It is only in the belief that a simple narrative of facts, exactly as they occurred, will show more vividly than an abstract statement can do, the dangers which threaten our free institutions, that I venture to offer this personal narrative to municipal voters, and particularly to women householders.
When, in 1879, I became a householder in Hastings I did not at all realize that I thereby acquired the right to vote in municipal affairs, and that this right necessarily involved a corresponding duty and responsibility—the duty, viz., of voting intelligently, and necessarily a certain responsibility for the way in which the government of the town was carried on.
I soon observed, however, that in the autumn, although I was neither a Conservative nor a Liberal, I was called on by the Conservative and the Liberal candidates for election to the Town Council to ask for my vote, and although these visits often led to interesting conversation, and my opinionswere assented to with the most flattering courtesy before the elections took place, I soon perceived that all influence ceased with the election; the matters went on in the same way without me as with me, and my supposed privilege of voting seemed really to be very much of a mockery. Being, moreover, a peaceable person, and much occupied with subjects of interest, it appeared to be rather a waste of time to concern myself with an election which was managed by cliques on strictly party issues, with no regard to questions of social well-being, nor necessarily to the selection of the wisest and best man, but only of the person who could in any way secure the largest party vote.
Being compelled, also, as far as my limited powers of observation admitted, to criticise the two great parties of the State, as both committing much injustice, and as rather guided by class selfishness than by high morality, I could not feel any enthusiasm for elections carried on by party strife.
I thus began to fall into that easy state of indifference which seems rapidly becoming the general condition of the mass of people who are supposed by their votes to control municipal affairs; I retained, however, an uneasy consciousness that in some way I was failing to meet a duty that was laid upon me. I was roused from this fatal moral lethargy by witnessing what seemed to me an act of gross injustice—viz., a robbery of the poor of their inheritance. This was the diversion of the funds of the Magdalen Charity (a bequest from the piety andbeneficence of past ages, now grown to an income of some thousands annually) to the foundation of a middle-class grammar school. The injustice was committed under the sanction of the Charity Commissioners, notwithstanding a brave fight by some of our conscientious inhabitants, carried on for more than two years. But class interests and short-sighted officialism proved stronger than justice in this case.
So painful an experience effectually opened my eyes to the irreligion of not attending to the duties which lie nearest to us, and I saw that the condition of the poor is very near to us. I fully realized, also, for the first time, the constant duty which rests upon all those to whom special municipal rights are given, to concern themselves with the management of the town in which they live, this responsibility especially resting upon every one on whom is laid the duty of voting. Beginning, then, to attend my parish meetings, my sympathy was soon aroused by seeing the bitter struggle of the industrious poor going on all around me, to avoid sinking into pauperism. Cases of inability to pay the rates were constantly coming before us[22]from weary struggling men and women, who, if they sometimes ‘drink and forget their poverty,’ demand pity more than blame.
Every year the pinch of poverty grew sharper. My own respectable young servant could not marryher decent lover because rent was so dear. As roomy lodging-houses and hotels spread along the sea-front, speculation grew, and the mass of the people were huddled together in smoky cram or squeezed out into dreary suburbs, far away from their work or from opportunities for honest industry. I soon also learned the horror with which the poor regard the workhouse; how they would willingly die in peace in the forlornest home rather than be forced into what they regard as a hopeless, cruel prison. My indignation deepened as I thought of the deed still in our archives, in which, ‘I, Petronilla de Cham, of Hastings, in the pure and lawful power of my widowhood,’ grant a tract of land for maintaining the poor old men and women of Hastings in decent maintenance and godly service; the brothers and sisters of the Magdalen Hospital. ‘And I, Lady Petronilla and my heirs will warrant and defend the aforesaid five acres of land with precincts, to be held by the brothers and sisters freely, quietly, well, and peacefully for ever,’ they praying for the souls of their benefactors.
As descendants of humane and pious ancestors, it seems to be as clearly a religious duty to consider the condition of the poor in 1885 as it was in 1292, when Lady Petronilla de Cham made her foundation gift to the Magdalen Charity.
The more I considered this important problem of how to aid the struggling poor in their heroic efforts to live decently, the more important to my mind became the subject of taxation; how the rates ofa town are raised, and how they are expended. Unhappily, we see all over the country that, in the same way, ancient endowments for doles, retreats, pensions, and portions are swept away because the workhouse system is said to provide for the poor; ancient endowments for training, clothing, and apprenticing poor children are also swept away, because the ‘Board of Education provides for the poor.’ Thus the various necessities of social life, education, benevolence, etc., are being committed to the hands of officials—i.e., everything is rapidly being thrown upon the rates, until the rates crush the poor into pauperism.
Now, the question of rates is not at first sight an attractive one, particularly to a person who has unusually little talent for arithmetic. But in the present day they take the place of ancient beneficence, and are administered by Town Councils instead of Church organizations. I therefore determined to attend a meeting which was being called to meet the Local Government official, in order to obtain sanction for a new loan. This was my first appearance at a ‘Statutory’ meeting. To my surprise, when I took a seat at the Council Board, I found that I was the only non-official ratepayer present, although the sum to be borrowed was a large one. It was stated that this proposal had received the unanimous assent of the ratepayers. To this statement I was compelled to make a short protest, as I had learned from inquiries that many ratepayers knew nothing about the proposed loan.I was informed that the time for objections had not arrived; and the London official proceeded to inquire into various details of the way in which the loan of six thousand guineas was to be spent, extent of grading, kind of concrete, etc. When all was completely settled I was then requested to state any objection I had to make. I spoke of the burdens of taxation on the poor, and I begged to know what was the present debt of the town. I found that with this new loan our municipal debt would be nearly a quarter of a million. This seemed a very large debt for a small town, where the people found a difficulty in paying their rates, and as a prudent housekeeper I objected to go into debt for our municipal housekeeping. I was informed by the Local Government Board Inspector that ‘that was a question to be settled at the polls.’ So, of course, my single protest was of no practical use. This occurred in August. I then thought that, as the November elections were approaching, it might be useful to try and get municipal questions discussed with the candidates who were to be elected for three years to the Town Council.
The proposed councillor in my parish cordially assented to the proposal I ventured to make to him—viz., that he should meet the ratepayers before the time of the elections, and discuss with them various important questions which would come before the decision of the Town Council. This gentleman willingly promised to attend such a meeting if it were called.
Unfortunately, I could not find any householderwilling to aid in such an effort. The following is a type of the responses received from householders:
‘I do not think my presence at a conference would be of any service. I have so little knowledge of municipal affairs, never having attended a meeting since I resided in Hastings.’ The same sort of answer came from busy tradesmen and leisured gentry. It therefore seemed that a more decided educational effort was needed, an effort to show our voters how a Town Council really represented in modern days much of the practical action of the Church in past ages, and that it ought really to present the Theocratic idea—i.e., government by the Highest Good. But here, too, unhappily, I could find no one who did not seem to think that the function of a Town Council was to save them all trouble and responsibility, and that it must be elected on party grounds.
Thus, more and more I recognised the profound character of the disease of indifference, which has become endemic in our municipalities, and the urgent need of remedial measures. I therefore entered into correspondence with the Social and Political Education League, which has borne in succession the honoured names of Professor Seeley and Mr. Froude as Presidents. I received a cordial letter from the honorary secretary, who forwarded a list of 107 names of lecturers, with numerous addresses that they would be willing to deliver. Unfortunately, in this printed list of several hundred lectures I could find nothing that met our specialneed—viz., short, simple, progressive instruction, inviting questions, ‘on the use of a Town Council and the meaning of a vote.’ I was meditating on what to do when I became most unexpectedly involved in municipal work, where I was compelled to take a prominent part, for which I was not fitted either by knowledge or experience.
At the town meeting in August already referred to, when the addition to the public debt was made, a Corporation Bill was spoken of, which appeared to be of very great importance, and which was to come before the town later. I therefore watched the notices by the church doors, and marked down the date of the Statutory Meeting, which must be called in order to sanction this Bill. I was much surprised not to see attention strongly called to this important measure by the local press and others; but the local politicians were all in such a state of excitement because Hastings was to lose one of its Parliamentary representatives that the way in which municipal affairs were carried on seemed to excite no interest. I called at the Town Clerk’s Office a few days before the meeting to sanction the Bill was to take place, and asked for a copy of the Bill, but was told that there were ‘no copies’ for ratepayers; neither could the Bill be seen. I spoke to about ten persons in the course of the day, but no one knew anything about the Bill. I then wrote to several ratepayers to beg them to attend the Statutory Meeting. One replied that there must be a mistake as to date, naming a meeting three dayslater, which, being a ‘Party’ meeting on Redistribution, entirely drew attention from the municipal meeting. Another householder consulted a gentleman friend, who told her that the proposed Bill was one to lessen taxation, so there was no need of attending the meeting. I was unable to find a single ratepayer who knew anything about the Bill, or had even heard of it. The time came, a very stormy evening; about seventy persons attended out of over 8,000 ratepayers. No one had seen the Bill, which, from the short abstract given by a Councillor, was evidently of the utmost importance to every class of the inhabitants, and particularly to the industrious classes. It was urged by the Town Council Committee in charge of the Bill that no opposition to it should be made, for two reasons. In the first place, the next day was the last chance of registering the Bill for the present Session of Parliament, and a year would be lost if the Bill were not accepted that night; in the next place, it was stated that any opposition would be very expensive to the town, for, as they had already paid £500 for the expenses of the Bill, and would pay about as much more to complete it, if any opposition were raised it would cost the town some thousands of pounds.
As no other ratepayer seemed to discover any flaw in these statements, I ventured to suggest that, as no one amongst us had seen the Bill, we ought not to sanction it without any opportunity of examination, and that it would be better to lose a Sessionthan do so. I therefore begged to move an adjournment; this was seconded by a ratepayer, but not put to the meeting. The Bill was accepted in the name of the ratepayers by a vote of 47, the Parliamentary agent who directed the proceedings most courteously assuring me that ‘there would be ample time to object to the Bill in London.’ Of course, I knew, and many of the poorer ratepayers present knew, that it would be too late to consider the Bill after it was accepted in our names; but I was struck with the inability of those present to formulate their objections, although much dissatisfaction manifested itself in the meeting. Entire ignorance (in which I fully shared) also existed as to what steps to take in such a case. Had I insisted, as I ought to have done, upon the motion for adjournment being put, it would probably have been rejected by a small majority. But I was utterly ignorant of what was right to do in such a strange position, and it seemed almost unladylike for me alone to oppose the Mayor and Town Council, with their Parliamentary Committee and legal advisers, particularly as it was insisted that opposition meant distrust of the Council, whereas I thought simply of my duty as a ratepayer. I did not know then, and no one present seemed to know, that any ratepayer has a right to demand a poll; and, if insisted on, it must have been allowed. In this case the few pounds it would have cost the town would have been well expended, in delaying what proved to be an exceedingly bad and retrograde Bill. But nothing has struck memore in this singular experience than the utter ignorance of all our otherwise intelligent burgesses as to the steps by which their municipal rights may be guarded, either in the borough or in London. This ignorance seems to arise from the inattention and habit of indifference to municipal duties produced, not only by the pressure of private affairs, but by exclusive absorption in party politics.
As soon as the Corporation Bill was thus nominally accepted by the burgesses, copies of the Bill were allowed to circulate. I saw at once, on scanning this enormous Bill of 243 folio pages, thus sprung upon the town, that it was a very retrograde Bill, and would prove especially tyrannical to the poor. Being fully convinced that a fundamental duty of any community is to guard the industrious poor from being crushed into paupers, I looked at the Bill from that point of view, and was shocked by it. It was drawn up to favour the growth of that modern mistake, a fashionable lodging-house town, by endeavouring to attract rich temporary visitors, instead of promoting permanent productive industry. By its provisions it largely increased the debt of the town; it withdrew expenditure from control of the ratepayers; it provided for a largely-increasing bureaucracy, by placing all the new institutions under officials of the Town Council; it confirmed and established a virtual octroi on coal and the necessaries of life; it introduced the most minute and arbitrary regulations in relation to building, sanitary inspection, police arrests; it re-enacted theobsolete regulation which regards vice as female; and in many other ways it sought to convert the Town Council into masters instead of servants of the people.
I immediately commenced asking individual ratepayers if they had seen this Bill, which interfered with every class of inhabitant. No one had seen it, and later inquiry seemed to prove that not one member even of the Town Council itself had read the Bill carefully through, outside the little Parliamentary Committee who followed the guidance of the London official agent.
I am glad to say that the first note of serious public alarm was sounded by the Medical Profession, who, finding they were to be turned into family spies by this Bill, refused to submit, and, having an organized medical society unanimous in opinion, they commenced an opposition to those objectionable clauses which affected their position. But weeks of precious time were lost before attention was aroused to the generally tyrannical character of the Bill. At last the growing discontent found a voice in an active, enlightened burgess. A crowded public meeting was held, attended largely by the poorer ratepayers, and a committee was formed to see what amendments could be introduced. But there was then not time to examine thoroughly this enormous Bill before it was read in Parliament. Here, again, two circumstances were noteworthy. First of all, the complete indifference of the richer inhabitants to the Bill and to all that involvedtrouble on their part, with the dread of the poorer inhabitants of the frightful law expenses which opposition would entail.
The second noteworthy point was the utter ignorance of all parties as to the best and exact method of procedure in the various steps necessary to be taken in seeking to amend or oppose the Bill—as, for instance, the times allowed for the various stages, the parties to address, the ways of addressing them, the rights of the burgesses to appear, etc. No one, either layman or lawyer, possessed exact detailed knowledge.
For my part, I sought information at headquarters in London. Here, once for all, I beg to state that nothing can exceed the courtesy and often kindness with which my crude inquiries have always been met by those highest in authority. Indeed, all my life long, though painfully compelled to work against rather than with social conditions, I have always found men eager to help an honest, unselfish worker.
In London I learned some rather surprising facts. These facts may be thus briefly summarized: First, that it is the effect of the action of the Central Government to weaken the Municipalities by encouraging them to run heavily into debt; secondly, that, taking advantage of their weakness, they apparently intend to assume themselves the authority that has hitherto resided in the Municipalities as self-governing communities.
These are very serious facts, not at all due, Ithink, to any influence exerted by the enlightened heads of Departments, who change with every administration, but to the enormous growing system of permanent officialism, which acts like a tremendous machine, crushing individual freedom, because it naturally seeks to work without friction. The term ‘vortex,’ familiarly applied to the system when any individual interest is drawn into its current, well expresses the terrible power of these official forces.
My first amazement was awakened by the reply to my objection concerning the increased power of borrowing given by our Hastings Bill to a little town of 40,000 inhabitants, that already had a debt of nearly a quarter of a million. ‘What is the rateable value of your town?’ was asked. ‘£300,000.’ ‘And do you consider a quarter of a million a large debt? Why, let me tell you, your town is most fortunate in having such a small debt! Do you not know that Government allows you to borrow to the extent of two years’ annual rating?’
Such was the astounding view taken by a political economist of the duty of Government. I thought of our hundreds of poor ratepayers unable to pay their taxes. I thought of the statistical report that ‘In Great Britain the municipal and other local debts rose in the period of ten years from 84 to 140 millions,’ and I was simply dumb with fear for the future. For I have already seen that power to borrow means encouragement to borrow, and that the municipal purse is not regarded as a Trust, tobe more scrupulously guarded than the private purse.
My next discovery related to sanitary and police clauses, and particularly to those which pressed especially upon women. I maintained that there were no such things as good brothels; that they were illegal institutions, to be gradually and steadily suppressed by the growing morality of the people, who should be encouraged by increased facilities to set the law in motion; and that any legal distinction as to bad houses that were ‘a nuisance to the neighbourhood’ was a mischievous distinction. I also pointed out that the term ‘prostitute’ should be entirely struck out of all legislative enactments as an obsolete injustice, and that any necessary checks to growing vice should apply to ‘all persons habitually or persistently’ offending.
These honest suggestions were considered quite impracticable in official circles; but I learned that the Central Government would be quite ready to strike out any unusual local provision in order to take all sanitary and police measures into its own hands.
This appeared to me a most alarming intention. Surely a deadly blow would be struck at individual liberty if all sanitary and police regulations were to be drawn into the ‘vortex.’ The mistakes of municipalities rouse individual conscience, and may be turned to the education of the community; but take away this natural power of growth, and we become a feeble, self-seeking mass, swayed by demagogues, and the slaves of official Bastilles.
I began to understand the wide bearing of a fact that had excited my surprise a short time previously. Scandals occurring in one of our new parks, permission had been obtained from the Local Government Board to place an additional policeman there. Noticing this fact, I asked our Councilman: ‘Why on earth did you consult the Local Government Board about our own policemen? Does not our Watch Committee attend to our police matters?’ He replied: ‘Oh, don’t you know that the Local Government Board pay part of our police expenses?’ Looking over the Borough Accounts for 1884, there, sure enough, I find this police item: Treasury contribution, £1,881 16s. 1d.
Our poor tax-payers cannot pay their rent, so we rob Peter to pay Paul; we get money from the General Government, which all have to contribute to supply, with the idea of lessening local rates, and in return allow the central authorities to interfere with our police. Surely this is selling our birthright for a very deceptive mess of pottage!
As our Town Council became aware of the legitimate discontent which existed respecting the Bill they had sent up to London, with really imperfect knowledge of its contents, they endeavoured with willing courtesy to meet the Ratepayers’ Committee, and at the last moment for legal opposition, certain important amendments were accepted by the Council, which removed the power of arbitrary arrest by the police, and softened some of the other harsh interference with individual rights.
The People’s Committee were compelled to accept these imperfect concessions. The limit of time for opposing the Bill had arrived. No rich or leisured resident showed the slightest concern in this measure. The remark had been made to me by a high London authority: ‘If your townspeople really consider this such a bad Bill, then they have nothing to do but to put their hands in their pockets and raise the money to oppose it.’ This remark shows how little rich people, high in authority, know of the conditions of life in a fashionable lodging-house town. The work of revising this Bill—work necessarily incomplete—had been done by burgesses of moderate means and overwhelmed by private cares, and the time needed for this public work had been stolen from sleep. There was neither possibility of withdrawing a Bill on which much public money had been already expended, nor of raising the heavy sums of money necessary to carry on legal opposition to it.
Thus, a new Corporation Bill of most retrograde character has been forced upon the town—a Bill which greatly strengthens the official or bureaucratic organization, removes much of the control of ratepayers over expenditure, plays into the hands of a centralizing Government, establishes protective duties on the necessaries of life, and vexatiously interferes in various ways with the legitimate personal liberty of the inhabitants.
The latest ‘Battle of Hastings,’ in 1885, has ended in defeat.
This familiar narrative of late experience in one of our little towns is now given for a practical purpose.
A similar course of things appears to be taking place in all our towns, large and small. Unchecked, this neglect of social duty and thoughtless submission to official formalism must steadily deteriorate our national character. It can only be checked by the voluntary organization of individuals who will resolutely battle for the Theocratic principle of human rights against the selfish demagogueism of party strife. The plainest fact in history is the Divine Moral Government of the world. A nation given up to selfishness and lust always degenerates and perishes, and is replaced by new races. This is the great lesson of the ages. We only fail to read it because the method of action of the Creative Power is so much grander and surer than the methods of our individual action. But all that is strongest and noblest in our human nature can be but a faint reflection of what is immeasurably stronger and nobler in the Almighty Creative force. The careful study of our own human needs measured and limited by the needs of all other human beings is the foundation of all growth. This mutual limitation and government of human rights by human duties is Theocracy. It alone can be a permanent form of Government, for a righteous democratic rule must inevitably be Theocratic rule.
If the Churches cannot yet see that the educationof the people in their municipal life is the urgent need of the age, if political parties are too corrupt or self-seeking to learn the same lesson, then help must come from other sources. Perhaps women ratepayers not yet entangled in party politics, and men who have risen above them may hear the Divine voice which speaks to them, and may kindle a little sacred fire which will grow into a beacon-light to the nation.
It is now urgently necessary to consider the way in which organizations of householders may be gradually formed in all our municipalities, for the purpose of mutual education and legitimate criticism.
An unofficial organization, sufficiently suited to respond promptly to any sudden municipal call, has really become of vital importance. The animating centre of such organizations must be three or four earnest, unselfish persons (a true Theocratic brotherhood) who will carefully study municipal or social questions, and plan and initiate a work of gradual education, particularly addressed to women voters and our poorer ratepayers. I especially mention women because nothing has been done for their enlightenment as to the new duties laid upon them in 1867. It is a noteworthy fact that when 2,000,000 more men were lately placed on the register, the most active efforts of the Cobden Club and others were at once given to instruct these new voters after party fashion, but no effort whatever has been made directly to instruct the hundredsof thousands of women to whom the municipal vote, the corner-stone of our political system, was given in 1867.
There are questions of policy having a large and important national bearing which need to be studied by united householders. Few persons know clearly what should be the direct action and indirect influence of a Town Council—its duty to resist encroachment by the central government; its duty to encourage the interest and action of burgesses in their own institutions, and to diminish the number of irresponsible officials; its duty to consider the public purse as a solemn trust, and to invite careful study of municipal accounts.
The abolition of obsolete practices, the consideration of changes or adaptation to modern needs of municipal regulations, need consideration by householders.
Few burgesses seem to know that ten ratepayers in a parish possess the right to nominate any one of their fellow ratepayers to represent them for three years on the Town Council. The nominations are now made in secret by party cliques, a practice never intended by our Constitution. This mischievous practice can be directly checked by the liberty of independent action thus provided for. I have already referred to the right to demand a poll at any statutory meeting where serious objection is taken to any proposed measure, a most important guarantee of municipal liberty, quite unknown, apparently, to the majority of ratepayers.
I need not enter upon the important questions of the selection of Poor-law guardians, of members of School Boards, and other officers supposed to be elected by ratepayers, because the same criticism applies to all. At present, indifference to all these important elections prevails unless a sharp contest springs up on party politics. Yet questions really vital to our national welfare are involved in these apparently minor points in our municipal housekeeping, and I believe that the indifference now felt towards our borough elections, when not stimulated by party strife, proceeds from ignorance of these larger relations.
It is in the hope of seeing this great municipal education begun on a large plan, quite above party strife, that I have ventured to refer to this episode of personal experience.
Those who profoundly believe in the moral government of this world, and who would help in establishing a true Theocracy, must seek truth from all sources. Our modern prophets, Herbert Spencer, John Ruskin, and many another seeker for truth, must be earnestly listened to; not as gods, but as men who with human limitations, nevertheless through evil and good report, never swerve from the steadfast unselfish search for truth—men who are enabled to see clearly great aspects of Divine truth, and who can refresh and guide us in our humbler, but providential task. Such men are often the truest followers of our Lord in this nineteenth century.
To all women voters, to all our poorer ratepayers, I earnestly recommend the formation of a union for the study of municipal rights and duties, and I hope that my humble but earnest effort in this direction will enlist the sympathy and guidance of all those truth-seers most able to help us.
FOOTNOTES:[22]Between four and five hundred summonses for rates this quarter in our little town.
[22]Between four and five hundred summonses for rates this quarter in our little town.
[22]Between four and five hundred summonses for rates this quarter in our little town.