VI.INDIVIDUALISM
The general tendencies which I have so far tried to indicate will have to be frequently noticed in the course of the following rages.One point may be emphasised before proceeding:a main characteristic of the whole social and political order is what is now called its 'individualism.'That phrase is generally supposed to convey some censure.It may connote,however,some of the most essential virtues that a race can possess.Energy,self-reliance,and independence,a strong conviction that a man's fate should depend upon his own character and conduct,are qualities without which no nation can be great.They are the conditions of its vital power.They were manifested in a high degree by the Englishmen of the eighteenth century.How far they were due to the inherited qualities of the race,to the political or social history,or to external circumstances,I need not ask.They were the qualities which had especially impressed foreign observers.The fierce,proud,intractable Briton was elbowing his way to a high place in the world,and showing a vigour not always amiable,but destined to bring him successfully through tremendous struggles.In the earlier part of the century,Voltaire and French philosophers admired English freedom of thought and free speech,even when it led to eccentricity and brutality of manners,and to barbarism in matters of taste.Englishmen,conscious and proud of their 'liberty,'were the models of all who desired liberty for themselves.Liberty,as they understood it,involved,among other things,an assault upon the old restrictive system,which at every turn hampered the rising industrial energy.This is the sense in which 'individualism,'or the gospel according to Adam Smith laissez faire,and so forth has been specially denounced in recent times.Without asking at present how far such attacks are justifiable,I must be content to assume that the old restrictive system was in its actual form mischievous,guided by entirely false theories,and the great barrier to the development of industry.The same spirit appeared in purely political questions.'Liberty,'as is often remarked,may be interpreted in two ways,not necessarily consistent with each other.it means sometimes simply the diminution of the sphere of law and the power of legislators,or,again,the transference to subjects of the power of legislating,and,therefore,not less control,but control by self made laws alone.The Englishman,who was in presence of no centralised administrative power,who regarded the Government rather as receiving Rower from individuals than as delegating the Rower of a central body,took liberty mainly in the sense of restricting law.Government in general was a nuisance,though a necessity;and properly employed only in mediating between conflicting interests,and restraining the violence of individuals forced into contact by outward circumstances.
When he demanded that a greater share of influence should be given to the people,he always took for granted that their power would be used to diminish the activity of the sovereign power;that there would be less government and therefore less jobbery,less interference with free speech and free action,and smaller perquisites to be bestowed in return for the necessary services.
The people would use their authority to tie the hands of the rulers,and limit them strictly to their proper and narrow functions.
The absence,again,of the idea of a state in any other sense implies another tendency.The 'idea'was not required,Englishmen were concerned rather with details than with first principles.Satisfied,in a general way,with their constitution,they did not want to be bothered with theories.