Part 11 (2/2)
Cartwright followed with the mult.i.tude of political writers of his time to deduce a right to vote, and his deduction is as worthless as the rest of the _a priori_ reasoning. But the brave old man--he was tried for ”sedition” at the age of eighty in the Government panic of 1820--was an entirely disinterested champion of the poor and a real lover of liberty. He believed the affairs of government ought to be a matter of common concern, and that they were quite within the capacities of ordinary men.
Cartwright's life--much more than his writings--kept the democratic ideal unshaken in the handful of ”Radical Reformers” who survived the Tory reaction on the war with the French Republic in 1793, and his glowing enthusiasm helped to kindle the fire for political enfranchis.e.m.e.nt that was burning in the hearts of the manufacturing population by 1818. But in 1777 the electorate was not anxious for reform, and the unenfranchised gave no thought to their political disabilities. On the very day in 1780 that the Duke of Richmond proposed, in the House of Lords, a resolution in favour of manhood suffrage and annual Parliaments, the London mob, stirred up by the anti-Catholic fanaticism of Lord George Gordon, marched to Westminster with a pet.i.tion to repeal Savile's Act of 1778, which allowed Catholics to bequeath land and to educate their own children. There was a riot, and in the course of the next six days the mob burnt Newgate, sacked Catholic chapels, and generally plundered and ravaged the City.
In the House of Commons Pitt made three attempts to get reform considered--in 1782, 1783 and 1785--and on each occasion his resolution was defeated by an overwhelming majority. After that Pitt made no further effort for reform, and from 1793 to 1795 the Government he led pa.s.sed the Acts of repressive legislation which made all democratic propaganda illegal, and crushed all political agitation.
But ”the Cause” was not dead.
Sir Francis Burdett, M.P. for Westminster, Henry Hunt, better known as ”Orator Hunt,” and Cobbett with his ”Political Register,” in various ways renewed the campaign for manhood suffrage, and the growth of the manufacturing districts made a change in the const.i.tution of Parliament imperative.
Burdett was sent to the Tower in 1810 for contempt of Parliament, but lived to see the Reform Bill of 1831 pa.s.sed into law, and died a Tory. Cobbett spent two years in prison, and became M.P. for Oldham in 1832. What Cobbett did with pen--and no man at that day wrote with greater ability for the common people, or with greater acceptance--Hunt did on the platform. Both strove to arouse the working cla.s.s to demand enfranchis.e.m.e.nt. Hunt presided at the ma.s.s meeting at Peterloo, by Manchester, in 1819--an entirely peaceful meeting which was broken up by the military with some loss of life--and was sent to prison for two years for doing so. He also was elected M.P. (for Preston) in the first reformed Parliament.
Again the Government tried coercion, and after Peterloo, for the next few years, intimidation and numerous arrests kept down all outward manifestation of the reform movement.
In spite of this, the movement could not be stayed. Each year saw political indifference changed to positive desire for enfranchis.e.m.e.nt, and the British public, which, in the main, had been left untouched by the vision of a democracy and the call for a national convention and a new const.i.tution, became impatient for the reform of Parliament and the representation of the manufacturing interest.
THOMAS SPENCE (1750-1814)
The name of Spence must be mentioned amongst those who preached the democratic idea at the close of the eighteenth century. A Newcastle schoolmaster, Spence, in 1775, expounded his ”Plan” for land nationalisation on the following lines:--
”The land, with all that appertains to it, is in every parish made the property of the Corporation or parish, with as ample power to let, repair, or alter all or any part thereof, as a lord of the manor enjoys over his lands, houses, etc.; but the power of alienating the least morsel, in any manner, from the parish, either at this or any time thereafter, is denied.
For it is solemnly agreed to, by the whole nation, that a parish that shall either sell or give away any part of its landed property shall be looked upon with as much horror and detestation as if they had sold all their children to be slaves, or ma.s.sacred them with their own hands. Thus are there no more or other landlords in the whole country than the parishes, and each of them is sovereign lord of its territories.
”Then you may behold the rent which the people have paid into the parish treasuries employed by each parish in paying the Parliament or National Congress at any time grants; in maintaining and relieving its own poor people out of work; in paying the necessary officers their salaries; in building, repairing, and adorning its houses, bridges, and other structures; in making and maintaining convenient and delightful streets, highways, and pa.s.sages both for foot and carriages; in making and maintaining ca.n.a.ls and other conveniences for trade and navigation; in planting and taking in waste grounds; in providing and keeping up a magazine of ammunition and all sorts of arms sufficient for all the inhabitants in case of danger from enemies; in premiums for the encouragement of agriculture, or anything else thought worthy of encouragement; and, in a word, doing whatever the people think proper, and not as formerly, to support and spread luxury, pride, and all manner of vice.”
No taxes of any kind were to be paid by native or foreigner ”but the aforesaid rent, which every person pays to the parish according to the quant.i.ty, quality, and conveniences of the land, housing, etc., which he occupies in it. The Government, poor, roads, etc., are all maintained by the parishes with the rent, on which account all wares, manufactures, allowable trade employments, or actions are entirely duty free.”
The ”Plan” ends with the usual confidence of the idealist reformer of the time in the speedy triumph of right, and in the world-wide acceptance of what seemed to its author so eminently reasonable a proposal.
”What makes this prospect yet more glowing is that after this empire of right and reason is thus established it will stand for ever. Force and corruption attempting its downfall shall equally be baffled, and all other nations, struck with wonder and admiration at its happiness and stability, shall follow the example; and thus the whole earth shall at last be happy, and live like brethren.”
The American War and the French Revolution hindered the consideration of Spence's ”empire of right and reason,” but, in the course of nearly forty years' advocacy of land nationalisation, Spence gathered round him a band of disciples in London, and the Spenceans were a recognised body of reformers in the early part of the nineteenth century. The attacks on private property in land, and the revolutionary proposals for giving the landlords notice to quit, brought down the wrath of the Government on Spence, and he was constantly being arrested, fined and imprisoned for ”seditious libel,” while his bookshop in Holborn was as frequently ransacked by the authorities.
Spence died in 1814, and the movement for abolis.h.i.+ng the landlords in favour of common owners.h.i.+p languished and stopped. The interesting thing about Spence's ”Plan” is its antic.i.p.ation of Henry George's propaganda for a Single Tax on Land Values, and the extinction of all other methods of raising national revenue, a propaganda that, in a modified form for the taxation of land values, has already earned the approval of the House of Commons.
PRACTICAL POLITICS AND DEMOCRATIC IDEALS
Because we insist on the experimental character of our British political progress, and the steady refusal to accept speculative ideas and _a priori_ deductions in politics, it does not follow that the services of the idealist are to be unrecognised.
The work of the idealist, whether he is a writer or a man of action--and sometimes, as in the case of Mazzini, he is both--is to stir the souls of men and shake them out of sluggish torpor, or rouse them from gross absorption in personal gain, and from dull, self-satisfied complacency. He is the prophet, the agitator, the pioneer, and after him follow the responsible statesmen, who rarely see far ahead or venture on new paths.
Once or twice in the world's history the practical statesman is an idealist, as Abraham Lincoln was, but the combination of qualities is unusual. The political idealist gets his vision in solitary places, the democratic statesman gets his experience of men by rubbing shoulders with the crowd.
A democratic nation must have its seers and prophets, lest it forget its high calling to press forward, and so sink in the slough of contented ease.
The preacher of ideals is the architect of a nation's hopes and desires, and the fulfilment of these hopes and desires will depend on the wisdom of its political builders--the practical politicians. Often enough the structural alterations are so extensive that the architect does not recognise his plan; and that is probably as it should be; for it is quite likely that the architect left out of account so simple a matter as the staircase in his house beautiful, and the builder is bound to adapt the plan to ordinary human needs.
The idealist has a faith in the future of his cause that exceeds the average faith, and in his sure confidence fails to understand why his neighbours will not follow at his call, or move more rapidly; and so he fails as a practical leader.
Here the work of the statesman and politician comes in. They are nearer to the ma.s.s of people, they hold their authority by election of the people, and they understand that the rate of speed must be slow. Under the guidance of their political leaders, the people are willing to move.
Sometimes the idealist is frankly revolutionary, is for beginning anew in politics, and starting society all over again. If the state of things is bad enough, he may get into power, as he did in France at the Revolution, and for a time the world will stagger at his doings. But there is no beginning _de novo_ in politics, and the revolutions wrought by men who would give the world an entirely fresh start (to be distinguished from mere changes of dynasty, such as our English Revolution was) have their sandy foundations washed away by the floods of reaction.
<script>