TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION F. 871 
powerless to induce his employer to modify in any particular the terms of his 
employment, but when workmen band together they may meet employers as equal 
powers. Such liberty of combination is a development and not a limitation of 
- Individual liberty. Another step is taken when the parties to such an arrange- 
ment as has been suggested seek to make its provisions compulsory on others, be 
they workmen or employers, who may enter into similar relations; and the prin- 
ciples of former Economists would generally prompt them to condemn such 
attempts at compulsion, The Factory Acts were opposed in this way, although 
- they rested upon different grounds; for, though in their consequences they affected 
_ the labour of adults, they were propounded for the defence of young persons and 
children unable to protect themselves or to be the parties to free contracts. Legis-~ 
lation has, however, been extended to control directly the employment of fully 
responsible persons, and this has been defended by three lines of argument. It is 
urged that when the unchecked liberty of individuals destroys in fact the liberty 
of action of larger multitudes, it is in defence of liberty of action that those 
individuals are controlled. If a sea wall is necessary to prevent a large tract from 
being periodically inundated, it cannot be permitted to the owner of a small patch 
along the coast to leave the wall unbuilt along his border, and thus threaten the 
lands of his neighbours with inundation. Again, it is urged that when the over- 
whelming majority of persons engaged in a particular industry, employers and 
employed, are agreed upon the necessity of certain rules to govern the industry, it 
is not merely a convenience, but is a fulfilment of their liberty, to clothe with the 
sanction of law the regulations upon which they are agreed. Lastly, it is sub- 
mitted that there are individuals in whom the sense of responsibility is so weak 
and whose development of forethought is so hopeless, that it is necessary the law 
should regulate their conduct as it may regulate the conduct of children. I do 
not propose to examine in detail these real or apparent limitations of individual 
liberty. The first plea appears to me to be sound in principle, though it may often 
have been applied to cases not properly coming within it. As to the second, the 
convenience of giving to an all but universal custom the force of law is incontestable, 
but it is at least doubtful whether this is sufficient to deprive individuals who 
deliberately wish to put themselves outside it of the liberty of doing so. Unless 
their action could be brought within the first line of argument, sufficient reason for 
restraint does not appear. As for the hopeless class whose existence is made a 
plea for restrictive legislation, the Economist may forcibly argue that they have 
never been left to learn the full force of the lessons of experience, and it is the 
impatient interference of thoughtless men and thoughtless laws which allows this 
class to be perpetually recruited. 
The limitations of individual liberty, to which I have referred, are familiar to 
us, and have obtained’a firm hold in our legislation; but we enter upon compara- 
tively new ground when we turn to the proposals that an increasing number of 
industries should be undertaken and directed by State or Municipality, and that a 
minimum and not inadequate subsistence should be assured to all those engaged in 
such industries, if indeed the principle be not presently extended outside the 
monopolies so established. The ideas which are clothed in the phrases ‘The 
socialisation of the instruments of industry,’ and ‘The guarantee of a minimum 
wage to all workmen,’ appear to involve a complete reorganisation of society, and 
an absolute abandonment of the theories of the past. This is not enough to justify 
their immediate rejection or their immediate acceptance. The past has not been 
so good that we can refuse to look at any proposals, however strange in appearance, 
offering a better promise for the future. It has not been so bad that we must 
abandon its methods in despair, as if no change could be for the worse, if not: for 
the better. A patient inquirer, feeling his way along the movement of his time, 
may even be constrained to accept a patchwork covering of life instead of the ideal 
garment woven without seam throughout; or he may be led to see that the 
harmony of society, like the harmony of the physical universe, must be the result 
of divers forces, out of which is developed a perfect curve. 
No one could now be found to deny the possibility, and few to question the 
utility, of the socialisation of some services. The post office is in all civilised 
