M

SI. INTRODUCTORY.

R. SPENCER'S little book, The Man versus the State, is the most conspicuous work of recent years in defence of "individualism" and in opposition to the growing tendency of State intervention in matters which the older English economists and Radical politicians held to be best left to private enterprise and unchecked competition. From its very nature it demands and challenges critical examination. Mr. Spencer's conception of what the State is appears to me to involve grave philosophical errors, and to be inconsistent with principles which he himself has done more than any one else to popularise. His practical conclusions, coming with the weight of his authority, seem to require refutation on the part of those who seriously believe that Liberal, or at least Radical, politicians are now moving, however slowly, in the right direction. Mr. Spencer is perhaps the most formidable intellectual foe with whom the New Radicalism has to reckon.

A strong conviction on these points must excuse

the following pages, which might otherwise appear unduly disrespectful to an honoured name. No one who has any interest in philosophy can refuse admiration to an Englishman who has given the energies of his life to philosophical studies, who believes that philosophy must be systematic, and who, although acting up to this belief, has made his countrymen read his books. But there are some things that demand more respect than distinguished persons-philosophy itself, and the growing sense of a common and public responsibility to diminish the misery of human life.

§2. ARE RADICALS TORIES?

"Laissez faire" and "Freedom of Contract" used to be Liberal watchwords, but have now been given up or left to the Tories. Mr. Spencer suggests the easy explanation, that the Liberals have mistakenly adopted the Tory policy. English political parties have a long history and a very complex significance. But to our synthetic philosopher, who deals in completely unified knowledge," this is all very simple. There are, according to Mr. Spencer, two great types of society, the militant and the industrial (an idea which may be found in Comte). To the former belongs the régime of status, to the latter that of

contract (this comes from Sir Henry Maine). The former adopts compulsory co-operation, the latter voluntary co-operation (this, I believe, is Mr. Spencer's own invention). Now the Tories are the party who hold by the former or worn-out type of society; the Liberals, by the latter. So that when a Liberal is found attacking what is called "the freedom of contract," he must, in order to make Mr. Spencer's completely unified knowledge correct, be no longer a Liberal, but a "New Tory." 1 How is it then, that Liberals and Tories have come to change places in relation to the question of State interference? According to Mr. Spencer, the essence of Liberal efforts has been the struggle for individualism against Governments-not against bad or despotic Governments merely, but against Governments as such.

The abolition of grievances suffered by the people," "the gaining of a popular good," has been merely an "external conspicuous trait."2 People in general have made a mistake in classification, and taken the external trait for the important thing. "The popular good has come to be sought by Liberals, not as an end to be indirectly gained by relaxation of re