按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
less slaves？ If people by a plebiscite elect a man despot over them； do they remain free because the despotism was of their own making？ Are the coercive edicts issued by him to be regarded as legitimate because they are the ultimate outcome of their own votes？ As well might it be argued that the East African； who breaks a spear in another's presence that he may so become bondsman to him； still retains his liberty because he freely chose his master。 Finally if any； not without marks of irritation as I can imagine； repudiate this reasoning； and say that there is no true parallelism between the relation of people to government where an Responsible single ruler has been permanently elected； and the relation where a responsible representative body is maintained； and from time to time re…elected； then there comes the ultimate reply an altogether heterodox reply by which most will be greatly astonished。 This reply is； that these multitudinous restraining acts are not defensible on the ground that they proceed from a popularly…chosen body； for that the authority of a popularly…chosen body is no more to be regarded as an unlimited authority than the authority of a monarch； and that as true Liberalism in the past disputed the assumption of a monarch's unlimited authority； so true Liberalism in the present will dispute the assumption of unlimited parliamentary authority。 Of this； however； more anon。 Here I merely indicate it as an ultimate answer。 Meanwhile it suffices to point out that until recently； just as of old； true Liberalism was shown by its acts to be moving towards the theory of a limited parliamentary authority。 All these abolitions of restraints over religious beliefs and observances； over exchange and transit； over trade…combinations and the traveling of artisans； over the publication of opinions； theological or political； etc。； etc。； were tacit assertions of the desirableness of limitation。 In the same way that the abandonment of sumptuary laws； of laws forbidding this or that kind of amusement； of laws dictating modes of farming； and many others of like meddling nature； which took place in early days； was an implied admission that the State ought not to interfere in such matters； so those removals of hindrances to individual activities of one or other kind； which the Liberalism of the last generation effected； were practical confessions that in these directions； too； the sphere of governmental action should be narrowed。 And this recognition of the propriety of restricting governmental action was a preparation for restricting it in theory。 One of the most familiar political truths is that； in the course of social evolution； usage precedes law； and that when usage has been well established it becomes law by receiving authoritative endorsement and defined form。 Manifestly then； Liberalism in the past； by its practice of limitation； was preparing the way for the principle of limitation。 But returning from these more general considerations to the special question； I emphasize the reply that the liberty which a citizen enjoys is to be measured； not by the nature of the governmental machinery he lives under； whether representative or other； but by the relative paucity of the restraints it imposes on him； and that； whether this machinery is or is not one that he has shared in making； its actions are not of the kind proper to Liberalism if they increase such restraints beyond those which are needful for preventing him from directly or indirectly aggressing on his fellows needful； that is； for maintaining the liberties of his fellows against his invasions of them： restraints which are； therefore； to be distinguished as negatively coercive； not positively coercive。
Probably； however； the Liberal； and still more the sub…species Radical； who more than any other in these latter days seems under the impression that so long as he has a good end in view he is warranted in exercising over men all the coercion he is able； will continue to protest； knowing that his aim is popular benefit of some kind； to be achieved in some way； and believing that the Tory is； contrariwise； prompted by class…interest and the desire to maintain class…power； he will regard it as palpably absurd to group him as one of the same genus； and will scorn the reasoning used to prove that he belongs to it。 Perhaps an analogy will help him to see its validity。 If； away in the far East； where personal government is the only form of government known； he heard from the inhabitants an account of a struggle by which they had deposed a cruel and vicious despot； and put in his place one whose acts proved his desire for their welfare if； after listening to their self…gratulations； he told them that they had not essentially changed the nature of their government； he would greatly astonish them； and probably he would have difficulty in making them understand that the substitution of a benevolent despot for a malevolent despot； still left the government a despotism。 Similarly with Toryism as rightly conceived。 Standing as it does for coercion by the State versus the freedom of the individual； Toryism remains Toryism； whether it extends this coercion for selfish or unselfish reasons。 As certainly as the despot is still a despot； whether his motives for arbitrary rule are good or bad； so certainly is the Tory still a Tory； whether he has egoistic or altruistic motives for using State…power to restrict the liberty of the citizen； beyond the degree required for maintaining the liberties of other citizens。 The altruistic Tory as well as the egoistic Tory belongs to the genus Tory； though he forms a new species of the genus。 And both stand in distinct contrast with the Liberal as defined in the days when Liberals were rightly so called； and when the definition was 〃one who advocates greater freedom from restraint； especially in political institutions。〃 Thus； then； is justified the paradox I set out with。 As we have seen； Toryism and Liberalism originally emerged； the one from militancy and the other from industrialism。 The one stood for the regime of status and the other for the regime of contract the one for that system of compulsory co…operation which accompanies the legal inequality of classes； and the other for that voluntary co…operation which accompanies their legal equality； and beyond all question the early acts of the two parties were respectively for the maintenance of agencies which effect this compulsory co…operation； and for the weakening or curbing of them。 Manifestly the implication is that； in so far as it has been extending the system of compulsion； what is now called Liberalism is a new form of Toryism。 How truly this is so； we shall see still more clearly on looking at the facts the other side upwards； which we will presently do。
NOTE By sundry newspapers which noticed this article when it was originally published； the meaning of the above paragraphs was supposed to be that Liberals and Tories have changed places。 This； however； is by no means the implication。 A new species of Tory may arise without disappearance of the original species。 When saying； as on page 70； that in our days 〃Conservatives and Liberals vie with one another i