legislation should further the interest of all, and should lend secular efficacy to the doctrine of the Commandments, as well as to that of the Beatitudes ; but we may, for the moment, let that pass, for our present purpose is to ask, first of all, who are the poor P Does Mr. Fletcher mean by that word all Who suffer, which would include many from every grade of society—most Irish landlords, for example—and all the sick, maimed, blind, impotent, and aged, or only those who receive but little pay P If, as we fancy, he intends the latter, where does he draw the line,—at thirty shillings a week, or a
pound, or fifteen shillings If he fixes it above the first- named sum, is he not afraid that his great instrument, the mass-vote, may break in his hand, and that the sovereign community may in a little while elect to write "Justice" instead of " Charity " above the door of the House of Commons P Certain we are, that the immense body of workmen who make more than that sum would decline with a pretty loud voice to be Classed among the "poor," or to be pitied, or to be made objects of almsgiving, or to be legislated for in any compas- sionate or otherwise derogatory way. They would say that they were fairly happy, quite as happy as most of those above them, that they wanted nothing except to be care- fully let alone, and that they could, in Yorkshire phrase, "fend for themselves" very nicely indeed. The line must be drawn below them, and even then immense classes must be excluded,—all who save money, all whose wants are not greater than their means, all who, like a large division of our own agricultural labourers, find in a sort of trained asceticism, a nearly complete defence against any suffering from poverty. There is, no doubt, a large residue still left; but does Mr. Fletcher really confine the Divine pro- mises to them, or consider that to them alone—that is, to those who are, in one sense, the failures of civilisation—the duty of Christian benevolence is confined P We can scarcely think it, but yet it is to them, and them only, that much of the talk of the day—talk which will produce a most dangerous reaction—is confined, and this, not only by legislators, who naturally wish to limit the area of effort, but by genuine philanthropists. They may be right or wrong,—we are not discussing that; but we want to know if this is what they mean,•f
if really wish that henceforward the
whole energy of society should be devoted to the enriching in earthly goods of a section of itself. Are all who have a surplus to be taxed of that surplus in order that the poorest should, without additional work': be made more comfortable P They will perhaps reject that notion when so uncompro- misingly stated ; but if they do not mean this, what do they exactly mean p Will they, for instance, like Sir Julius Vogel, when dreaming, tax the Kingdom in 2350,000,000 a year, in order that every family, without exception, should have 21 a week to start with. That is definite, though, unhappily, impossible ; but all this vague talk of "rich "and "poor," and the "devotion of wealth to the elevation of the people," is so
vague as to be almost meaningless. How much is to be given, and to whom P And then, is it to be given voluntarily or not P Mr. Passmore Edwards, who incessantly preaches—and practises —Mr. Fletcher's main doctrine, the devotion of wealth to the poor, is, if we comprehend him, clear that, apart perhaps from some social reprobation of curmudgeons, giving, though morally imperative, should be voluntary ; but we do not understand Mr. Fletcher to say that. It is time, he intimates, that the Home Secretary came to the assistance of Christ, or at least supported the Home Missionary. He is a good deal inclined—or, at all events, his paper is, if not his sermon—to bleed the rich sharply and by force in order that the poor may fatten on the blood so extracted. Very good ; both opinions are clear and definite ; but the immense majority of the new benevolent halt between them, and, in fact, want the work of legislatures to be done by individuals, and yet done by legislatures too ; and we ask of them to define what they do want, and especially to define the principle on which they intend to proceed. Is their ultimate law to be the good of the community, or the general idea, as they interpret it, of Christianity ? If the former, then they are old utilitarians, Benthamite utilitarians under a new name, and one knows how to argue ; if the latter, they rise into a higher sphere of thought, and all teaching must be profoundly modified by obedience, careful obedience to orders over which "public opinion" has, and can have, no authority whatever. It might as well assume the right to make new laws regulating the tides in the interest of a new motor, or the variations of climate on the globe in order that all might equally enjoy perfect sanitary conditions. Of course, we shall be told that the two can be combined ; but they cannot be combined,—in this matter, at least. If utilitarianism is to rule, giving must be regulated, lest it impoverish the rich or pauperise the poor ; while if Christianity is to rule, it must be left free, obligatory only as worship is obligatory, or unselfishness. There is no objection to utilit.trian benevolence that we know of ; and in one direction—better sanitary laws—we should support it very strongly ; and for Christianity, whether as regards almsgiving or anything else, we have only reverence ; but the present muddle between the two is too bewildering. Taxes levied in the name of Christ on one class alone, and that a powerless one, for the benefit of another class which is all-powerful, excite, we must confess, a strong suspicion ; and such taxes are pro- posed by one philanthropist or another every day. We are not objecting, be it understood, to new taxes for the poor. We have little doubt that the present wave of "Socialism" or "Collectivism," or whatever it is, will leave behind it several such taxes, and that some of them will be beneficial; but do not let us be told that they are levied because God " loveth a cheerful giver." That is either sickening hypocrisy, or, as is more frequently the case, is the result of a gelatinous kind of thinking, which is entitled to no respect whatever. If you give, give ; if you tax, tax ; but do not muddle up the two into a sort of sweet eleetuary of charity, which is neither food nor medicine, but only a quack device pretending to be both.
And, finally, we should greatly like a little more definite- ness as to what we are to seek, what the ideal of the new world to be created is to be. Are all mankind to be equally rich, or equally poor, or equally removed from either poverty or riches ? Is everybody to be equally educated, or equally good, or equally comfortable P Is the instrument to be the nation or the commune P Are we to try to make an Athens or a Moravian village of the world P Are brain-power and band- power to be equally paid or not, or is the puddler to look down from his pecuniary height with scorn on the mathematician P Is pay to be regulated by the payee's work or the payee's need, and is the payer to be considered or not P Is the moral law to be the will of the majority or the code given from Sinai, or a mixture of the two? Above all, are we to "elevate" the individual or the crowd, which in its eagerness and want of discipline threatens to tread him down P It is quite possible to seek any one of these objects, and conceivable that any one may be sought blamelessly, but we cannot seek them all, and all at the same time, without endless con- fusion, and a waste of energy, which will so impede even the first steps that it will take generations to accomplish anything. The philanthropists are wasting the life of the
community by the multitude and the confusion and, above all, by the vagueness of their counsels, which produce just the same effect as a hundred subjects for study would, all loudly taught by a hundred competent professors to the same listening class. What, Mr. Fletcher, is to be the irreversible law,— the Sermon on the Mount, or the will of Gladstonians in the House of Commons ? That seems to require definition first.
Previous page
