CORRESPONDENCE.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9307, 7 January 1896, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

"MERRIE ENGLAND." j TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir,—Yonr criticism of "Merrie England" in your issue of Friday laat can hardly be considered fair, because you mis* repreeeut the principles and methods of Socialists. You say that " Socialism aa a heresy is based upon the belief that all men are in capacity or potentiality equal." That may be Socialism "as a heresy," but you will be first required to prove, that such a thing as Socialism as a heresy does exist. It certainly does not exist in " Merrie Bogland." .'You were dealing with that book, and it was hardly fair to charge " Nunquara" with teaching what he does not teach. He does not teaoh that "all men are in capacity or potentiality equal." You also say, after quoting Herbert Spencer's idea of human nature, that the "Socialists demand that the world should plunge blindly into a tremendous social revolution.": Socialists demand nothing of the kind. On the .contrary, the leaders.,of Socialism are fully aware that before Socialism can become a "practicable constitution" a great deal of hard work has to be done. They are willing to admit that the strongest barrier against Socialism to-day — a barrier which they are striving earnestly to remove—is the ignorance of the great mass of people of Socialistic principles. And they are fully alive to the fact that their task is a big one, and will take many years to accomplish. Again, you say " that * Nunquam' urges the poor to the spoliation of the rich." I cannot find where in "Merrie England "he does this; but on page 99 I find, " Socialism does not consist in violently seizing upon the property of the rich and sharing it out amongst the poor. Socialists do not propose by a single Act of Pariianiant or by a sudden revolution to put all men on an equality, and compel them to remain so. No, Socialism is none of these things. It is a scientific scheme of national government entirely wise, just and practical." '-.■'■ In the concluding sentence of your article you admit that under the present system things are not whac they should be, for you say " that modern industrialism and modern social existence need to be improved and reformed." Dα you think they would be improved by relinquishing what State Socialism we have already ? Do yon think they would be improved or reformed in this country by handing over our railways, Post and Telegraph System, State insurance, to private control? Would they be improved or reformed by the repeal of the Education Act, the Truck Act, tbo Factory Acts, and many other Acts, which are nothing more nor 1c33 than State Socialism ?—Youm. &c, INQOIEER.