p. 21My Dear Mr. Blatchford,
It is pleasant to be able to agree with you to some extent. In your fourth letter, you prove that England, with her 50,000,000 acres of arable land, is capable of feeding six times her entire population, if the competition of other countries were kept off by a duty sufficient to keep the price of foreign corn at the home level. I sadly contemplate with you the present state of agriculture in England. The land falling out of cultivation; farming reduced to slavery at starvation prices; and those incomes curtailed out of which all trades were kept alive by the purchase of conveniences and luxuries by the well-to-do. I tremble also with you to think of what might be the result in case of war breaking out with any of those countries that supply us with the corn we need to feed the population.
But what then? It is a question of British politics. The eloquence of Bright and Cobden converted the last generation to the doctrines of Free Trade. These doctrines have become established almost with the strength of a superstition among all the political parties. Until some other talented agitators on the opposite side of the question arise, the Free Trade policy is likely to last. I do not see how Socialism could affect the question, even if Socialism could be established. A Socialist Parliament would be divided in opinion, the same as all Parliaments. Free Trade might be ended, or it might not. An enlightened despotism might end it, but you do not advocate this. What you advocate would prove, I fear, a despotism without enlightenment.
If there is any virtue in your mode of dealing with the corn question, it should not stop short at England. Why not give it a cosmopolitan range? Why not agitate to have all nations under p. 22 one Government, and all ports thrown open to unfettered traffic everywhere, like Liverpool with London, or Bristol with Glasgow? Why not abolish all national boundaries, all tariffs, all customs duties, all impediments to mutual human benefit of every kind and description?
Why not indeed? In the abstract it is a very attractive idea. Shall you therefore get up a movement to realise it? Shall you start enthusiastic lecturers to advocate a war against all nations, that England may subjugate the world, and bring the human species to earth’s utmost bounds into amity and peace? With oratory fervid enough, and pamphlets smart and numerous enough, no doubt converts would be made. Conceivably, in a Socialist Republic, they might be numerous enough to return a majority to Parliament that would enter upon such an enterprise. What would the end be? A few English victories, and then English overthrow, subjugation, slavery, and beggary: the last worse than the first.
Of course, I do not imagine you could possibly favour such an insane idea. I put forward this supposition only to show you that it is not enough to place an attractive ideal before the people. Attractive ideals in the present state of things in the world are often mere ignis fatui, leading followers into a bog from which there is no salvation. Your Socialist idea is very beautiful as you paint it. But sober judgment, taking all the facts into account, tells us it is an impossible scheme, and one that, if by some lucky conjunction of circumstances reached the stage of experiment, must necessarily land the nation in woes exceeding its present miseries tenfold.
I can understand that those who suffer more immediately from the present miseries will be undeterred by such considerations. They are so miserable that they cannot be worse; and any change would be welcome as bringing the chance of improvement. They are to be excused for clutching at Socialism as containing some promise of a better day. But men of intelligence incur a great responsibility in hounding them on to a movement that can only end in disaster and woe.
You say, abolish the factory system; you might as well propose to abolish the shop system, the family system, the sewer system. It is wild talk. There are many ugly features in life as it is now lived, but they are inevitable, and to attempt to abolish it in our p. 23 mere desire for a better, must end in barbarism, which would be much worse.
There is a streak of hope on the horizon, Mr. Blatchford. It would please me well to see your generous mind turned in that direction. You guess what I am referring to, and I daresay you give an impatient shrug of disgust. In all these distressing social and political problems I fall back on my Bible, which is one of the “facts” of the situation not to be got rid of. It tells me that these distractions belong to our age; that it is not given to man at present to live in wise and prosperous ways; that “it is of the Lord of Hosts that the people labour in the very fire, and weary themselves for very vanity” (Hab. ii. 13). Christ, to whom you several times respectfully refer as a true teacher, declares that to this time belong “on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves (social) roaring; men’s hearts failing them for fear, looking after the things that are coming on the earth” (Luke xxi. 25, 26). This with the stamp of God’s authority I take as a sufficient reason for resignation and patience and waiting. “Waiting,” do I say? Yes, for there is much reason for it. There is much promise in all the Bible of a better day when the world will be under that one government, when the innumerable social evils which stir your sympathetic heart will be remedied by a King who will realise Hood’s ideal: “A despotism in the hands of an angel from heaven.” I could refer you to many parts of the Bible where these things are promised, but perhaps I should only weary you.
Do you believe in Christ, Mr. Blatchford? If you do, you ought to take his words into account; if you don’t, you turn your back on one whom you place at the very head of mankind in your allusion “Salt of the earth, the light of the world;” and your Socialism, however eloquently pleaded, must necessarily prove but a part of those temporary sparks kindled in the dark, of which the prophet speaks (Isaiah l. 11).
Your melancholy friend,
JOHN SMITH.