WITH the early years of the last decade a marked change in common
thought began to show itself; and the doctrine of natural, inalienable
and equal rights to land, which Mr. Spencer had avowed as it were in
academic groves, began to stir in the hearts and minds of common men,
and to make way among the great disinherited. Vaguely and blindly,
the land question had come to the front in Ireland, and in this form
forced its way into British politics. And
Progress and Poverty,
first published in the United States in 1879, had begun, by the close
of 1882, to circulate in Great Britain as no economic work had ever circulated
before, reinforcing what Herbert Spencer had said of the ethical injustice
of private property in land with the weight of political economy and
the proposal of a practical measure for restoring equal rights. Everywhere,
in short, that the English language is spoken, the idea of natural
rights to the use of land, that in 1850 seemed dead, was beginning to
revive with a power and in a form that showed that the struggle for its
recognition had at last begun.
Believing in Mr. Spencer's good
faith, deeming him not a mere prater about justice, but one who
ardently desired to carry it into practice, we who sought to promote
what he himself had said that equity sternly commanded naturally looked
for some word of sympathy and aid from him, the more so as the years had
brought him position and influence, the ability to command attention,
and the power to affect a large body of admirers who regard him as their
intellectual leader.
But we looked in vain. When
the Justice that in the academic cloister he had so boldly invoked
came forth into the streets and market-places, to raise her standard
and call her lovers, Mr. Spencer, instead of hastening to greet
her, did his best to get out of her way, like the young wife in the
old story, who charmed the bystanders with her invocations to Death
to take her rather than her elderly husband, but who, when Death rapped
at the door and asked, "Who calls me? quickly replied, "The gentleman
in the next room!"
In March, 1882, when Mr. Spencer
issued
Political Institutions, and even in August
of the same year, when he left England for a visit to the United States,
there was on the surface of English society nothing to indicate that
such views as he had expressed in
Social Statics were any nearer
attracting popular attention and arousing feeling than in 1850, for
the Irish land movement was considered what it indeed was in the main,—not
an attack on private property in land, but an effort of Irish tenants
to become landowners or to get better terms. But when Mr. Spencer returned,
toward the close of November, it was to find that the days of contemptuous
tolerance on the part of Sir John and his Grace had gone, and that all
that was deemed "respectable" in English society had become roused to
the wickedness of those who denied the validity of private property in
land.
To explain the change that had
taken place in this brief interval I must refer to my own books.
Progress and Poverty
was received by the English press, as all such books are at first,
in silence or with brief derision. Messrs. Kegan Paul, Trench &
Co., who first published it in England, in sheets brought from the United
States, were on publication able to sell only twenty copies in all the
three kingdoms. But ere long it began to make its way, and when, toward
the close of August, 1882, a sixpenny edition was issued, it began to sell
in tens and scores of thousands, "in the alleys and back streets of England,"
the Quarterly Review said "audibly welcomed there as a glorious gospel
of justice."
Hardly was this cheap edition
out and beginning to circulate, when, conjoining with it my pamphlet
on
The Irish Land Question,* which had also been
published in England in cheap form,
The Times, on
September 11, 1882, gave to
Progress and Poverty a long and
fair review. At once the silence of the press was broken, and from
the quarterlies to the comic papers the British journals began to teem
with notices and references, most of them naturally of a kind that made
the Duke of Argyll seem mild when he called me "such a preacher of unrighteousness
as the world has never seen," and spoke of my "immoral doctrines" and
"profligate conclusions," the "unutterable meanness of the gigantic
villainy" I advocated, and so on.
* Now published under
the name of "The Land Question," since its effort is to show that
the Irish Land Question is simply the universal land question.
And from being
regarded in this way in the very society in which as a great philosopher
he had come to be an honored member, it was evident that Mr. Spencer
could not escape if he adhered to his views. For although
Social
Statics was little known in England, the quotations I had made from
it, both in
Progress and Poverty and in
The Irish
Land Question, were bringing those views into sharp prominence.
This was the situation as Mr.
Spencer found it on his return from the United States. The burning
question—a question beside which that of chattel slavery was almost
small—had been raised in England. And he must either stand for the
truth he had seen, and endure social ostracism for it, or he must
deny it.
"Blessed are ye when men shall
revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against
you!" For this to the man who has striven to uproot a great wrong—a wrong
that by the fact of its hitherto unquestioned existence has necessarily
enlisted on its side all the powerful influences that dominate the organs
of opinion and rule society—is the sure sign that the day he has hoped
for is at hand.
When, in 1850, Mr. Spencer had
said that the rent of land could be collected by an agent or deputy
agent of the community, quite as well as by an agent of Sir John or
his Grace, he must have known that if ever his proposition attracted
the attention of the interests he thus personified he would be denounced
in all the established organs of opinion, and in "polite society" regarded
as a robber. Then, I am inclined to think he would have hailed with
joy such indications of the progress of thought. But in 1882, he no
sooner found that Sir John and his Grace had been aroused by such a
proposition and were likely to hear that he had made it, than he hastened
to get the evidence out of their sight, and as far as he could to deny
it. At once, it seems from what he tells us in 1892, he, "resolved not
again to import a supply" of
Social Statics,* and
took the first opportunity to write a letter.
*"Ten years ago, after
all copies of the third edition had been sold, I resolved not again
to import a supply to meet the still continued demand—Preface to Social
Statics, Abridged and Revised", 1892.
The
Edinburgh Review,
for January, 1883, in an article entitled "The Nationalization of the
Land," reviewed
Progress and Poverty—as fairly,
it seemed to me, as could be expected, but of course adversely. In doing
so it referred to what Mr. Spencer had said on the land question in
Social
Statics, giving him credit for proposing to indemnify landowners,
and quoting with that interpretation the incongruous sentences in Section
9. In concluding it said:
Writers like Mr. George
and Mr. Herbert Spencer are at war not only with the first principles
of political economy and of law, of social order and domestic life, but
with the elements of human nature. … To attack the rights of private
property in land is to attack property in its most concrete form.
If landed property is not secure, no property can be protected by law,
and the transmission of wealth, be it large or small, is extinguished.
With it expires the perpetuity of family life, and that future which
cheers and ennobles the labor of the present with the hopes of the future.
These are the doctrines of communism, fatal alike to the welfare of society
and to the moral character of man.
This brought out from Mr. Spencer
a letter to the
St. James's Gazette of London, an able Tory
journal. Since he was writing on the subject, here was an opportunity
for Mr. Spencer to correct the misapprehension (as I now think it
to be) that he had in
Social Statics proposed to compensate
landowners for their land. And, if he wished to defend himself against
the charge of attacking property rights and upholding the doctrines of
communism, here was an opportunity for him to show, for all of us as well
as for himself, that the denial of the justice of private property in land
involves no denial of true property rights. Or if he chose to do so, here
was a chance for him straightforwardly to recant, to apologize to landowners,
and to plead that he was young and foolish when he asserted, as quoted
by the
Edinburgh, that "equity does not permit property
in land, and that the right of mankind to the earth's surface is still
valid, all deeds, customs, and laws notwithstanding."
But, instead of manfully defending
the truth he had uttered, or straightforwardly recanting it, Mr.
Spencer sought to shelter himself behind ifs and buts, perhapses and
it-may-bes, and the implication of untruths. Here is his letter:
To the Editor
of the St. James's Gazette:
During my absence in America,
there appeared in the St. James's Gazette (27th of October,
1882) an article entitled "Mr. Herbert Spencer's Political Theories."
Though, when it was pointed out to me after my return, I felt prompted
to say something in explanation of my views, I should probably have let
the matter pass had I not found that elsewhere such serious misapprehensions
of them are being diffused that rectification seems imperative.
Before commenting on the
statements of your contributor, I must devote a paragraph to certain
more recent statements which have far less justification. In old
days among the Persians, the subordination of subject to ruler was
so extreme that, even when punished, the subject thanked the ruler for
taking notice of him. With like humility I suppose that now, when after
I have been publishing books for a third of a century "the leading critical
organ" has recognized my existence, I ought to feel thankful, even though
the recognition draws forth nothing save blame. But such elation as I
might otherwise be expected to feel is checked by two facts. One is that
the Edinburgh Review has not itself discovered me,
but has had its attention drawn to me by quotations in the work of Mr.
Henry George—a work which I closed after a few minutes on finding how visionary
were its ideas. The other is that, though there has been thus made known
to the reviewer a book of mine published thirty-two years ago, which I
have withdrawn from circulation in England, and of which I have interdicted
translations, he is apparently unconscious that I have written other
books, sundry of them political; and especially he seems not to know that
the last of them, Political Institutions, contains
passages concerning the question he discusses. Writers in critical journals
which have reputations to lose usually seek out the latest version of
an author's views; and the more conscientious among them take the trouble
to ascertain whether the constructions they put on detached passages are
warranted or not by other passages. Had the Edinburgh reviewer read
even the next chapter to the one from which he quotes, he would have seen
that, so far from attacking the right of private property, as he represents,
my aim is to put that right upon an unquestionable basis, the basis alleged
by Locke being unsatisfactory. He would have further seen that, so far
from giving any countenance to communistic doctrines, I have devoted four
sections of that chapter to the refutation of them. Had he dipped into
the latter part of the work, or had he consulted the more recently published
Study of Sociology and Political Institutions,
he would not have recklessly coupled me with Mr. George as upholding "the
doctrines of communism, fatal alike to the welfare of society and to the
moral character of man;" for he would have discovered the fact (familiar
to many, though unknown to him) that much current legislation is regarded
by me as communistic, and is for this reason condemned as socially injurious
and individually degrading.
The writer of the article
in the St. James's Gazette does not represent
the facts correctly when he says that the view concerning ownership
of land in Social Statics is again expounded in Political
Institutions—"not so fully, but with as much confidence as ever."
In this last work I have said that, "though industrialism has thus far
tended to individualize possession of land, while individualizing all other
possession, it may be doubted whether the final stage is at present reached."
Further on I have said that "at a stage still more advanced, it may be
that private ownership of land will disappear;" and that "it seems possible
that the primitive ownership of land by the community … will be revived."
And yet again I have said that "perhaps the right of the community to the
land, thus tacitly asserted, will, in time to come, be overtly asserted."
Now it seems to me that the words I have italicized imply no great "confidence."
Contrariwise, I think they show quite clearly that the opinion conveyed
is a tentative one. The fact is, that I have here expressed myself in a
way much more qualified than is usual with me; because I do not see how
certain tendencies, which are apparently conflicting, will eventually work
out. The purely ethical view of the matter does not obviously harmonize
with the political and the politico-economical views; some of the apparent
incongruities being of the kind indicated by your contributor. This is not
the place to repeat my reasons for thinking that the present system will
not be the ultimate system. Nor do I propose to consider the obstacles,
doubtless great, which stand in the way of change. All which I wish here
to point out is that my opinion is by no means a positive one; and, further,
that I regard the question as one to be dealt with in the future rather
than at present. These two things the quotations I have given above prove
conclusively. I am, etc.,
HERBERT SPENCER.
Mr. Spencer has had much to say of the unfairness
of his critics. But this reply is not merely unfair; it is dishonest,
and that in a way that makes flat falsehood seem manly.
From this letter the casual
reader would understand that the
Edinburgh reviewer, on the
strength of detached passages, had charged Mr. Spencer with attacking
the right of private property and upholding socialism, in a sense unwarranted
by the context and disproved by the next chapter; and that the passage
quoted from
Political Institutions covers the same ground and disproves
the constructions put on
Social Statics.
The fact is, that the
Edinburgh
Review had not charged either Mr. Spencer or myself with more
than attacking private property in land. This we had both unquestionably
done, not, only in the passages it had quoted but in many others. It
had made no misconstruction whatever. What it had said of "attacking
the right of private property" and "upholding the doctrines of communism"
was a mere rhetorical flourish, made as an inference from, and by way
of reply to, our denial of the right of private property in land. Mr.
Spencer ignores the real charge and assumes the mere inference to be
the charge. Thus, changing the issue, he cites the next chapter as if
it disproved the
Edinburgh's charge. This chapter (Chapter
X., "The Right of Property"), which has been given in full, contains
nothing to lessen the force of the attack on private property in land made
in the preceding chapter. On the contrary, in this chapter he reiterates
his attack on private property in land, and seeks a basis for property
by carrying the idea that the community should control land to the length
of absurdity.
Nor was the writer in the St.
James's unjustified in taking the reference to land in
Political
Institutions to be a briefer indorsement of the views more
fully set forth in
Social Statics; for
Political
Institutions refers to private property in land as established
by force, says that it does not stand on the same basis as ownership
established by contract, likens it to slavery and predicts its abolition—expressions
which, in the absence of any modification of the views elaborately
asserted in
Social Statics, could be taken in no other way than
as indorsing them. The passages Mr. Spencer quotes no more modify the
view of landownership set forth in
Social Statics than Lord
Lytton's "Coming Race" controverts Adam Smith's
Wealth of Nations.
In
Social Statics Mr. Spencer declares what
ought to be done; in the passage he quotes from
Political Institutions
he is prognosticating as to what it is likely will be done. By now
substituting prognostication for declaration of right, Mr. Spencer
seeks to convey the false impression that the
Edinburgh reviewer
has been guilty of carelessness, and the writer in the St. James's of
misrepresentation, and that he himself has never gone further than to
express the guarded opinion that at some time, a great way off, men may
substitute a common ownership of land for private ownership.
Mr. Spencer is more than unfair,
too, in assuming that the charge of upholding communism, etc., is
applicable to me, though not to him. For, although my book was too
visionary for him to read, he had at least read the
Edinburgh's
article, and knew that the charge against me had no other ground than
that against him—the denial of the moral validity of private property
in land.
Even what he says about such
a plain matter of fact as the withdrawal of
Social Statics
from circulation in England conveys untruth.
The grievance that Mr. Spencer
here alleges is that the
Edinburgh Review had commented on
a book "published thirty-two years ago, which I have withdrawn from
circulation in England, and of which I have interdicted translations."
What is to be understood from this, and what Mr. Spencer evidently intended
to have understood, is that he had, presumably years before, withdrawn
Social Statics from circulation—not in the mere
territory of England, as distinguished from Scotland, Ireland or the
United States, but—in English. To make sure of this understanding, he
adds that he has interdicted translations—which means, not in other places,
but in other languages than English. Now the truth is, that at the time
he thus wrote, that book was being published by his arrangement in the
United States', as it had been for years before, and continued to be
for years afterwards; and that up to this very time he had been importing
it into England, and circulating it there. The only filament of truth
in this statement, which though made incidentally is of prime importance
to his purpose, is, as we now discover from his own utterance in 1892,
that at this very time, or possibly a few weeks previous, he had resolved
not again to import any more copies of
Social Statics into England
from the United States, though still keeping the book in circulation
there, to be bought by whomsoever would buy!
As for the rest of this letter,
the admirers of Mr. Spencer may decide for themselves what kind
of ethical views they are that will not harmonize with political
economy, and what kind of political economy it is that will not harmonize
with ethics, and what they think of an ethical teacher who, on a question
that involves the health and happiness, nay, the very life and death
of great bodies of men, shelters himself behind such phrases as, "it
may be doubted," " it may be," "it seems possible," and so on, and endeavors
to make them show that he regards the matter of right as one to deal
with in the future and not at present.
This letter is not a withdrawal
or a recantation of what Mr. Spencer had said against private property
in land. It does not rise to that dignity. It is merely an attempt
to avoid responsibility and to placate by subterfuge the powerful landed
interests now aroused to anger. But it does indicate that a moral
change had come over Mr. Spencer since he wrote
Social Statics.
In several places in that book
occurs the strong, idiomatic phrase, "a straight man." This letter
to the St. James's is not the letter of a straight man.
But as hypocrisy is the homage
vice pays to virtue, so the very crookedness of this letter indicates
Mr. Spencer's reluctance flatly to deny the truth to which he had
borne witness. He no more wanted to deny it than Simon Peter to deny
his Lord. But the times had changed since he wrote
Social Statics.
From an unknown man, printing with difficulty an unsalable book, he had
become a popular philosopher, to whom all gratifications of sense, as
of intellect, were open.* He had tasted the sweets of London society,
and in the United States, from which he had just returned, had been hailed
as a thinker beside whom Newton and Aristotle were to be mentioned only
to point his superiority. And, while the fire in the hall of the High
Priest was warm and pleasant, "society" had become suddenly aroused to rage
against those who questioned private property in land. So when the
St. James's and the
Edinburgh, both of them chosen
organs of Sir John and his Grace, accused Herbert Spencer of being one
of these, it was to him like the voices of the accusing damsels to Peter.
Fearing, too, that he might be thrust out in the cold, he, too, sought
refuge in an alibi.
* "His recreations have
been systematic—concerts, operas, theaters, billiards, salmon-fishing,
yachting, city rambles, and country excursions; and it has been his
fixed rule, when work grew burdensome, to strike his tasks abruptly
and go away for pleasure and amuse himself till work itself again became
attractive and enjoyable. —"Preface, by Professor E. L. Youmans, to
"Herbert Spencer on the Americans and the Americans on Herbert Spencer,
being a full report of his interview and of the proceedings at the Farewell
Banquet of Nov. 9, 1882." New York: D. Appleton & Co.