with a bit, but with a curb, and hold us as
constantly reined up with a tight hand.

But, to continue concerning land. Once
there was in this country a class of yeomen;
men who owned their little farms; and of that
class we had always reason to be proud. The
desire of forming large, compact estates, begot
in great proprietors the habit of purchasing
contiguous small farms, and joining them into
a single property. So our yeomanry died out.
Recently there have arisen societies in England
—Freehold Land or Building Associations—
which reverse that operation, buy estates, and
cut them into little properties. This is fair
retaliation. It began, as is well known, in a
political suggestion, for the increase of county
voters; but that first design has been almost
utterly lost sight of—no matter whether it was
good or bad—a greater object was perceived
and is now being grasped by those whom
it concerns. When it was found that men
could pay, out of their wages, a small instalment
weekly; and, by combination of their
single pounds, purchase land advantageously,
and earn possession of a house or bit of
ground, a powerful motive for industry and
for saving was presented. There was held out
to them the most desirable of all investments;
and the legislature, recognising the good that
was resulting, and would yet result from the
healthy extension of a movement of this kind,
slipped a few obstacles out of its path, and
gave it some facilities. Unprincipled men
did, indeed, trade upon this honest impulse of
the working classes; and, one of those leaders,
of whom there are too many active to mislead,
threw great discredit on the cause he had
pretended to support. Nevertheless, the
principle is sound, and will extend itself; but
upon the whole subject of land societies,
however, we have facts to relate, and cautions to
suggest, which must be reserved until another
opportunity.

We assent, then, to co-operative shops, and
to land societies (with the proviso, of course,
that they be of an honest kind), and we
assent to them, because they are fair assertions
of the right of competition. To the moral
argument on their behalf, that they are social
—that men who combine are friendly to each
other—that a sort of brotherhood is implied
in the act of combination—we make no
objection. If ten or a hundred men think that
they can love each other better by being
partners in business, or fellow members of a
land society, and if they find that they do so
love each other better, we are glad of it. Only
don't let them impose their theory on people
who believe that they can live at peace with
their neighbours without such artificial aid.
Let those who feel themselves morally edified
by running into groups, run into groups, and
be content. Shall married men force wives
on bachelors, or bachelors divorce all husbands
from their wives? The moral argument for
Socialism is not worth a syllable beyond the
conscience of the person using it; unless, in the
spirit of a true protectionist as he is, he would
tie consciences, as well as trades.

We have now illustrated, by an example or
two, our deliberate opinion, that there is
nothing sound in the creed of Socialism which
is not based upon the principle of competition.
Let us next turn to the doctrine of protected
wages, looking the difficulties caused by
competition in the first place, fairly in the
face. The competition for labour tends
to reduce wages, and the workmen then
endeavour to protect themselves by strikes.
Well, as we before said, let every man
be master of himself; but then, again, let
him dictate to nobody. The workman who
prefers to work can never honestly, by words
or blows, be forced into a strike by his
companions. But if men "strike" without using
coercion on their neighbours, neighbours rush
in and occupy the places they leave vacant.
If that be their position, they assuredly are
unwise if they strike at all. As for their
independence, they had no right to claim such
a thing for themselves who are unable to
concede it to their fellows. But the case is,
we admit, very frequently hard, and once in
a dozen times we can imagine a strike justified
by circumstances. Workmen undoubtedly
abound, who, having but a low standard
of comfort, will work for any wages. Those
who have least to hope are reckless; they
marry early, and rear children, in their
destitution, who have never learnt to cherish
any sense of comfort. These grow up, and are
content to work for what will keep them
miserably as they have been kept; while men
who are trained to fix their comfort somewhat
higher in the scale, must pull their standard
down too often in the race of competition. It
cannot be helped. Men who are content
simply to keep themselves alive, will grasp
for work at any wages. Trades unions in
vain attempt to fence them off. It must not
be supposed that we would enforce any
external check upon the growth of surplus
population. Among men who have anything
to hope, there is always, more or less, the
internal check of prudence in restraining hasty
marriages. Perhaps if we were better
educated and more independent, than some of us
care to be, we should aspire to better homes,
and postpone marriage for a few years, just
at first. Men in the middle classes among
us usually wait until they can marry without
sinking in the world; and in foreign countries,
as in Germany, Belgium, or Switzerland,
where the working class is well informed, and
can live comfortably, the average age of
marriage for all people is about thirty-one or
thirty-two.* The English generally rich and
poor (partly because they are a home-loving
nation, partly for other reasons) marry very
early. They may be wise for doing so, or

* In Prussia, however, and in some other countries on the
Continent, no man can obtain a license to marry until he
produces satisfactory evidence to prove, and security to
insure, his ability to keep a wife.