The Press. MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 1884.

Press, Volume XL, Issue 5710, 7 January 1884, Page 2

The Press. MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 1884.

What are the limits within which the State should interfere with the private rights of citizens, and what reasons would justify such interference, are matters which are being largely discussed at the present time. They have been raised principally in consequence of the prominence given during the last few months to the question of the housing of the outcast poor of the large cities of Great Britain. " The bitter cry of outcast Londsn " seems ' to have produced a profound impression on the public mind. The disclosures which it makes of the wretchedness and i misery prevailing in the great metropolis have roused the practical philanthropists, and even threaten to give a new direction to the politics of the country. Politicians belonging to the theoretical school have not been slow to discover that the cry which is being raised for Government aid in this matter of housing the poor is only another step in the direction of State interference in matters which had very much better be left to private enterprise and private benevolence. Mr. Goschkn, for example, whose liberalism is undoubted, while exempting the housing of the poor, nevertheless expressly warns the public of the danger of tbe modern tendency to State interference on all occasions. "Every additional transfer of duties to the State," he says, " saps the belief of the community in the value of natural liberty. For inst—nee if the protection of one class of individuals is entrusted to a public department, no sooner do d_fioulties beset another class, than pitniln- protection is invoked. Every calamity which occurs, every shortcoming discovered} constitutes a case for fresh interference. * * * The reality of -nch d-"g»—i can scarcely be denied, and the risk is heightened by the obvious difficulty

of retracing steps taken under such conditions. It is one thing to place a trade , or a class under State protection. It is a very different thing to withdraw it, especially if moral considerations have prompted the original act. * * Once pass a moral condemnation on laissee-faire in any particular case, and its rehabilitation becomes almost a hopeless task." So strongly does this latter objection present itself to the minds of many that even the Spectator would prefer London, with its suffering, to a South Sea Paradise. "If the State is to do all, and the individual nothing, what need in the individual of forethought, sacrifice, thrift, endurance, or any of the virtues which make men noble ? "

But it is evident that whatever the theoretical views of statesmen may be on the particular question of housing the poor, it is likely to occupy a great deal of attention from both parties in the immediate futuie. The Liberal leaders have been busy with the great question of the countyfranchise and the redistribution of seats. The Conservatives have felt themselves in the face of such a programme in great need of a cry of some kind, and they hare seized upon the " condition of the people question." Lord Salisbury, in an article in one of the reviews, has made an eloquent appeal for the better bousing of the poor, contending that it is really the question of the day, and is incomparably more important to the future welfare of the country than the mere offer of a vote to men who do not want it. "He deals briefly and witmuch force with the miserable condition of thousands of families who have only a single room to dwell in, where they sleep, eat, multiply and die. It is difficult to exaggerate the misery which such conditions of life must cause, or the impulse which they must give to vice, while the depression of body and mind thereby produced is an almost insuperable obstacle to the action of any reforming agencies." I Following upon this appeal, we have the would-be Conservative member for Liver- | pool coming forward and showing what ! has been done, and what can be done, in that city for the better housing of the poor. In 1840 he tells us that 175,000 of the [population belonged to the laboring classes, the majority of whom lived in courts, the condition of which cannot be described, while 40,000 were houaed in cellars. The Corporation took the matter in hand, proceeding cautiously and gradually. It took, he says, " five years to transplant the troglodytes," and a great I deal yet requires to be done to " remove I bad dwellings and substitute better ones." But an excellent beginning has been made, and Mr. Fob ward calculates that for £750,000 nearly the whole work could be accomplished. Such is the attitude attempted to be taken up by the Conser. I vatives, and those on tbe other side are bound to admit that Lord Salisbury has ■ shown not a little skill in selecting this question for special support. "The plain truth of the matter is," says the PaU Mall Gazette, that this question " is coming to the front with a rush, and Lord Salisbury thinks he can do nothing so profitable, either for his country or his party, as to force the pace. This being the case, it is to be hoped that no prominent Liberals, whether on the Press or in Parliament, will repeat the egregious blunder committed by many Conservatives in 1876, when they allowed the antipathy of the partizan to get the better of their sympathies with the oppressed, and became friends of the Turk because Mr. Gladstone had taken up the cause of the Bulgarian.''

Whether, th<?n, theoretically the question of the housing of the poor 'is one which rightly comes within the —mite of State interference or not, it is nevertheless likely to be dealt with. Such matters must after all be settled by an appeal to common sense. It is perfectly obvious that many schemes of so-called reform must be rejected on the ground j that they contain the elements of failure from the very first. For example, the modern schemes for the transfer of property from one class to another, apart from other obvjous objections, must be condemned, because they would fail to secure the end their advocates profess to have in view—the permanent advancement of the population* The confiscation of all the property in England, for example, and its division once more amongst those "whose fathers had been plundered of their land" would not permanently improve matters. Wholesale robbery is not likely to benefit those who have committed the crime, even if it were done on a national scale and for a professedly desirable end—the improvement of the condition of the masses. But there are cases where the State can legitimately interfere, and the proper housing of the people appears to us to be a matter calling for such interference. Giving them better houses and opportunities of living decently will not tend to degrade the population. On the contrary, by helping them in this way they will be enabled to help themselves. Any scheme of reform which acts as " a premium upon improvidence must be of ruinous tendency, far beyond the remedial efficacy," while one which tends to encourage provident habits deserves the careful attention of practical politicians.