Rev. A. C. Hoggins on “A Policy for To-day.” July 20, 1895.

*THE WORKER*

BRISBANE, JULY 20, 1895.

TRADES HALL LECTURE.

Rev. A. C. Hoggins

ON

“A Policy for To-day.”

The Rev. A. C. Hoggins, at a recent lecture in the Trades Hall, Brisbane, said:

I propose to-night briefly to sum up the results of my previous five lectures, and endeavour in some feeble way to deal with that practical question which has been put to me every evening and to which it has been hitherto impossible fully to reply – What are we to do? We have heard enough of the evils of the present regime. What do you propose to put in it's place? and What are we to do to bring about the changes you would suggest? And it is still impossible to reply to this fully. Chiefly for two reasons – first, the vastness of the subject; and, next, the fact that we are all but learners I, at least, am so, and it is a time of change and I do not think that any of us will next year agree in every detail with what we ourselves may say to-night.

The lectures themselves – at least so I have intended – followed a very definite course. In the first, I discussed the place of religion in sociology. I endeavoured to show that all these questions of Socialism and the like are parts of a great science of sociology, and that in this science, from any point of view, religion is the name given to the present development of that factor of evolutionary progress which may be called “otherism,” which leads the individual to care for another or others more than for himself, and which ascends through motherhood, the family, the love of the race, up to, as I hope, the universal brotherhood of men, which the highest form of religion - Christianity – is destined to bring about. Following this idea, in my second lecture I gave you a brief history of the science of Political Economy, showing, I think, clearly that its principal developments synchronised exactly with corresponding developments in religious thought – the rise of individualism occurring in both about 300 years ago, and reaching its highest point at the beginning of the present century, and both at the present moment passing rapidly into a new condition which is really a revival of the old on a surer, sounder, more permanent basis to secure which was, I can see, the intention and use of individualism. But, in order that you might understand the nature of the change that is passing over us, it was necessary to discuss certain questions of Political Economy which had become “burning questions” because the attempt to answer them in one particular way had led to such disastrous results that it was clearly necessary to find some other and more promising solution.

This I did in the third lecture on the “Socialistic Movement.” Then naturally arose the question – To what does all this lead? to what is it intended to lead? This I endeavoured to answer in my last lecture on “Collectivism.” In that I treated of the principal conditions of the Collectivist State of the future. Not that which we may hope to establish in a few years, nor, on the other hand, the final Communism with which the development of humanity, as far as we can judge, must end – but that condition to which everything is now tending, which will be the next stage of human progress, towards the attainment of which every lover of his race must labour and strive.

And this brings me to our present subject – what can we do now? The answer would naturally divide itself into two branches – the political and the ethical. With Aristotle, politics was but a branch of ethics, and it is a proof of the false lines on which men were beginning to tread, that there should ever have arisen a distinction between the two, that it should ever have come to be thought that it was a politician's duty to lie and deceive. For our present purpose we may put the distinction in another form and consider what we may do as members of the State and what we may do as individuals.

What, then, is the State to do? Most of those to whom I speak have votes, and are therefore in a measure able to influence and control the action of the State. To persuade the electors is to move the machinery of the State. First then, I would say we have nothing to do with parties. I began life myself with strong Tory leanings – as Mr. Gladstone did. Some study of the conditions of life in London made me feel the need of change, and I gradually drew towards what is called Radicalism. I became a great admirer (as indeed I still am) of Mr. Gladstone. But Radicalism is really only the struggle of the middle classes against the aristocracy, the fight for individual advancement; it is really only the rise of another class interest, and a crueller and perhaps more unprincipled one than that which it desired to overthrow. I never felt quite happy among Radicals, and further and deeper study of social questions has had some effect in bringing me back to my earliest views. Certainly in England, while Liberals have passed measures calculated to open the road to affluence to every member of the community, it has always been the Conservatives who have introduced measures for the emancipation of the industrial slave – the factory acts for instance were all either carried by Conservative governments, or forced upon Liberal governments by Conservative members. But I would have nothing to do with parties. Stick to the old principal – measures, not token – and as between our political parties here, I advise you, attach yourself to neither – Government nor Opposition. Listen next year to what each member has to say on the special questions that concern your interests, and vote accordingly. Something, indeed may be said for a Labour Party, and more perhaps for a Socialist Party. Such are not strictly political parties, they are bodies of men banded together to forward a great idea which they believe will work for the salvation of the country, and using political means, only as means to the greater ends they have in view. Nevertheless, union is strength, and I think a great lesson may be learned from the Social-Democratic Party of Germany, which, recognising that the complete realisation of their views can only come in the course of years, are content to accept in the meantime such reforms, however small they may be, which they are able from time to time to obtain. So with you. Work with anyone who will give you even a part of what you want and as far as they are prepared to give it to you.

Let us go now to the root of our social troubles. Hobson, in his “Problems of Poverty” the last chapter of which is, I think, by far the best, puts the matter in that chapter very clearly. The tendency, he shows, is for Capital to mass itself into ever larger and more comprehensive accumulations. Step by step Labour follows on on the same lines; by and bye on the present lines we shall have all capital and all skilled labour organised into two large opposing camps. But outside the camp of more or less skilled labour there is a mass of entirely unskilled labour dragging down the price of labour of the workers above them, themselves leading a life only one degree raised above death by starvation. These, as Hobson says in his last paragraph, cannot obtain wages because they have neither intelligence nor strength to earn them, they cannot obtain intelligence or strength because their earnings are so small. There is the problem. These proletarians – the poorest of the poor – mass themselves in the large towns; they form the population of the slums; their life it is that has made some think that all town life must be evil. “God made the country, but man” - some say the devil - “made the town.” What is the result? Increased mortality, physical deterioration, gradual impoverishment of the race. The average death rate in England to the year 1890 was 19.1 per thousand, but in Lancashire it was 22.5 in the town of Preston, 27; in Manchester 28.67.

Still more marked is the mortality of children. In three agricultural counties it was 97.17 per thousand; in three large towns it was 218.03 – more than twice as much. But it is not only the mortality. Statistics from all parts of the world show that the townsman is physically inferior to the countryman. In Scotland, natives of Edinburgh and Glasgow are on an average two inches shorter than the natives of the country, and the same is true of other towns. It has been asserted that the population of Londoners in London is standing still or even retrograding, that the population would actually fall off but for the constant accessions from the country. And it is the heartiest and strongest of the countrymen that come to the towns, as is shown by police and other statistics. Thus the deteriorating influence of the towns makes itself felt through the land. (To be continued.)