TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION F. 611 
just quoted. But I prefer to take for my instance the gentler type of opinion as 
shown in the article by the Rev. Samuel Barnett in the ‘Nineteenth Century’ to 
which I have referred. England is, perhaps I should say, has been, honourably 
distinguished as a country in which the ‘falsehood of extremes’ is instinctively 
felt. We have here no crushing conscription, no mordinate pressure of taxation. 
Hitherto we haye fortunately escaped these things, and may, by the exercise of 
common sense, hope to do so in future. Mr. Barnett feels this. His reecommenda- 
tions include a wiser administration of the Poor Laws, so as to enable a distinc- 
tion to be drawn between the man who had kept clear of parish relief up to a 
reasonable age, and the man who had not. This, and a wider application of the 
principle of the Artisans’ Dwellings Act and the Libraries Act, are amongst the 
principal of his recommendations. They come to this, that the old age of the 
honest working man should be made secure against distressing want or degrading 
relief, and that the power of obtaining rational pleasures should be provided for him 
within reasonable bounds. Some will think this would be going too far. The 
question for the economist to consider is, How far can it be granted without 
impairing the great principle of self-help ? This is a point too frequently ignored ; 
but when I consider the condition of many of our working classes, their prospects 
in this country, and the openings which our colonies and the United States promise 
to energetic industry, I think we must be prepared to offer better terms than we 
hitherto have done to those who continue to dwell here. 
Legislation, conceived in a scmewhat similar spirit, has recently been deter- 
mined on in the German Empire; and if the iron spirit of Prince Bismarck has 
felt it needful to yield this concession to popular feeling, it would not seem im- 
probable that other statesmen may have, willingly or otherwise, to travel in the 
same road. 
There are limits, however, to the application of this class of payments by the 
State which must be borne in mind. And Mr. Fawcett in his article in‘ Macmillan’s 
Magazine,’ which deals with the thorny subjects of State Socialism and the Nation- 
alisation of the Land, is careful to enforce this warning. The real incentive to labour 
and economy is individual interest, and we must be careful not to break down 
the force of that power, the mainspring of progress; nor to lose sight of the great 
principle previously referred to—which not a little in recent legislation and public 
‘feeling has powerfully tended to impair—that self-help is beyond all question and 
comparison the best help. 
I have in these observations only marked out some of the limits of this wide 
subject. The question how far the principles usually included under the de- 
nomination of Socialism should or should not be taken into consideration by the 
State is one which our economists would do well to consider. Economic teaching is 
sometimes termed hard and cruel by those: who do not comprehend its scope, 
because some of the warnings it gives do not fall in with the sickly slackness 
of popular sentiment. This is most unjust. Other branches of study are not 
spoken of inthe same manner. The surgeon is not termed cruel because he 
recommends an operation which, though painful, is essential to life; because he 
shows that the neglect of certain precautions will be followed by suffering, 
-perhaps by death. The economist, who sees that the happiness of the community 
can only be secured by causing individuals to submit to restraints which are 
irksome and perhaps painful, should not be termed cruel for pointing out what is 
essential to the general well-being. He is, in this, entirely within the scope of 
his duty. A community which is not prosperous can scarcely possess all the 
elements essential for happiness. 
I have endeavoured to indicate in these remarks both some of the directions in 
which I think that economists may labour with advantage, and the principles on 
which their labours should be conducted. Economic science, like all other branches 
of science, is governed by certain laws. These laws must be adhered to, though it 
may not be possible to affirm of them that they are always more than relativel 
true. But the question of relative truth opens the door to a far wider field of 
‘inquiry, the threshold of which I must not cross. : 
If I may for one moment in concluding diverge from the stricter mode of 
RR2 
