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 Disestablish 
ment 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 inter 
preted, 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 re 
vival, imbued with the new social ethics—to such a develop 
ment 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 with 
out the necessity of any physical compulsion ; and they are 
not without hope that even the stony hearts of many land 
lords 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-