Liberalism and the Social Problem | Page 2

tendencies he has built what both his friends and his
enemies expected him to build. Mr. Churchill came to Liberalism from
the same fold as Gladstone, and for the same reason--that it presented
the one field of work open to a political talent of a high stamp, and to a
wide and eager outlook on the future of our social order. Liberalism
and Mr. Churchill have both had good reason to congratulate
themselves on that choice, and the party which failed to draw him into
a disastrous and reactionary change of view has no reason to resent it.
Before he became a Liberal Mr. Churchill had taken the broad views of
the South African problem that his father's later opinions commended
to him, and he was properly chosen to expound to the House of
Commons the plan of self-government that embodied them.

If, therefore, the political groundwork of these speeches is sound
Liberal principle, their meaning and purpose, taken in connection with
the Budget, and the industrial reforms for which it provides, signify a
notable advance into places where the thinkers, the pioneers, the men in
the advanced trenches, are accustomed to dwell. Let us acknowledge,
with a sense of pleasure and relief, that this is new territory. New, that
is to say, for this country; not new to the best organisations of industrial
society that we know of. New as a clearly seen vision and a connected
plan of British, statesmanship; not new as actual experiment in
legislation, and as theory held by progressive thinkers of many schools,
including some of the fathers of modern Liberal doctrine, and most of
our economists. What is there in these pages repugnant to writers of the
type of John Mill, Jevons, and Marshall? How much of them would
even be repelled by Cobden? In the main they preach a gospel--that of
national "efficiency"--common to all reformers, and accepted by
Bismarck, the modern archetype of "Empire-makers," as necessary to
the consolidation of the great German nation. An average Australian or
Canadian statesman would read them through with almost complete
approval of every passage, save only their defence of Free Trade. Nay
more; the apology for property which they put forward--that it must be
"associated in the minds of the mass of the people with ideas of justice
and reason"--is that on which the friends of true conservatism build
when they think of the evils of modern civilisation and the great and
continuous efforts necessary to repair them. Who does not conclude,
with Mr. Churchill, that "a more scientific, a more elaborate, a more
comprehensive social organisation" is indispensable to our country if it
is to continue its march to greatness? Back or forward we must go.
Mr. Churchill, indeed, has thought it wise to raise the specific point at
which, in the process of seeking a finer use and adaptation of the
human material which forms society, the progressive and reforming
statesman parts company with the dogmatic Socialist. There is no need
to labour a distinction which arises from the nature and the activities of
the two forces. British Liberalism is both a mental habit and a method
of politics. Through both these characteristics it is bound to criticise a
State so long as in any degree it rests on the principles of "Penguin
Island"--"respect for the rich and contempt for the poor," and to modify

or repeal the rights of property where they clearly conflict with human
rights. But its idealism and its practical responsibilities forbid it to
accept the elimination of private enterprise and the assumption by the
State of all the instruments of production and distribution. Socialism
has great power of emotional and even religious appeal, of which it
would be wise for Liberalism to take account, and it is, on the whole, a
beneficent force in society. But as pure dogma it fits the spirit of man
no more exactly than the Shorter Catechism. As Mr. Churchill well
says, both the collectivist and the individualist principles have deep
roots in human life, and the statesman can ignore neither.
In the main, therefore, these speeches, with all their fresh brilliancy of
colouring and treatment, hold up the good old banner of social progress,
which we erect against reactionist and revolutionist alike. The "old
Liberal" will find the case for Free Trade, for peace, for representative
government, stated as powerfully and convincingly as he could wish.
Their actual newness consists in the fact that not only do they open up
to Liberalism what it always wants--a wide domain of congenial
thought and energy, but they offer it two propositions which it can
reject only at its peril. The first is that there can and must be a deep,
sharp abridgment of the sphere of industrial life which has been marked
out as hopeless,