Page images
PDF
EPUB

be hoped that it will be declared such before its natural amenities can be exploited and damaged by casual pioneers. For a notable and wise example of such policy, one may cite the case of the Milford Sound region in the South Island of New Zealand, which many years ago was scheduled as a national reserve for universal enjoyment. As a national park, the district of the Potaro, with its fine climate and its superb scenery, would form a valuable asset to the colony, not only as a goal for sight-seers, but also (which is far more important) as a useful retreat and hill-station for the European dwellers in Demerara itself. Of the desirability, not to say necessity, of some such health resort for our white residents there can be no question. At present our white men, women and children, who may require a change of bracing air and a higher altitude, are obliged to sail for some days, either to Jamaica with its mountain hotels or to Barbados, which, though hot, is free from fever. Mount Roraima, which is barely 180 miles (as the crow flies) from Georgetown, might well be utilized for this purpose. The construction of a railway and the consequent opening-up of the forest region lying between the Essequebo river and Roraima would prove an hygienic boon to the white residents, as well as a commercial gain to the whole colony.

In conclusion, it seems quite clear that the real impediment to the true progress of the colony is its present "thoroughly unsound financial system." Capital is urgently demanded at this moment for works of improved sanitation, for the encouragement of new and enlightened forms of agriculture, for the belated dredging of the Demerara river (on whose navigability the very existence of Georgetown as a port and as a capital depends), for the furtherance of more and more imported labour, and consequently of permanent settlers, and for the construction of at least one railway-line into the salubrious north-west region of Essequebo. The Commissioners thoroughly realize that to obtain these desirable ends a radical alteration in the present constitution of British Guiana is the first necessary step: an alteration that "will confer power on the Governor to carry into effect measures which he and the Secretary of State may consider essential for the well-being of the Colony." Whether the electorate in the colonywhose legal position seems to be unassailable-will consent to relegate their financial powers, derived from the old Dutch slaveowners, and conceived in a state of society that has long passed

away, appears to be an open question. But it is quite evident that unless and until these powers are resigned or very much curtailed, British Guiana will continue to languish for want of capital. In the event of an amendment to the constitution on the lines suggested by the Commissioners, no doubt the Imperial Government would afford much valuable help with regard to all these schemes of improvement and development that are now very much in the air; and the private investor would be encouraged to regard Demerara with favourable eyes. In a word, the fate of British Guiana lies in the choice of its electorate-whether to insist on the letter of the law, which has brought the colony to its present impasse, or to accept gracefully an abrogation of antiquated rights, in order to usher in a new era of social and commercial prosperity.

HERBERT M. VAUGHAN

HUMANITARIAN LONDON FROM 1688 TO 1750

I. London Life in the Eighteenth Century.
(Mrs. Eric George). Kegan Paul. 1925.

By M. DOROTHY GEORGE.

2. The English Poor in the Eighteenth Century; a Study_in_Social and Administrative History. BY DOROTHY MARSHALL, M.A., Ph.D. (Can

tab.) Routledge. 1926.

By C. 1860.

3. Memoirs of the Life and Times of the Pious Robert Nelson. F. SECRETAN, M.A., Incumbent of Holy Trinity, Westminster. 4. The Charitable Samaritan: or a Short and Impartial Account of That Eminent and Publick-spirited Citizen, Mr. Tho. Firmin, who departed this Life on Monday, December 20th, 1697. By A GENTLEMAN OF HIS ACQUAINTANCE. Printed in the Year 1698.

IN

N the year 1743, the Earl of Cholmondeley asked the House of Lords: "What can you do?" And so strongly did the House feel that something must be done to stop the drinking of gin that for once Lord Chesterfield found himself voting with the bishops. He had not, he said, had the honour of their company for many years.

Mrs. Eric George tells us what London did-more especially after the year 1750-to answer Lord Cholmondeley's question. She has made, she says, a rash attempt to give a picture of the life and work of the poor in London in the eighteenth century. We are not at all convinced of the rashness. We would rather say that she has given us a series of pictures-an inverse of the "Rake's Progress "—and has shown how London, instead of going from bad to worse, has, step by step, gone from bad to better. The process has, to borrow Mrs. George's words, been of improvement, not deterioration." We lay her book down in an optimistic, if not a complacent, mood. Like her, we cannot but admire "the people who responded so quickly to the beginnings of an improvement in their environment."

Dr. Dorothy Marshall gives us much valuable information on the working of the Poor Law in the eighteenth century. Her hope was, she tells us, to fill a gap. She has done this, and more than this, with enviable success. Her facts have been patiently delved for, are fully authenticated and ably displayed. No art could diffuse much sunlight over her pictures; but, after all,

Dr. Marshall gives us one bright gleam. "We must not forget," she concludes," that England, in her earnest attempt to discharge her responsibility for her poorest citizens, was in the van of social history. It is to her efforts in the past that the modern world owes the greater part of what knowledge it possesses of the practical difficulties of dealing with the problems of poverty."

Mrs. Eric George traces the improvement of London from the middle of the eighteenth century onwards; and Dr. Marshall, by a passing remark, hints that, perhaps inspired by Rousseau and other French influence, English philanthropy began its career about the same time. We incline to the belief that London began to improve before 1750; that even under Queen Anne and the first two Georges, London was not altogether benighted, and that English philanthropy was a home growth, owing little to any other country.

Dr. Marshall's obiter dictum is suggestive. We shall, we trust, be forgiven if we make it a text for two or three paragraphs. A comparison of the course of philanthropy in England with the course of philanthropy in France would be an interesting and instructive study. It would show how much our country owes to that freedom of utterance and of personal initiative which, just now, some are ready to deride.

To go back for a century before the year 1750, the England of 1650 lagged far behind France in things humanitarian. George Fox, it is true, was about to cry aloud to the people of England: "You are all of one mould and one blood." But memories of the scaffold at Whitehall were too fresh. The best elements in all parties were in conflict, and co-operation was impossible. Fox and his followers were soon to learn by tragic experience how great was the need of one of the reforms they asked for-the cleansing of the prison and the speedy deliverance of many a prisoner.

In the France of that time philanthropy was active and, furthermore, it was ably organized. Baron de Renty-so humbly and so highly praised by Isaac Watts-was the soul of that remarkable Compagnie du Trés-Saint Sacrement which had branches in every French city and, save towards Hugenots, abounded in good works.* There was other philanthropy of a different order.

*For information on this Secret Society see EDINBURGH REVIEW, April, 1926, pp. 321-335, art, "La Cabale des Dévots."

Yves de Paris was for establishing a common chest for artisans. Joly was for compiling a treatise on the rights of the downtrodden. In the next generation, Boisguilbert and Vauban enquired into the causes of the general woe. Racine interceded for the poor. But Joly's books were burnt by the common hangman. The censor crushed Boisguilbert and Vauban, and their writings were unread. Racine's pleading met with the royal displeasure. And Massillon, of whom Soulaire wrote in 1792 that in the palace he used the language of the Revolution, was doomed to preach in vain in a royal chapel to a heartless court. All these men were loyal to the throne and altar. The later humanitarians were in revolt.

After the Wars of Religion and under the limited toleration of Richelieu and Mazarin, philanthropy was alive. Its activities ended almost at the moment when, after the death of Mazarin, in 1661, Louis XIV assumed autocratic power. It may, perhaps, help us to understand the cessation of this earlier French philanthropy if we try to imagine what would have been the plight of England if the last two Stuarts had contrived finally to suppress parliament, local government and every stronghold of independent opinion; if the Protestant Dissenters had, like the Huguenots, been virtually exterminated; and if, at the same time, the most devout of English Churchmen and Churchwomen hadlike so many of the best French Catholics after the revival of Catholicism-flocked into the barren cloister. Add to this a royal veto on all personal initiative and on all combinations or associations of the laity for the public good. Enquiry into causes would have become impossible. Such a book as Berkeley's "Querist" would have brought its author to the jail or the pillory. Happily for England, the opposite was her case, and there was no lack of tracts and pamphlets propounding questions and answers.

To attempt to fix an exact date for the dawn of humanitarianism in London would be futile. The Revolution of 1688 is a convenient epoch. It began an era of toleration, compromise and partial co-operation. Very early came the conviction that prevention is better than cure. Before the Revolution, Hale could write that "the prevention of poverty, idleness and loose and disorderly education even of poor children [would] do more good to this kingdom than all the gibbets and cauterisations and VOL. 246. NO. 502.

S

« PreviousContinue »