New-York tribune., 1885-02-01
THE NEW SOCIALIST.
-, cuANBERLAIN AS THE PROPHET VI
IN" A NEW JERUSALEM.

.tI,, nav n,r does it come from mouth
hitherto silent But it is more distinct tnah oeio,o
,d oore resonant of the base but glitterng metal
nv which its volume is augmented Mt o"A''"o'
lain has been speaking at Brmngha'r-ho' " ,O.~,
circumstance that, certainly, but nc mas w."
announcing n new era IN public lie anu nv"
dcparturc In politics, and this he n''
language of a very remarkable cnai"'.e' y. .,o1 n
cold long AGO that Mr.. Chamberlain soo'''0' "
's'' th,ucb he hestaed to express II
~. ~ ,,oI;,cs of the future werc to nave s''"
80, a. =, Nth Socialism. From time 10 'iu'o "o
-. faII a sentence which showed Keen oesie
20 conc;Iiate in ad-ance the new forces t"aV' H -,
tbouybt. were to be potentlin government quo,9"
soma Of these governmental deverances recently
II return to the subject it is not inetoN '''"
Ar Cbamberlain has made another speech he u
always making speeches, and they are, wDm'e'e'
eIss may be said OF them, very reaoao'e' '', ~
MAINLY oonsners that the moment mas con'o VIZ"
he NAV himself he moro plain-spoken th'n before
n n new era is dawning new departure 10 DC
49,, be means 10 be the herald of the one ana the
,oodar of the other There is every prooaohity
that he will be,-always provided that his forecast
Of tbe futuro be not mistaken The only competitor
whom he seems to fear is Lord Salisbury ana e ias
accordingly done his best to dsparage Loru sans
burvs claims to the authorship of the great conces-
sons inst made in resDeet to the franchise.
We used 70 hear q good deal of sir Charles DI!ke
as the Radical Minister of the future. but oT
Charles Dixie somehow has gone back as Mt Ona,''-
berlaln has come to the front. SPEAK vi 'ao
country as a whole In the House OF Coinnio"' 'uo
chelsea Baronet is perhaps more conslderaole
figure certainly moro popular ihhn' VIA" ''
friend from Birmingham. Bnt he makes no snch
impression on the imagination OF the masses as MT
Chamberlain does He takes o more moderate Ihc'
for one thing and he has not cultivated those arts
of speech from the platform to which the ffes'oeht
of the Board of Trade owes so much OF his present
hold on the country. For the moment, ana oe tho
reason what it may, Mr.. Chamberlain is the most
conspicuous political parsonage among the Liberals
next after Mr.. Gladstone. He describes himself,
rather cruelty ignoring his friend. as the Radical
member of a Liberal Government. And he has done
good deal in this latest harangue to Justify his
claim TO the monopoy-nOt the first monopoly
either which he has had share in creating. But
in order to do this, he has put new meaning to an
old word If Mr. Chamberlain is to be accepted as
q guide Radical is henceforth to mean something
not very different from Socialist. IL is his attempt
to merge the two. or ut least. to get Radical ana
Socialist to work together, which makes this last
speech so important.
If, says Mr.. Chamberlain, you will go back to
the origin of things yon will find that when our
social arrangements first began TO shape themselves.
rights with a right to share in the great nher-
itance of the community; with right to part of
the land of his birth The date when those rights
existed in the shape thus described, Mr.. Chamber
lain omts to specify Crude generalisies OF this
sort may do no particular mischief, but graver
matter follows at once All these rights, IL seems,
have passed away. Apathy and ignorance on the
one side, force and fraud on the other, have dis
possessed the original and rghtfnli owners
GPrivate ownership has taken the place of these
communal rights and this system has become so
interviewer with our habits and usages, it has been
so sanctioned by law and protected by custom. that
1t might be very diHicut and perhaps impossible to
reverse it," What is this but an ntimation that
Mr. Chamberlain wonld reverse it if he could' And
what would this reversal bo but tho adoption of
NJ Henry Georges moonshine doctrine of the
naturalization" of land Whether Mr.. Chamber
lain has really BEEN bitten by the particular mad
ness of that rhetorical enthusiast. / cannot say
But they have certain defects in common Both
Mr. Henry George and Mr. Chamberlain are men of
imperfect education. The range of Mr.. Chamber
lain's acquired knowledge of what has been done
IN the world before he was born into it, is not IN
proportion to the energy of his natural abilities.
His want of familiarity with the history of earlier
social organizations and of the very matters on
which he discouscs positively leads him to take
false views. The OF historical perspective is
wanting He and MIR. George are forever making
new discoveries of grievances and remedies each
old as time The fact that the remedy they propose
has been tried and failed would discredJ 1t with
most men. But men who are unaware of the facts
cannot he much impressed by them.
Then comes passage to which nothing but full
quotation can do justice:
But then ask what ransom will property pay
for the security which it eDjoys' What substitute
will il find for the natural rights which have ceased
to be recognIzedf I Society is bauted together IN
order to protect itself against the instincts OF
who would make very short work of private owner
ship if they were left alone. That is all sory WELL
but maintain that society to these men some
thing more than mere tolerat Oh in return for the
restrictions which it places upon their liberty of
action Thore is doctrine in many mems mouths
and in few mems practice that property has obiga-
tions as well as rights. / think in the future
shall hear great deal about the obligations of
property. and we shall not hear quite 40 much
about its rights"
1t was ProuahOu who first announced that Prop
erty is Robberyla proprietc oes le roI. Mr.. Cham
berlain's new gospel is less epgramtnatic; savors
perhaps moro of Rousseau and the Coatrdt Social
than of tho famous or infam ous pamphlets. Or
St-ce qne la PrOpriete," with which Proudh on
began his strange career. 1t is probable. moreover
that tho property against which Mr Chamberlain
neditates attack is landed property. He has
before now shown signs of singular halucination
IN this point; as If coniscation which began with
land would stop with land. His animosity against
an aristocracy based acreage has carried him
great lengths, aud seems likely to carry hlm much
greater He would probably disclam sympathy
With Proudhon, and condemn his maxim. and deny
hat his own doctrines had much in common with
those OF the French Nihist, for Nih;lst Proudhon
was. though he lived and died before TurgeneA
aad invented the namo. But the disclaimer and the
ienlal would signify little. When Proudhon
.nunciated his dogma. he was an almost unknown