SOCIALISM  IN  ENGLAND,  30/
than  their  heads.  They  discountenance  the  work  of  the  Charity
Organization  Society,  and  virtually  justify  “indiscriminate
charity,”  by  assimilating  it  to  the  sun  which  is  made  to  shine
alike  upon  the  evil  and  the  good.  Again,  the  Church  Reformer,
the  organ  of  the  Guild  of  St.  Matthew,  says  :  “  We  learnt  our
Socialism,  not  from  Das  Kapital,  but  from  the  New  Testament  •
Jesus  of  Nazareth  and  Paul  of  Tarsus,  and  not  Karl  Marx  or
Friedrich  Engels,  were  its  teachers.”  Nevertheless,  both  the
Church  Reformer  and  the  Christian  Socialist,  another  paper
representing  the  left  wing,  read  into  the  Bible  the  scientific
theories  of  Karl  Marx  and  Henry  George.
One  of  the  members  of  the  Guild,  however,  the  Rev.  Professor ­
  Symes,  of  University  College,  Nottingham,  is  a  Political
Economist  of  repute.  In  a  paper  entitled  “  Socialism  by  Taxation,” ­
  read  before  a  clerical  audience  at  Charing  Cross  Hotel,
m  January  last.  Professor  Symes  very  frankly  put  the  question
of  a  more  equitable  distribution  of  wealth  under  the  simple
formula  of  “  faking  from  the  rich  and  giving  to  the  poor.”
This  is  morally  justified  as  follows  :—“A  man  has  a  natural  right
to  the  produce  of  his  own  labours,  but  when  he  needs  the
co-operation  of  others,  they  have  a  corresponding  right  to  offer
their  own  terms.”  This  is  precisely  what  landlords,  capitalists
and  employers  of  labour  say,  but  the  Professor  means  to  put
the  words  into  the  mouth  of  the  nation.  The  nation  has  a
right  to  say  to  the  manufacturer.  You  may  live  amongst  us
and  enjoy  all  the  advantages  of  our  civilization,  but  if  you  make
a  large  fortune  we  shall  take  a  considerable  portion  of  it  to  be
expended  for  “  the  victims  of  our  complex  life.”  If  you  do  not
like  our  terms,  there  are  plenty  of  unoccupied  spots  in  the
world  where  you  can  practice  individualism  to  your  heart’s
content.  Such  is,  in  brief,  the  moral  justification  of  taxing  the
rich  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor.  From  the  economic  point  of
view,  it  is  necessary  to  distinguish  taxes  which  fall  on  rent,
interest,  and  earnings  respectively.  Taxes  on  rent  are  economically ­
  unobjectionable.  They  are  mere  transfers  of  wealth.
I  hey  do  not  of  themselves  render  the  land  less  productive,  nor
will  they  cause  a  rise  in  rent,  unless,  indeed,  where  the  land  has
een  previously  under-rented  (a  not  unimportant  exception  for