YOUNG ENGLAND
By T. E. UTLEY
ABOUT a century ago, when the great question that agitated political discussion in England was whether or not the Corn Laws should be abolished, there developed inside the Conservative Party a movement which called itself " Young England," and which tried to revive those principles of Toryism that had seemed to be banished from English politics by the great Reform Bill. The movement started in Cambridge, and was led by George Smythe and John Manners, scions of two ancient houses. They succeeded in alienating every powerful interest in the State, and the interests they alienated have been multiplying and becoming more powerful ever since. The result was that the movement failed in its immediate purpose, and that historians have seldom alluded to it without ridicule. Indeed, their only reason for alluding to it at all is that it attracted the genius of Disraeli and pro- vided the inspiration for his earlier novels. But immediate failure or even the ridicule of posterity is not in itself a con- demnation or a proof that an enterprise is destined never to succeed, and a group of young men in Cambridge today are attempting to revive Young England and asserting, in face of the opposition of the Left (an opposition that is more noisy than numerous), the principles for which Young England stood.
The essence of the political philosophy of Young England was expressed in Disraeli's phrase, " the King at the centre, the people at the circumference." It is not, of course, sug- gested that the royal prerogative should be restored in its old proportions, or that the rule of " benevolent despotism " could or ought to be revived. Disraeli himself substituted for kingly government the leadership of a governing class which should, nevertheless, represent something more than the interests of class, and the idea, translated into current language, is reform directed (but not imposed) from above. It derives from the patriot king of Bolingbroke, and Bolingbroke, it must be re- membered, was a century before his time in advocating the extension of the franchise. In 1832, the mistake was not in extending the franchise, but in extending it only to one class, which was thenceforward in a position to dominate the rest of society and to regulate policy in its own interest. Disraeli saw the only hope of breaking that domination in an alliance between the old governing classes on the one hand and the people on the other. It is the fashion, today, to assume that the ideal to be aimed at (although most people are willing to agree that it can never be reached) is absolute economic and social equality. Thus, when men defend inequality, it is commonly on the ground that it is inevitable rather than because it is right. Young England, on the contrary, asserts emphatically that differences in wealth and status are politically and morally necessary, and, although it is not pledged to defend every existing inequality, it is concerned to uphold the principle of inequality. Its social ideal is a small nucleus of hereditary privilege at the centre, continually reinforced from below. Believing, first, that heredity is not a myth but a scientific fact, and, secondly, that in the education of a governing class early training is of the utmost importance, it maintains that there must be some people, in any properly organised society, who are destined to lead. It is not supposed, however, that the principle of heredity can be applied to the exclusion of all other principles, and Young England would like to see a much larger measure of social fluidity than has ever existed since the age of " enlightenment " and " equality began. The principle upon which we believe society ought to be organised is that of function, and, in our opinion, the object of the State should not be an approach to equality, which is the same thing as uniformity, but the maintenance of variety and the assigning of every one to that place in society for which natural talent and early education have suited him.
The next question is: What sort of reform would a govern- ing class composed like this be expected to introduce ? It is not the purpose of Young England to dictate policy to the Government, and it emphatically rejects the suggestion that wisdom and honesty are the monopolies of youth or even of that part of youth which happens to be at a university. Prac- tical details are the business of the expert, but general prin- ciples are everybody's concern. The kind of reform in which the Young England of a hundred years ago was chiefly inter- ested, and the kind of reform which' its successor of today would principally advocate, would be that which is aimed at removing the worst effects of industrialism. Recognising, how- ever, that life in an industrial town, even when enriched by all the adornments which science can provide, will not be either as varied or as free and healthy as life in the country, and believing that the land is the birthright of Englishmen, it would try to restore the balance which has been deliberately destroyed between industry and agriculture. This would not be because of a theory of economics, but merely because it is believed that the encouragement of industry at the expense of agriculture has been attended by a loss which, considered in terms of human character and happiness, has been too great to be justified by the increase and the diffusion of material possessions.
The criticism which is most often made of the movement is that it is trying to " put the clock back." The belief that it is either impossible or intrinsically wicked to try and restore any- thing which has existed before is a result of the Whig theory of progress, but we reject this superstition, which carries with it the slavish implication that man must always move along a predestined path. Such a theory denies free will as a factor in history, and, in its anxiety to prevent men from becoming slaves to the prejudices of their ancestors, enthralls them to the fashions of their contemporaries. " Putting the clock back " is one of the oldest of human habits, and it might almost be called a regular part of the historical process. The essential question is not whether Young England is moving backwards or forwards (for such phrases are mere rhetoric), but whether it is moving in the right direction.
As I have said, it is not our purpose to dictate the details of policy, not because we despise such minutiae, but because we do not feel competent to fill the place of the expert. Our object is to give undergraduates who share our principles a chance of discussing, privately and without ostentation, the best way of putting them into practice. Slavery to principle is as bad as slavery to circumstance, and inevitably the amount that can be done and the nature of the things that ought to be done at the end of the war depend, to a great extent, upon factors which nobody can now foresee. But it is possible, and, indeed, one's duty, to prepare oneself to deal with those problems which are certain to arise, even though the exact form in which they will present themselves is still concealed. It may be well, therefore, to end by indicating, very briefly, the kind of reform which will commend itself to us.
These are some of the practical suggestions which have emerged from recent discussions among our members : —First, that the Spens Report should be the basis of the nation's education policy. This report recognises the principle of func- tion, and aims at giving every one, not a uniform education, but the kind of training for which he is particularly suited and which will be of value to him in the place which he is going to fill in society. Second, with regard to agriculture, we do not look for a governing class based entirely upon the owner- ship of land, and we value competition in industry as one means of selecting leaders. But there would surely be nothing revolutionary or impracticable, for example, in a compulsory increase in the wages of the agricultural labourer, in order to make farming a more attractive pursuit, or in an attempt to pre- vent the spread of industry into districts like the Thames val- ley which are obviously more suited to agriculture. Third, Toryism, at a very late stage in its development, acquired from Liberal doctrine a bias in favour of private enterprise. The bias remains, but it has not been exalted into a principle. Thus, we maintain that an extension of public control is not in itself bad, but, on the other hand, we deny that nationalisa- tion is an panacea for all evils. At the end of the war, it will obviously be necessary to regulate production more strictly, and, in this connexion, some national control of investment has been proposed. All this is admittedly vague, and none of it professes to be new. It is merely included to give some idea of the spirit in which these problems are being approached by a less conspicuous section of the undergraduate-community, and to show that it is not our purpose to prevent change, but to direct it along lines which are compatible with our national traditions.
Previous page
