1901] GROWTH OF DEMOCRACY -5 Democ period of Democracy and Empire, Science and Industry. It witnessed a fourfold revolution: Political, Social, Economic, and Intellectual. From the political standpoint the period falls naturally into three great divisions, corresponding to three striking changes in the centre of political gravity. The years between 1815 and Growth of 1832 witnessed the close of the rule of the aristocratic oligarchy racy which had governed England, and in the main with conspicuous success, for a century and a half. The Reform Act of 1832 dethroned the landed aristocracy and committed supreme power to the commercial classes. The full effect of the change was not, however, discernible for a generation. Until the death of Lord Palmerston (1865) England continued to be governed, despite an extended franchise and a radical redistribution of constituencies, by a knot of great families who had ruled it since 1688. But by 1865 the era of middle class rule was itself drawing to an end. In 1867 a second shifting of the centre of political gravity occurs. By Disraeli's famous "leap in the dark" (1867) the mass of the town artisans were admitted to the parliamentary franchise. By Gladstone's Act of 1884 the same privilege was conferred upon the rural labourers. Again, however, it will be seen that a generation had to elapse before the newly enfranchised classes found their political feet and inaugurated the era of "Democracy". Democracy". Not until the beginning of a new reign and a new century did political supremacy effectually pass from the bourgeoisie to the manual worker. Nor must the importance of the Press and the Platform in this connection be ignored. ment The growth of the democratic principle was not, however, con- Local fined to the Imperial Government of Great Britain. A similar governdevelopment is observable in the local government of the Motherland and in that of the more important Colonies. The reform of Municipal Corporations in 1835; the re-introduction of the elective principle into County government in 1888 and into District and Parish government in 1894, mark the main stages in the first case; the attainment of "responsible" government by Canada Colonial self-gov(1840), by the several Australasian Colonies (1850-1890), by the Cape Colony (1872), and by Natal (1893) are the most important examples of the latter. The advent of Democracy must, therefore, be regarded as one of the primary interests of the period under review. Hardly less significant is the shifting of the centre of social and ernment Social economic gravity. The Act of 1832 administered the coup de grace to the political ascendancy of the landed gentry. The legislation of Sir Robert Peel (1841-1846) combined with the immense development of facilities for transport, similarly put an end to their changes economic supremacy. Ascendancy passed from the owners of land to the owners of capital, as it is now, in turn, passing from the owners of capital to the possessors of business brains and skilled hands. Both changes are accurately reflected in the history of legislation. The owners of capital asked nothing of the State but abstention from interference-a fair field and freedom from restraint. But the philosophical ascendancy of Bentham, and the political supremacy of the "Manchester School" were of comparatively short duration. The introduction of machinery; the supersession of the hand-worker; the development of the factory system; the concentration of population in unregulated towns; in a word—the Industrial Revolution raised problems that were both new and State in puzzling. To solve them the interference of the State was invoked, terference and the result is seen in a long series of parliamentary statutes. The economic bution ". Acts for the restraint and supervision of child labour and female labour in factories and workshops; for the improvement of the sanitary conditions under which the poor live; for the education of their children and for their own protection from accidents, may be cited as characteristic illustrations of this tendency. To the same industrial revolution we must look also for the problem of genesis of new economic problems. If, as is claimed, the Revolu"distri- tion solved the problem of "production," it must be admitted that it accentuated, if it did not create, the problem of "distribution ". So long as the household was largely self-sufficing; so long as industry was organized on the "domestic" system; so long as there was little differentiation of economic functions and the machinery of exchange was crude, the problem of distribution was held in abeyance. But when the landowner was parted from the capitalist, the manufacturer from the farmer, and both from the hand-worker, disputes naturally arose as to the share of the total product which each could equitably claim. In such a contest the individual workman had little chance against the capitalist-employer. Hence the necessity for the organization of labour and the initiation of collective bargaining. Until 1824, and in a modified degree until 1871, the law was steadily opposed to "combination," but economic Trade 1901] CO-OPERATION 7 pressure gradually wore down the resistance of legislative restraint, and the legalization of trade unions forms one of the most significant chapters in the economic history of the nineteenth century. Trade Unions, however, though effective as a palliative, offer no Co-operapermanent solution of the problem of distribution and no sound tion basis for industrial peace. The Co-operative movement has a wider scope. The idea of "Co-operation" was born in the fertile brain of Robert Owen, but it was first embodied in successful experiment by a working-class Society at Rochdale in 1844. As a distributive agency, the Co-operative movement has attained gigantic proportions and has proved an unqualified success. But it has done more than provide the working classes with sound commodities at reasonable prices. By its democratic system of control it has initiated thousands of working men into the mysteries of business management and has taught them the importance of the functions of capital; by its automatic machinery for saving it has inculcated not merely the virtues but the possibilities of thrift; but it has not solved, and it cannot solve, the problem of wealth-distribution. The same principle applied, in a variety of forms, to the difficult art of production has made a gallant effort in this direction. It were idle to pretend that it has attained, in this sphere, a complete, or even a very large measure of success. There have been many experiments, watched with sympathy by all who realize the gravity of the problem, and many failures. In the simpler form of "profit sharing" some success has indeed been achieved, and even in the more complex and elaborate form of "labour copartnership" there has been more success than is commonly supposed. But progress has unfortunately been retarded by the singular reluctance of Co-operators to recognize the market value of business brains. Signs are not wanting that lessons learnt in the hard school of experience are being taken to heart; that Cooperators are beginning to appreciate the increasingly important part which direction plays in modern industry, and to face the fact that efficient direction cannot be obtained unless the market price is paid. As soon as this truth permeates the Co-operative body we may look for rapid progress in the domain of production. Thus far the recognition of the economic importance of the Socialism entrepreneur has been tardy, and, meanwhile, a third solution of the problem has obtained increased support among the working Science and industry The ecclesiasti cal move classes of this, as of other countries. Robert Owen was the father not only of Co-operation, but of English socialism. The modern socialist, however, impatiently brushes aside both Co-operation and Trade Unionism as mere palliatives. In his view the panacea for all social and economic ills is to be found in the nationalization of all the instruments of production, transport, distribution, and exchange. Private ownership of land, of capital, of warehouses, of machinery, of railways, steamships, canals, tramways, etc., is to cease, and industry is to be organized exclusively by the State. It would be out of place to attempt here a critical examination of this or any other proposed solution of the economic problem of the nineteenth century, but no history of the period can ignore either the insistent nature of the problem itself or the marked effect upon legislation and administration of the persistent effort to discover a solution. The abandonment of the dogmas of the Benthamite School; the breakdown of the principle of laisserfaire; the multiplication of governmental functions, and the intrusion of the State into domains hitherto deemed sacred to the individual—this has been for good or evil a marked feature of the latter portion of the period under review. The nineteenth century will, however, stand out not merely as the age of Industry but as the age of Science. With the purely intellectual achievements of Science this work cannot concern itself; but no attempt, however summary, to estimate the forces which have gone to mould the destinies of modern England can fail to take account of the growth of the scientific spirit and the application of the scientific method. Science has not only permeated thought; it has influenced legislation and has revolutionized the arts of production. The whole mental outlook of the world has been profoundly modified by scientific generalizations. The results of laboratory research are applied in the workshop, and the steed of Science is harnessed to the car of Industry.1 From Science it is, happily, an easy transition to Religion. The ecclesiastical movement of the century seems to have followed ment three distinct but ultimately convergent directions. It is expressed, Abolition first, in the successful agitation for the abolition of religious "tests". These tests were mainly the work of Elizabethan and Caroline of tests 1Cf. on this point the suggestive remarks of Mr. A. J. Balfour, The Nineteenth Century (Cambridge Press, 1900). 1901] EDUCATION 9 statesmen, and their object was to associate the State with the Anglican Establishment, and to identify active citizenship with adherence to the Church of England. One of the most characteristic features of the legislation of the century has been the removal of the limitations thus imposed. In illustration of this tendency it is sufficient to cite the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts (1828); the Catholic Relief Act (1829); the admission of Jews to Parliament (1858); the Education Act of 1870 with its conscience clause, and the Act for the abolition of University Tests (1871). It is not without significance that the surrender of a privileged Religion political position by the Church of England has been coincident and Theology with a period of remarkable activity within the borders of the Church itself. The earliest years of the century witnessed a great Evangelical revival which derived its chief inspiration from Cambridge; the middle period was remarkable for the Neo-Catholic or Tractarian movement which is particularly associated with Oxford, and, later still, the liberal or latitudinarian view found distinguished exponents in such men as F. D. Maurice, Arnold of Rugby, Dean Stanley, and Jowett. Closely connected with the last movement is the attempt, now common to all schools of Theology, to apply the scientific and historical method to Biblical interpretation and exegesis. Not less noteworthy is the fact that the age which witnessed Education the abolition of Ecclesiastical tests witnessed also a complete change in the attitude of the State towards the education of the poor. Down to 1833 this was regarded as the exclusive concern of the Churches. Not until that year did the State vouchsafe any assistance to the two great voluntary societies which were attempting to cope with this increasingly difficult problem. In 1839 a Committee of the Privy Council was appointed to supervise the work of these societies.1 Not, however, for another generation did the State itself seriously undertake the function of educating the children of the poor. And by that time its educational conscience had been aroused in other directions. The appointment in 1850 of two Royal Commissions to inquire into the state, discipline, studies, and revenues of the Universities of Oxford and Cainbridge marks the real beginning of 1 The British and Foreign School Society and The National Society which had been established respectively in 1807 and 1809. |