Henry George — A Perplexed
Philosopher
Part II—Repudiation (continued)
Chapter VI — More Letters
WITH this Mr. Spencer endeavored to withdraw, and no wonder. But letters
from Mr. Greenwood, Professor Huxley, and a number of new participants, including
Auberon Herbert for the defense, continued to appear in the Times for
some time longer, and Messrs. Greenwood and Huxley succeeded in dragging from
him
another brief confession.
Professor Huxley made him give up his illustration from physiological principles,
and Mr. Greenwood, pressing him as to whether, as averred by Mr. Laidler, he
had ever said that to right one wrong it takes another, first made him declare
that he did not remember to have said it, and then, pressing him still further,
made him declare he had not said it and to repudiate it if he had.
Although this is a mere side-issue, perhaps it may be worthwhile, even at
this late date, to vindicate Mr. Laidler and refresh Mr. Spencer's memory.
In Social Statics, Chapter XXI, 'The Duty of the State,' Section 8,
may be found the doctrine which Mr. Laidler referred to, when, in citing Mr.
Spencer
against Mr. Morley's objection to land nationalization, he said, as reported
by the Times —
Mr. Spencer has said that the land had been taken by force and fraud. That
gentleman had also said that to right one wrong it takes another.
This in effect, if not in exact words, Mr. Spencer certainly does say in
Chapter XXI, Section 8, in combating the doctrine of non-resistance. He declares
all coercion immoral in itself, but (using the same terms in the same sense
as Mr. Laidler) justifies government when "it uses wrong to put down wrong." He
adds:
The principle of non-resistance is not ethically true,
but only that of non-aggression….
We may not carelessly abandon our rights. We may not give away our birthright
for the sake of peace. … We may not be passive under aggression. In due
maintenance of our claim is involved the practicability of all our duties. … If
we allow ourselves to be deprived of that without which we cannot fulfil
the Divine will, we virtually negative that will.
I thus take the trouble to refresh Mr. Spencer's memory and vindicate Mr.
Laidler, for, although the latter gentleman was allowed one letter in the
Times, it was afterwards that the question was raised by Mr. Greenwood,
and I do not
suppose that Mr. Laidler got another chance, the Times speaking of him contemptuously,
as a Mr. Laidler, and printing his letter in smaller type, although it was
he who first brought out Mr. Spencer, and provoked the whole discussion.
Mr. Laidler's letter, of which neither party to the controversy seemed to
care to take notice, was published by the Times on the same day as Mr. Spencer's
second letter. He said—
To the Editor of The Times.
SIR: As one of the deputation of members of the Newcastle
Labor Electoral Organization who recently waited upon Mr. John Morley,
M.P., to ascertain
his opinion on certain political and social topics, I was entrusted by my
fellow-members
of the deputation with the question of the nationalization of the land,
and this subject I discussed with Mr. Morley. In doing so, I sought to back
up
my position by quoting the ninth chapter of Social Statics, by Mr. Herbert
Spencer, and I certainly thought I had a good case when I found on my side
the most distinguished authority of our time. To my great surprise, I now
find that in the letters which he has addressed to you, Mr. Herbert Spencer
appears
to be very anxious to repudiate the doctrines which he preached so eloquently
in 1850. Now, although it is a common thing for the politician of to-day
to repudiate principles and deductions which he formerly warmly espoused
and to
adopt others which he once energetically condemned, one does not expect
the same vacillation on the part of a distinguished philosopher like Mr.
Herbert
Spencer. I find it difficult to understand his position, which seems to
be this—that while adhering to his general principles he abandons certain
deductions therefrom. Now, to my mind, the ninth chapter of Social
Statics,
which deals with 'The Right to the Use of the Earth,' seems as true, as
logical, and as unanswerable an argument in favor of the nationalization
of the land
as it doubtless appeared to Mr. Herbert Spencer on the day it was written.
Let us trace the course of his argument through the ten sections of which
the chapter is composed.
Giving a short abstract of these ten sections of Chapter IX Mr. Laidler continued—
In the foregoing digest, beyond one or two connecting words,
the language is that of Mr. Herbert Spencer himself. Does it not constitute
an unanswerable
argument in favor of the nationalization of the land? If the author would
permit it to be reprinted, what an admirable tract the ninth chapter of
Social Statics would be for the propagation of socialistic11 principles!
But he now
seems to repudiate the offspring of his own genius! We have, however, a
right to ask that, instead of a vague repudiation in general terms, Mr.
Herbert Spencer
should tell us specifically what deductions he has abandoned and why he
has abandoned them. We might then endeavor to answer his answers to his
own propositions.
Yours,
JOHN LAIDLER, Bricklayer.
11 Mr. Laidler uses the word "socialistic" in the vague way in which it is
so commonly used in England, and doubtless means land nationalization principles.
How far Mr. Spencer has tried to answer his own propositions, we shall see
in Justice.
Previous chapter • Next
chapter • Table of Contents
|
To
share this page with a friend: right click, choose "send," and
add your comments.
|
themes: see_also |
Red
links have not been visited; .
Green
links are pages you've seen |
|