422 Lord Beay [May 14, 



taxation which interferes with the first necessities of the working 

 classes, the circuitous process is maintained of taking with one hand 

 and giving back with the other, the net result of which can only be 

 the salary of a certain number of superfluous oflacials, besides the 

 obvious damage done to trade. 



These principles are found in the programme of May the 30th, 

 1873, of Das Verein fiir Social PolitiJi, composed of the most 

 learned political economists of Germany. They wish to avoid the 

 stern individualism of the Manchester school, as well as the social 

 revolution which would result from the monopoly of capital by 

 the State. " We are of opinion," they say, " that the unlimited 

 freedom of action of individual interests which are partly opposed 

 to each other and are not of equal strength, does not guarantee the 

 well-being of the whole community^; that the exigencies of a common 

 feeling of humanity must also influence economic conditions much 

 more, and that the well-considered intervention of the State must be 

 admitted in time to protect the just interests of all concerned. . . . 

 In bringing this intervention to a serious issue, the egotism of the 

 individual and the selfish wants of the various classes of the com- 

 munity will be made subject to the permanent and higher calling of 

 the whole community." The first sentence is a protest against the 

 Manchester school, the second against socialism. 



Wagner's theory goes beyond this ; he wants a compromise with 

 socialism, the increase of collective at the expense of individual 

 property. He would vest all property in land and houses of a town 

 in some public authority. It is said that he went to Yarzin, Prince 

 Bismarck's seat, to expound a scheme by which the whole insurance 

 business of the country would be undertaken by the State. Even 

 von Sybel, who is a decided opponent of socialism, writes about 

 wealth : "As such it has no value, it obtains it only by satisfying 

 human wants ; acquisition of property should only be an object in so 

 far as it is the means of attaining higher ends, such as health and 

 capacity for labour, enjoyment and power, intelligence and bene- 

 volence. Where the pursuit of wealth is in antagonism with these 

 objects, there economic laws remain true, but they have to bow to 

 higher laws, and human society, the State, is not only justified, but 

 obliged to requii'e this submission from each of its citizens, and in 

 case of need, to use compulsion." Here we have von Sybel 

 throwing on the State the duty of adjusting human society, and of 

 drawing the line between thrift, a virtue, and niggardly shabbiness, 

 a vice. 



In what an absurdity this would land us. It is not the State which 

 can or must enjoin the submission of human society to higher laws. 

 This can only be done by the dictates of conscience and by the 

 voluntary eflbrt of each individual. Tliat socialism considers the 

 acquisition of wealth as the highest law is one of its most grievous 

 errors, and must have a demoralising influence on its votaries. How 

 is social democracy to be combated ? By exceptional laws '? By 



