SOCIALISM  IN  ENGLAND.

325

present  stage  of  civilization,  would  probably  be  found  not  very
far  apart  They  have  in  common  the  absolute  abolition,  that
is,  the  forcible  destruction,  root  and  branch,  of  the  existing
social  economical  and  political  order,  and  it  would  require  the
mind  of  a  sibyl  to  foresee  the  shape  which,  after  the  chaos,  the
palingenesis  will  assume.
Mr.  Matthew  Arnold  once  said,  “No  individual  life  can  be
truly  prosperous  passed  in  the  midst  of  those  who  suffer.  To
the  noble  soul  it  cannot  be  happy,  to  the  ignoble  it  cannot  be
safe.”  There  are  many  noble  souls,  outside  the  Social  Democratic ­
  Federation,  who  feel  this  truth  profoundly.  They,  however, ­
  may  be  called  Social  Reformers  rather  than  Socialists.
They  admit  many  counts  of  the  indictment  drawn  against  the
existing  industrialism  by  the  Revolutionary  Socialists,  but  they
Say  that  these  latter,  by  their  reckless  exaggerations,  only
obscure  the  facts  ;  by  aggravating  the  existing  antagonism
between  employers  and  employed,  only  shut  the  door  to  the
reconciliation  of  their  interests  ;  and,  by  urging  on  a  hopeless
and  hideous  revolution,  only  postpone  reform.  The  position
of  Radicals  who  have  accepted  the  teaching  of  the  new  Political
Kconomy  is  well  stated  by  the  late  Mr.  Arnold  Toynbee,  one
of  its  most  ardent  representatives.  “  The  Radical  Creed,  as  I
understand  it,”  he  says,  “  is  this  :  We  have  not  abandoned  our
old  belief  in  liberty,  justice,  and  self-help,  but  we  say  that  under
certain  conditions  the  people  cannot  help  themselves,  and  that
then  they  should  be  helped  by  the  State  representing  directly
the  whole  people.  In  giving  this  State  help,  we  make  three
conditions  :  first,  the  matter  must  be  one  of  primary  social
importance  ;  next,  it  must  be  proved  to  be  practicable  ;  thirdly,
the  State  interference  must  not  diminish  self-reliance.  .  .  .  We
differ  from  Tory  Socialism  in  so  far  as  we  are  in  favour,  not  of
Paternal,  but  of  fraternal  government,  and  we  differ  from  Continental ­
  Socialism,  because  we  accept  the  principle  of  private
property  and  repudiate  confiscation  and  violence.”
In  spite  of  the  efforts  of  the  Social  Democrats,  the  conflict
classes  is  not  nearly  so  bitter  as  it  used  to  be  even  a  few
years  ago.  Trades  Unionism,  apart  from  its  action  in  providing
I^Gnefit  Societies,  is  no  longer  looked  upon  as  other  than  a
Y  3