304

SOCIALISM  IN  ENGLAND.

Mr.  Headlam  has  evidently  discovered  what  M.  de  Laveleye
has  so  well  pointed  out,  that  Christianity,  though  containing
in  itself  the  germs  of  socialistic  ideas,  by  inculcating  patience
and  submission,  and  by  pointing  to  a  recompense  beyond  the
tomb,  is,  as  usually  taught,  antagonistic  to  the  full  flowering  of
Socialism.  He,  however,  instead  of  endeavouring  to  eradicate
the  religious  sentiment  after  the  manner  of  the  revolutionary
Socialists,  tries  to  arouse  “  divine  discontent  ”  by  secularizing
Christianity.
The  advanced  Christian  Socialists  call  for  the  Disestablishment ­
  of  the  Church,  and  its  organization  on  a  democratic  basis.
They  think  that  their  principles  would  gain  wide  acceptance
among  the  new  ministers  thus  appointed.  They  believe  that
in  the  doctrines  and  traditions  of  the  Church,  properly  interpreted, ­
  they  possess  a  lever  to  move  the  minds  of  the  faithful
such  as  the  Secularists  with  their  “  dismal  creed  ”  can  never
obtain  ;  they  confldently  look  forward  to  such  a  religious  revival, ­
  imbued  with  the  new  social  ethics—to  such  a  development ­
  of  what  Mr.  George  calls  a  “  deep,  definite,  intense
religious  faith,  so  clear,  so  burning,  as  utterly  to  melt  away  the
thought  of  self”—that  the  question  of  the  reconstruction  of
society  on  socialistic  lines  will  ere  long  accomplish  itself  without ­
  the  necessity  of  any  physical  compulsion  ;  and  they  are
not  without  hope  that  even  the  stony  hearts  of  many  landlords ­
  and  capitalists  will  be  so  softened  by  the  potent  solvent
of  neo-Christian  charity,  that  they  will  be  ready  to  surrender  all
their  goods  to  feed  the  poor.
As  I  have  already  mentioned,  the  Christian  Socialists  of  “  the
extreme  left  ”  entirely  accept  the  teaching  of  Mr.  George  as  to
Land  Nationalization,  and  reject  the  idea  that  the  landowners
have  any  just  claim  to  compensation.  They  say,  indeed,
that  the  principle  of  taxing  land  up  to  the  full  annual  value,
though  pushed  on  as  rapidly  as  may  be,  will  inevitably  be  so
gradually  applied,  that  the  hardship  on  individual  landowners
will  not  be  so  great  as  might  at  first  sight  appear  ;  but  they  do
not  shrink  from  answering  the  question  of  compensation  frankly
in  the  negative,  and  they  even  retort  the  charge  of  confiscation
and  robbery  on  the  landowners.  To  those  who  use  the  argu-