The Promotion of Happiness

8/6/2019 The Promotion of Happiness

1/200


2/200


3/200


4/200


5/200


6/200


7/200


8/200


9/200


10/200


11/200


12/200


13/200


14/200


15/200


16/200


17/200


18/200


19/200


20/200


21/200


22/200


23/200


24/200


25/200


26/200


27/200


28/200


29/200


30/200


31/200


32/200


33/200


34/200


35/200


36/200


37/200


38/200


39/200


40/200


41/200


42/200


43/200


44/200


45/200


46/200


47/200


48/200


49/200


50/200


51/200


52/200


53/200


54/200


55/200


56/200


57/200


58/200


59/200


60/200


61/200


62/200


63/200


64/200


65/200


66/200


67/200


68/200


69/200


70/200


71/200


72/200


73/200


74/200


75/200


76/200


77/200


78/200


79/200


80/200


81/200


82/200


83/200


84/200


85/200


86/200


87/200


88/200


89/200


90/200


91/200


92/200


93/200


94/200


95/200


96/200


97/200


98/200


99/200


100/200


101/200

THE PROMOTION OF HAPPINESS. 93

regions, mining regions, regions in which iron is

manufactured, and so on. Certainly such monotonyof occupation is unpleasant in itself, and must alsoproduce narrow-mindedness, and cramp the humanintellect, and may so diminish happiness ; if it can beproved that happiness is at all in proportion to know-ledge. But this is rather a minor consideration. Aseemingly more serious way in which free trade, bytending to limit particular areas of

the world toparticular industries, may be prejudicial to happiness isthat it may intensify the horrors of war. A countrydependent on foreign countries for many of the neces-saries of life may suffer terrible privation when debarredby an enemy from external commerce. Of this dangerthe United Kingdom is a conspicuous example, since owingto free trade we import yearly 146,000,000 bushels ofwheat and only produce about half that amount. Thecorn produced in England annually is not nearly enoughto feed the teeming population. It follows from thisstate of affairs that, if Britain should ever be blockadedby a superior naval enemy, the sufferings of the populationfrom starvation would be terrible. The same is true in aless degree of many other countries partially dependenton foreign supplies. Thus free trade tends to intensifythe horrors of war. But perhaps this is after all not anevil. The more horrible war is, the more nations will keepthe peace, and the more quickly wars will be finished.So that free trade while intensifying the horrors ofwar would seem to tend to make wars less frequentand of less duration.

As this effect and that of the cramping of ideashave no very great influence on happiness, theconsideration of free trade for the most part drivesus back to the old open question between optim-ism and pessimism. For the same reason thatshould make optimists discourage and pessimistsencourao-e socialistic reforms, optimists should ap-


102/200

94 THE PROMOTION OF HAPPINESS.

prove and pessimists disapprove of such a power-

ful means of increasing population as free trade is.Limitation by law of the amount of labour stands

on much the same footing as protection, inasmuchas by limiting production it tends to keep downthe population of the world. It is looked upon bymany friends of the poor as a panacea for the woesof the working classes. They suppose that it will

improve the lot of the labourer, firstly, by lighteningthe burden of men's work, by protecting women againstunsuitable work, and by saving young childrenfrom having to work at other than their schooltasks, and secondly by diminishing productionand so enabling labour to be more profitable andto secure higher prices. These were the objects

aimed at by the Swiss Government whenthey

invited the European Governments to meet at Bernein September, 1889, to consider the labour question.Their programme included, first, prohibition ofSunday labour ; secondly, fixation of a minimumage for the admission of children to factories ; thirdly,fixation of a maximum for the daily labour of youngworkmen ; fourthly, prohibition of the employmentof women and young workmen in such industriesas are specially injurious to health ; fifthly, limitationof night labour for women and young workmen ; andsixthly, stipulations for the execution of the Conventionto be eventually concluded. Usually such schemesinclude a definite proposal to limit the hours ofwork to eight hours daily. All the proposals tendto have, and are intended to have the same result,namely, lessening of the burden of daily work anddiminution of production.

The following considerations will make it clearthat the increase of wages hoped for from thediminution of production is a vain hope, and thatsuch proposals, if approved of at all, must be so solely


103/200


because they lighten the over heavj' average burden

of labour. The only way in which diminution ofproduction could increase the profits of labour is, if it

were confined to some single industiy productiveof a necessary of life for which no substitute couldbe found, and if production in that industry werelimited all over the world. For instance, if coal-miners all over the world agree to work only si.x;

hours a day in order to limit production of coal, theprice of coal would lise perhaps so high that theminers would get as high wages for six hours' workas they now get for a full day's work. But evenunder such improbable circumstances, these high

wages, which, after all, would not be high absolutely,but only in comparison with the amount of woikdone, could not long be maintained. Even if thehigh price of coal did not fall before increased pro-

duction of petroleum and other substitutes, labourerswould desert other industries and crowd into coal-mining in order to get good wages for short hoursof work, and this competition would infallibly bring-down the wages of coal mining, until the miners werepaid very much less for their six hours than theyused to be paid for their full day's work. Thuseven under the most favourable conditions thepolicy of limited production would, far from better-ing the condition of the working classes, lead totheir getting a smaller amount of wages daily.

It may be urged on the contrary that trades unionscan sometimes prevent the competition of outside

labourers, and that thus the coal miners might, inthe case we are considering, receive for their halfday's work almost as much as the wages before givenfor a full day's work. This is true, but does not

affect the question from a general point of view. Thegain of the coal miners in this case would be at the

expense of all other wage earners, who in the matter


104/200


105/200


compatible with profitable industry, but objects to

legislative action establishing a universal eight hours'day of work, on the grounds that if " eight hours'labour be translated to mean, that no works of anydescription are to be conducted for more than eighthours in each twenty-four hours, the giving legaleffect to a prohibition of this kind would be certainlyruinous to many of the largest industries in this

country," and that, "to prevent men in all kindsof labour from working more than eight hoursout of twenty-four may, and in some cases would,involve a serious reduction of tlie wages liithertoreceived."

On account of the necessity of such results, schemesfor the diminution of production by lessening the hoursof labour of the men and the amount of work doneby women and children, are by some of their advo-cates intended to extend to the whole world. Sucha universal extension of the limitation of labour in

the present state of the world is chimerical. Therewould be little hope of arriving at an internationalagreement to include China, Japan, India, the Republicsof South America and the whole world. But, even ifit could be arranged, no benefit would accrue to thelabouring classes, at least, not the anticipated benefitof hiffher wa^es. If such a world-embracinfj schemewere realized, the diminished supply would not beenough for the demand, and, therefore, it is supposedthat the labours of production would be better re-warded. But those who argue thus, forget that pro-

ducers are also consumers, and that the possibility ofmaking large profits owing to the scarcity of theirproduction would be defeated by the correspondingscarcity of what they themselves require, tools fortheir work, and food and clothing, and other neces-saries and luxuries. Under these circumstances, evenif the labourer got larger money wages, he would be

G


106/200


able to buy so much less for the same amount of

money that he would not be benefited. From aconsideration of this fact, Jevons goes to the veryopposite extreme, and asserts that " a real increase ofwages to the people at large, is to be obtained onlybj' making things cheaply," that is, by increasing theproduce of labour. But this seems to ignore the factthat cheapness of products leads to increase of popu-lation, which increase tends to lower wages

byin-

creasing the supply of labourers. The fact seems tobe that neither diminution of production nor increaseof production can clearly be shown to improve wagespermanently. On the whole perhaps it would bebetter to increase than to diminish production, asdiminution of production would cause a temporarydiminution of happiness until the population of theworld adjusted itself to the diminished production,and this adjustment would not be effected withoutmuch misery and starvation. When the new stateof affairs that would be introduced by universaldiminution of production is established, we shallonly have, instead of a larger population receivinglarger jiay for more work, a smaller populationreceiving a smaller amount of pay for less work.So the advantage to happiness of lighter workwould be cancelled by the disadvantage of insuffi-cient food.

Thus the optimist utilitarian at any rate shouldnot advocate limitation of labour. Perhaps the pessi-mist might be moved to do so on account of thediminution of the world's population, making allow-ance, however, for temporary misery caused by theadjustment of the population to the limited pro-duction. The majority of the world wlio are neitheroptimists nor pessimists should join with the optimistin maintaining the status quo.

The foregoing remarks mainly apply to the diminu-


107/200


tion of the daily labour of men. They also applj'-,

butin a less degree, to limitation of the labour of

women and children, as that limitation also diminishesproduction. At any rate, more is produced when notonly men but also women work. The case of youngchildren is different. If they work in factories, theycannot be properly educated, and their intelligencesuffers, and want of intelligence diminishes production.But whether production is limited or not by regula-tion of the labour of women and children, theutilitarian should give such regulation his support.The sacrifice of happiness involved in mothers engag-ing in hard work, and leaving their infants to befed on artificial food, and their homes to take care ofthemselves, and in depriving childhood of the pleasantalternation of school and play is very great, far

greater than the misery suffered by over - workedmen ; and, after all, the labours of women andchildren do not to any appreciable extent lightenthe labours of husband and father. Of course, a manand a woman can earn more than a man can byhimself, and even young children may add a pittanceto the family income. This knowledge makes the poor

labourer accept lower wages or marry earlier, as hehopes that his wife will add to his earning, and that,if he has any children, they will at a very early agecontribute to their own support. But such early mar-riages prevent the labours of women and children fromraising the standard of comfort among labourers, who,if they have to depend on their own exertions, andtherefore marry later, are as well ofi' as if theymarried early in the hope of being partly supportedby their wives and children. Early marriage, renderedpossible by wife and children being allowed to over-task themselves in physical labour, does not seem to

be desirable. Under such circumstances, domestichappiness must be extinguished in the necessity of


108/200

loo THE PROMOTION OF HAPPINESS

heavy labour laid upon weak and strong alike.

Therefore, no utilitarian is likely to blame the factorylaws of England, which, for the most part leavinggrown-up men to themselves, protect women andchildren against excessive work, and do not allowvery young children to work at all. Such legisla-tion might profitably be carried to further extremes,if the nations adopting it could be protected by some

such international agreement as that proposed bySwitzerland against the danger of being undersold byother nations who do not put the same restrictions uponlabour.

But though limitation of production would not reallybetter the condition of the working classes even if itgave the labourer higher money wages, is it not possibleby any means to increase the real reward as opposed tothe pecuniary wages of the working man? Co-operation,trades unions, and strikes are the usual meansemployed for the attainment of this object. Now thereis no doubt that determined strikes have often producedincrease in wages, and so bettered the condition of theworkmen. On the other hand it is equally certain thatmany strikes, especially unsuccessful strikes, havedissipated the savings of poor workers and so reducedthem to poverty. Tliese two good and bad effectsmay be regarded from a working man's point ofview as about balancing each other. But what fromthe same point of view should incline the balancein favour of strikes is the good effected by the fearof strikes. It is this that prevents the capitalist em-

ployer all over Europe from venturing to pay verylow wages to his workmen when he is himselfmaking very high profits, in case he should there-by be involved in a ruinous contest with them.This fear will not, however, make him pay such highwages as would deprive him of the average rate otprofit on capital, and, if the men insist upon an exces-


109/200


110/200

I02 THE PROMOTION OF HAPPINESS.

to demand higher wages. In this case capitalists,liaving no foreign country with lower wages to transfertheir capital to, might consent to take less profit. Ifall European labourers could come to some such agree-ment, how could the same sentiment of resistance to theclaims of capital be instilled into the Chinese andHindoo labourer ? Would they not be likely ratherto jump at the increased employment in agriculturaland manufacturing industries opened up to themby the obstinacy of their European rivals ? If, how-ever, in the future, by improved communication, theworking classes all over the world can combinefor concerted action, they may win for themselvesat the expense of the capitalist's profits much higherwages than they now have. Let us consider thenwhether such a result would promote the sum ofhuman happiness.

The question may to a certain extent be answeredby appeals to experience. Wages are very high inAmerica and Australia, very low in India. Is theaverage happiness of mankind much greater inAmerica and Australia than it is in India ? The

question would be hard to answer. The diflPerencebetween the climate, religion, and political position ofIndia and of those two countries is so great that, ifany difference in happiness could be traced, it wouldbe rash to attribute it to difference in the rate ofwages. It would be more to the purpose to comparethe happiness of England and the United States,because, although there is less difference

between theaverage wages of England and the United Statesthan between the average wages of India and theUnited States, England and the United States veryclosely resemble each other in climate, religion, govern-ment and other conditions, on which happiness mainlydepends. On the whole, life would appear to behappier or less miserable in North America than it is


111/200


in England. At least this is the conclusion indicated

bythe comparative estimates of travellers and by

the doubtful evidence of suicide. From the suicidestatistics collected by Morselli it appears that suicideis about twice as common in England as in theUnited States. This superiority in happiness of

Americans over Englishmen may most naturally be ascrib-ed to the higher wages obtained by the working classes.

Yet it has sometimes been maintained on variousplausible grounds that high wages do not promotehappiness. It is often said, for instance, that, whenlabouring men get a spell of high wages, they squanderit recklessly on champagne and other ridiculous ex-travagances. But such lamentable waste is rather theresult of the unusualness of high wages than of highwages in themselves. If workmen were more used tohigh wages, they would look upon them as ordinaryincome to be spent on useful things, rather than as atemporary windfall to be quickly squandered. Evenif these occasional outbursts of extravagance arenot exaggerated by critics devoid of sympathywith the working-classes and inclined to concentrateattention exclusively on their failings, they are not

quite so painful in their effects as the ruinous extrava-gance committed by so many ill-paid labourers, whonow spend the most of their pittance on gin, whenthey themselves and their wives and children arestarving for want of bread. Others, who cannot beaccused of want of sympathy with the working-classes,are disposed to depreciate the good effect of suchmaterial advantages as high wages. Mr. Booth, in his

valuable work on " East London," says that " Ananalysis of the elements of happiness would hardlybe in place here, but it may be remarked that neitherpoverty nor wealth have much part in it. The mainconditions of human happiness I believe to be workand affection, and he who works for those he loves


112/200


fulfils these conditions most easily." But the menwhose work earns for those they love the barestpossible subsistence, and who are threatened withstarvation or the work-house at the least reverse,and who have little prospect of laying by anythingfor their old age, are surely under such circum-stances only rendered more miserable or less happyby having loved ones dependent on their labours.No doubt, even in such circumstances, custom, thegreat equaliser of the happiness and misery of men,can alleviate their sufferings, but this alleviation cannotamount to extinction of pain, especially when theycompare their lot with those who seem to do no work,or far less work, and yet have no fear for the future.But do not those earning a miserable pittance derivesatisfaction from comparing their lot with the still

more miserable condition of the unemployed ? No.For the misery of the unemployed is the very pros-pect that enhances their misery, as the least mis-fortune is liable to hurl them into the same abyss,while they have very little hope of rising to ahigher stratum of society by any stroke of goodfortune.

Some one may object that in considering the effectof high wages on general happiness we must considerhow it affects, not merely the working-classes, butalso the capitalists, wliose incomes are diminished, for,if wages are increased, a smaller share will probably beleft as the reward of capital. We must, of course,as far as we can, consider the happiness of all con-cerned, remembering, however,

that the working-classes_

form the majority of the population andcapitalists only a small fraction. The general resultof high wages would seem to be, in spite of the im-mense fortunes of American millionaires, an approachto equality of wealth. This would promote happiness,for, while it would make happier the lower classes


113/200


raised to moderate competence from the starvation limit,it would less affect the richer classes, since they wouldmerely have to diminish the amount of their luxuries,and custom would easily reconcile them to the change,particularly when they saw their friends and associ-ates and all belonging to their class forced to makethe same curtailment of their superfluous expenditure.Further, if there were perfect equality of wealth, theworld would be spared from the pain of being poorerthan others and from the happiness of being richerthan others. As men are more inclined to comparethemselves with those more fortunate than with thosemore miserable than themselves, inequality producesmore pain than pleasure from comparison. Thereforea condition of equality is productive of happiness,

and high wages as tending to such equality should be

promoted by the efforts of every utilitarian.Is it then possible to increase by human effort the

reward of labour, and if so by what means ? We haveseen that trades unionism and strikes do something inthis direction, as they prevent capitalists from ven-turing to give labourers very low wages whenprofits are very high. But more than this is wanted.

The labourer wishes to secure for himself a largerfraction of the profits of production than he nowgets. This could only be effected by strikes, ifthey were extended by a universal agreement ofworkincf men over the whole earth. Such an exten-sive agreement being impossible as far as we cansee, some other means must be sought, and wenaturally turn to the advocates of the nationaliza-

tion of land, who are confident that they have intheir scheme the true remedy for the poverty ofthe labouring world. They propose that the stateshould either buy, or confiscate all land, or impose

upon rents such a high tax as would amount topractical confiscation. It is hard to see how the


114/200

io6 THE PROMOTION OF HAPPINESS.

position of affairs would be materially altered bythe state buying the land from the present holders.The income of the state would, of course, be im-mensely increased by the rental of all the land, butthere could be no diminution of taxation, as interest,about equal to the rent collected, would have to bepaid on the money borrowed by the state tocompensate the landowners. The proposal to con-

fiscate landed property would, if carried out, havemuch more far-reaching results. Mr. Henry George,because direct confiscation would largely increasethe duties of government and would be a needlessshock to present habits of thought, would preferto do the confiscation indirectly by taxing the rentof land so heavily that the landlords would only

have left them a small percentage to reward themfor the trouble of collecting rents, if they chose toretain their property on such terms. This measurewould, he thinks, eradicate the curse of povertyfrom modern civilisation, by enabling all labourersto earn abundant wages free of all diminution bytaxation and would give government an overflowingrevenue, which

wouldincrease

year byyear, as the

material progress due to the new state of thingsincreased the rent of land. " This revenue arisingfrom the common property could be applied to thecommon benefit, as were the revenues of Sparta.AVe might not establish public tables they wouldbe unnecessary ; but we could establish public baths,museums, libraries, gardens, lecture rooms, music anddancing halls, theatres, universities, technical schools,shooting galleries, play-grounds, gymnasiums, &c.Heat, light and motive power as well as watermight be conducted through our streets at publicexpense ; our roads be lined with fruit trees ; dis-coverers and inventors rewarded, scientific inves-tigations supported ; and in a thousand ways the


115/200


public revenues made to foster efforts for the public

benefit."Such are the results promised from either the

confiscation of all landed property by the state, orthe substitution of one tax on rents for all thecomplicated systems of many taxes now in existence.The most important blessing promised in all thispicture of the world's happiness in Mr. George'smillennium is the increase of the labourers' wages. Ifthis could really be secured to the extent he imagines,if, by enriching the community at the expense ofthe landlords, every labouring man could be assuredof abundant wages, the utilitarian would be boundto support the scheme. For, in comparison with thebanishment of extreme poverty and starvation fromthe world, the pain suffered by landlords deprivedof their superfluous wealth would weigh lightly inthe balance. Nor would the sufferings of landlordsbe as great as might at fir.st sight be supposed.It is only proposed to confiscate land and therent of land, not improvements added to the landin the sha])e of buildings. Thus a large part ofthe wealth of land owners would be untouched, and,as most of them are wealthy men, they could affordthe loss of the mere rent of their land withoutbeing reduced to absolute poverty, unless their

properties were heavily mortgaged. The capitalleft in their hands would be increased in value,being, like labour, entirely free from taxation, and

the increase to the value of their capital would

partially compensate them for the loss ofrent.

Peasant proprietors would gain more than they lostin rent, if the change brought them higher wagesand more profits from their capital. In particular

eases, such as poor widows, who derived a small in-come from land, special provision would, no doubt, be

made to prevent them from becoming entirely de-


116/200

io8 THE PROMOTION OF HAPPINESS.

stitute. Beside the pain of having their wealth

diminished, landowners would also suffer much froma feeling of injustice at the violation of their rightsof property. But perhaps their indignation wouldnot be productive of as much pain as is now feltby the vast number of indigent labourers, and stillmore indigent unemployed who compare their wantwith the luxury and abundant wealth of rich land-

owners, enjoying all the good things of the worldwithout toil. This indignation is heightened bythe fact that property in land stands on a differentfooting from other property, inasmuch as it wasoriginally for the most part obtained by confiscation,and has risen to its present value not by thelabours of landowners, but by increase of productiondue to mechanical inventions and freer trade, and byconsequent ino'ease of population which tends tomake land scarcer and scarcer, and therefore moreand more valuable every year.

After a careful survey of all these considerationsthe utilitarian would probably feel himself boundto support the confiscation of the whole, or thegreater part of the land value of the country bythe state, if only it could be shown to increase wagesto the extent imagined by Mr. George and thosewho think with him. But here is the question onwhich all depends. Would the transference to the stateof all the wealth now derived from land permanentlyraise the rate of wages and permanently affordemployment for everybody ? There is every reasonto believe that, if the state took to itself thewhole or nearly the whole of the rent of thecountry, this one simple and easily collected tax wouldrender all other taxes unnecessary. It would thus freelabour and capital from all taxation. The capitalistwould not have to pay pai't of his earnings to the statein the form of income tax, and the labourer and


117/200

THE PkOMOTION OF HAPPINESS. 169

capitalist alike would be able to buy tlie necessaries

and luxuries of life, and the machines and tools whichare the instruments of production at prices far lowerthan is now possible. For at present the consumerpays in the price of most of the articles he buj's anindirect tax to the state. Under these circumstancesthe rewards of production to be divided between thecapitalist and the labourer would be much increased,

andthe labourer would for a time be able to insist on

getting his fair share of the increase. If capitalists re-

fused to give higher wages, they would be compelled todo so by strikes; and, as they could yield to the strikesin this case without carrying on business unprofitablj^they would yield. Thus the immediate result of thechange would be great gain to labourers and capitalistsat the expense of landowners. As most landownersare rich and nearly all labourers are poor, the changewould be in the direction of equality which is itselfa source of happiness, in addition to the immensediminution of misery in the millions of woiking menwho are now underpaid and unemployed, but wouldthen be working for abundant wages. But it is to befeared that the change for the better would only be

temporary, like that produced by free trade or im-provement in mechanical invention. A great impetuswould be given to production partly by the impoverish-ment of the class which now most abundantly indulgesin unproductive consumption. This increase of pro-

duction would give the world a larger dividend ofall things, especially of food and clothing and other

necessaries of life, from which poor and rich, andespecially the poor, would receive a greater share.But this happy state of affaiis could not continuelong. The population would soon rise in proportionto" the increased supply of the means of subsistence,and then the competition of labourers would recom-

mence as keenly as ever, and force down wages to their


118/200

I lo THE PROMOTION OF HAPPINESS.

present average rate. To secure a temporary rise

of wages, it would not appear to be justifiable froma utilitarian point of view to make such an immenseinterference with property, as the confiscation of allproperty in land or the one heavy tax on rents proposedby Mr. George would be. But it is clear that thebenefit could only be temporary, unless the populationdoctrine of Malthus is false. This is clearly seen by

Mr. George, who therefore devotes a large amount ofspace to the refutation of Malthus, attempting to showthat the increase of population only drives wages downto a starvation point, because landlords are enabled bythat increase to absorb more and more of the proceedsof labour in the form of rent. The arguments by whichhe attempts to prove that " in any given state of civili-sation a greater number of people can collectively bebetter provided for than a smaller," and that " the newmouths which an increasing population calls into exist-ence require no more food than the old ones, while thehands they bring with them can in the natural order ofthings produce more," are not strong enough to shakethe Malthusian position. Therefore the benefit ofi"eredby his proposed remedy for poverty would only betemporary, and would be too dearly purchased by thedisturbance of the security of all property, bitterfeelings and civil wai-s, that would be sure to resultfrom the attempt to transfer landed property withoutcompensation from its present owners to the state.

Is there then no other remedy for low wages ?One is suggested by what, as we have seen, wouldhappen, if strikes for very high wages were madeall over one particular country. In this case, muchcapital will leave the country, fewer labourers willbe employed, and until the population is reducedto the limit suited to the new state of afi'airs, avery painful period of starvation will intervene, butafter that painful interval high wages might be main-


119/200

THE PROMOTION OF HAPPINESS. 1 1

tained. Why not, then, avoid this painful processby inverting the order of cause and effect and begin-ning with reduction of the population ? If the labourersof England, by prudence and late marriages, reducedthe number of their offspring by one half, the nextgeneration would secure much higher wages. Ofcourse another condition would be necessary to securethis result. Strict laws would have to be passed toprevent the immigration of foreign labourers. Withthese two conditions fulfilled, the supply of labom:would be diminished and wages would rise high. Theproduction of the country would be much diminished,as it would only be possible for capitalists to engageprofitably in industries for which England has peculiaradvantages, for instance, in mines and land of excep-tional productiveness and of peculiarly advantageoussituation. The self-denial necessary to bring aboutthe required partial depojiulation of England wouldinvolve a certain amount of pain, but much less thanthe starvation that would result from partial depopula-tion due to a general strike for higher wages. But itis hardly likely that the labouring classes will ever betaught to practise this kind of self-denial to any

great extent. To postpone marriage, not for one'sown inclination, but because one's early marriageinflicts infinitesimal disadvantage on the next genera-tion of labouring men requires an amount of publicspirit that will perhaps never be generally diffusedthrough the world. Yet this is, according to Mill,the only means by which wages can be permanentlyimproved, and the condition of the labourer besubstantially ameliorated.

There does, however, seem to be another way inwhich the same object might be effected to a certainextent. Education increases the intelligence of work-ing men. This increased intelligence may be expectedto better their position in more ways than one. In


120/200

112 tbe promotion of happiness.

the first place, it will teach them prudence inmarriage, and so prevent them from increasing theirnumber too rapidly, whenever a new invention in-creases the productive powers of the countiy. The ad-vantage thus obtained, as it operates by limiting thesupply of labourers, is only a means to the remedythe efficacy of which is admitted by Mill. Education,however, seems to work favourably in other ways. Itis likely to increase the rapidity of productive in-vention, and so enable labourers to get larger wageswithout being forced to reduce their numbers. Theincreased intelligence produced by education will alsoteach them how to join their savings together ascapital, and so be at once capitalists and labourersto the great advantage of tlieir incomes. It will also

enable them more clearly to estimate probabilities andto adjust their expenditure to their income. Indeed,the mere knowledge of arithmetic ought to be ofgreat service to the working classes by helping themto determine when a strike is likely to be successfuland when it would be suicidal folly. The settlementof this question is mostly a question of figures deter-

mining whethercapitalists are or are not securing too

high profits. In smaller matters too, the knowledgeof figTires will be of great use. It will enable the

woj'king man to settle better the many questions ofdomestic life, as to the advisability of marriage, change

of place, or change of employment. In all these wayseducation will tend to give the labouring man alarger income, and will also teach him how to usethat lai'ger income to the best advantage.

It is generally assumed in newspapers and in thespeeches of politicians that heavy taxation is an evil, andthat the diminution of taxation is productive of happi-ness. The argument on which this conclusion is basedis, that diminution of taxation increases the nationalwealth, and that each individual of the nation is likely to


121/200


be benefited by that increase. Sometimes, however, dim-

inution of taxation, instead of increasing national wealth,may actually diminish it. If the diminution of taxationdiminishes a nation's army, navy, or police, below thequantity necessary for the security of life and property,the individual is likely to suffer, on the average, morefrom war and robbery, than he gained by relief fromtaxation. Diminution of taxation with such resultswould be advocated by no one but robbers or nationalenemies, and may, therefore, be left out of consideration.Those who desire diminution of taxation do so on thesupposition that it may be secured by skilful economy,without impairing the efficiency of the defensive forces,or dangerously curtailing any other expenditure produc-tive of national prosperity. This has, of course, oftenbeen done in the past. It has often happened, especially

when taxes have been farmed out, that far more has beentaken out of the taxpayer than finds its way to the na-tional exchequer. Sometimes this is due to peculationon the part of the tax collector!?, sometimes to the natureof the tax which cannot be levied without an excessivenumber of salaried collectors. In other cases, the wastecomes later, and consists of extravagant expenditure of

the proceeds of taxation. For instance, it is contended,rightly or wrongly, by Lord Randolph Churchill, andothers, that the United Kingdom might have an equallyor more efficient army at a less cost. Under such cir-cumstances, the burden of taxation may be reduced with-out injury to the national wealth, or even, in many cases,with such a great addition to it as was effected by the re-peal

of the Corn Laws.Conversely heavy taxation may,and

generally does, seriously diminish a nation's wealth. Thepartial depopulation of the once populous regions nowincluded in the Turkish empire is no doubt, in a great

measure, due to heavy taxation, and shows how injuri-ously heavy taxation may affect national wealth. But, ifall taxes in the Turkish empire were remitted for ever,

H


122/200


the result would only be a temporary increase of happi-

ness, owing to a temporary lightening of the struggle forexistence. Very soon the population would rise in pro-portion to the remission of taxation, until the average

income of the people became about what it was before.Owing to this increase of population which may generallybe expected to follow increase of national wealth, light-ening of taxation need not be expected to make the aver-

age man permanently wealthier, or less poor, than hewas before. When the reform of taxation leads to in-creased wealth, and thereby to increased population, itdoes so by increasing production, much in the same wayas improvement in machinery does, and has the sameeffect, or want of effect, upon the general happiness, asmaterial progress.

In another way, howevei-, reform in taxationmaypromote happiness. Some taxes tempt men to im-

moral conduct. As the assessment of the income taxto a large extent depends upon a man's own state-ment of his income, it I'e wards falsehood and dis-honesty and punishes conscientiousness. In like mannerheavy duties on imported goods encourage the kindof dishonesty call.d smuggling, which often leads tomurder and other crimes. Even moderate dutiestempt men, otherwise honourable, to condescend to allkinds of evasion, and to tell lies, in order to bringforeign goods in without paying the tax imposed bylaw. Unscrupulous men, to effect their object, try tobribe custom-house officials, who are often not firmenough to resist the temptation, and betiay theirtrust to the ruin of their moral character. The farm-ing out of taxes eniiches generally the most unscrup-ulous speculators. Wherever, as in the above instances,taxation tempts men to commit vicious actions, itsreform is desiiable in the interests of happiness, as im-moral conduct is in a higli degiee destructive of happiness.

Unjust taxes, as also all unjust laws, are very pre-


123/200

THE PROMOTION OF HAPPINESS 115

judicial to happiness. But what taxes or laws areunjust ? If, adopting what may perhaps he called thenatural utilitarian modification of the meaning of justice,we call all laws unjust which distribute privileges andburdens in a way productive of misery, then it is a verbalproposition to say that unjust laws produce misery,

and it would be enough merely to determine whichlaws are just and which are unjust. Without attempt-

ing to settle exhaustively this question, so as to deter-mine difficult questions about the justice or injustice

of particular taxes, for and against which much maybe said, let us consider certain old taxes admitted tobe unjust on all sides except by those who were bene-fited by their imposition, and see whether they didmuch to diminish happiness. In Mahometan countries

the levying of double taxes on Christians could notappear just to any except some Mahometans whosediscrimination between right and wrong was blindedby fanaticism and the wish to have the burden oftaxation thrust upon other shoulders. The injusticeof this arrangement of taxation consisted in its im-posing unequal burdens on men of equal wealth.Equally unjust in another way was the poll-tax ofone shilling on every person above the age of sixteenimposed in England in the reign of Richard II. Thislaw exacted as much from the y)oor as the rich, andits natural consequence was the rebellion of WatTyler, at the end of which, after the destruction ofmuch private property, fifteen hundred persons wereexecuted on the gibbet. Such unjust taxes as thosejust mentioned must be very injurious to happiness,from the bitter indignation excited in the minds ofthe sufferers and the division of the peo]de into fav-oured and oppressed, who, instead of sympathising witheach other, are animated by envy or proud contempt,according as they belong to the former or latter class.

When the oppressed are carried away by their spirit


124/200

ii6 THE PROMOTION OF HAPPINESS.

of indignation, they break out in insurrection, wliich,whether successful or unsuceiessful, is sure to be pro-ductive of much misery. In Europe, since the FrenchRevolution, such modes of taxation as were flagrantlyunjust have been for the most part swept away, tothe great advantage of the general happiness. But ifthese unjust laws had never been imposed, or couldliave been abolished without insurrection and blood-shed, the improved state of affairs, which the leaderso the French Revolution were mainly instrumental inproducing, might have been secured without the suffer-ings that necessarily accompany a violent uprising.The abuses of taxation are not now in modern Europeas they were before that cataclysm. Such taxesas are now vehemently condemned as unjust bysocialists would in the past have almost entirelyescaped criticism, or even been lauded as patternsof justice. The effect upon happiness of reformof taxation in a socialistic direction has been discussedabove.

Before concluding this short survey of taxationfrom a utilitarian point of view, there is one prin-ciple

which must never be forgotten. It is thatalmost all change of taxation has a tendency todiminish happiness. An old established, heavy taxpresses less heavily both upon sellers and buyers thana light one newly imposed. In spite of the heavytaxes levied upon imported wine and spirits, winemerchants and hotel-keepers are as able to supportthemselves and their families as other tradesmenwho deal in articles less heavily taxed. This isbecause they fix the price of wine and spirits atsuch a high price as reimburses them for the heavytaxes they pay, and the number of those who engageiu these trades is so limited by calculations of prud-ence on the part of those choosing their calling inlife that no more persons enter them tlnn can expect a


125/200


fair profit out of the comparatively limited amount

of wine and spirits likely to be purchased at thehigh prices necessitated by the heavy tax. On theother hand buyers are so accustomed to the ideaof paying high prices for wine and spirits that theylook upon it as a matter of course and forbear tobe indignant. Suppose now that in England theheavy tax on beer and spirits were taken off andits place were partially supplied by a large inert assof the duty on tea. In this case the tea drinkerswould be annoyed at having to pay more for theirtea than they used to pay, but owing to the per-verseness of human nature the drinkers of strongdrinks would not feel correspondingly thankful forthe diminution of the expense of their drink, sothat there would be a diminution of happiness equalto the difference between the great pain of discontent feltby the tea drinkers and the slight pleasure of gratifica-tion that the drinkers of alcohol would derive from buyingcheaper. Further, owing to the change in thetaxation, less tea and more alcoholic drink will beconsumed, and, therefore, a certain number of theless prosperous wine merchants and innkeepers will

have either to change their trade or be ruined, or,perhaps, do both, for it is often a ruinous measurefor a tradesman to give up his old trade and beginlife afresh.

On these grounds taxation should not be changedexcept for the sake of such very solid advantageto happiness as may be enough to counterbalance

the evil effects due to the mere fact of change.


126/200

CHAPTER VIII.

No doubt a great effect may be produced on happi-ness by alteration of domestic and social customs.Should polygamy be established all over the world,or are there some nations and climes in which poly-gamy and polyandry are preferable ? Is earlymarriage or late marriage more productive of hap-piness ? Should a man or boy choose his own wife, or

a womanor girl

her ownliusband, or should mar-

riages be arranged by the parents of the principals ?Should divorce and re-marriage be sanctioned by society ?Should women be as free as the American girl ofthe peiiod, or closely confined in the walls of a zenana,as in many parts of India, in Turkey, and in ancientGreece during the historic period ? Ought they tobe educated as men are, or difierently, or not at all ?Should men be allowed to choose their own calling,or be forced by a rigid system of caste to adoptthat of their father and father's father ? Is it betterto dine at nine in the morning, as the ancientNormans did, and take supper at four or five in theafternoon, or to dine in the afternoon as they didin the days of William of Orange and George I., orto follow the fashion of the rich of to-day and dinelate at night ? Is it better to enjoy the social cupat meals as in Europe, or between meals as inAmerica, or on no occasion ? Many such socialquestions present themselves for consideration, thesettlement of which must be important for theutilitarian.


127/200


In the case of some of them it is possible to give adecided answer. We may safely assert that among tliedomestic customs most destructive of happiness theoriental custom of secluding women must take almostthe foremost place. To abolish it gradually among themillions of people among whom it prevails would un-doubtedly increase the average happiness or diminishthe average misery of the world. Tlie influence of the

Mahometan religion has done much to intensify thisevil. The natives of India trace its introduction intotheir country to the Mahometan conquest ; at whichdate they say they began to seclude their women, partlyin imitation of their conquerors, and partly in order todefend their wives and daughters from outrage. Butthe custom existed long before the Mahometan era, andnot only in Asia but also in Eastern Europe among themost refined people of the ancient world. In fact itseems to be about as old as civilisation ; but not older-,for the great epics of Greece and India show that in theuncivilised period, when warriors fought habitually withstones and had hardly given up the idea of eating theirconquered enemies, women enjoyed plenty of freedomof action. This fact makes the possibility of reformeasier, as reform under the circumstances being areversion to an earlier custom, can be advocated onconservative grounds and can not be regarded as arevolutionary destruction of a practice observed fromtime immemorial.

The infelicific effects of seclusion can hardly be dis-puted, though like all wide-spread customs its evil

effects are softened by habituation. Oriental women,owing to the habitual seclusion of themselves and theirancestors through many generations, have come to hugtheir chains. Like canary birds they would not knowhow to use their liberty properly, if they were suddenlyfreed from their restrictions. But this is no reason whythe gradual restoration of their freedom, accompanied by


128/200


an improvement in education to fit them for their new-position, should not be a gi-eat benefit not only to thewomen themselves but also to the society of which theyform a part.

The clearest evil efi'ect of seclusion is upon health.Human beings cannot expect to be healthy without afair allowance of exercise and fresh air. But this iswhat oriental women cannot get, condemned as they

are to spend the greater part of their life indoors. Asmall proportion of them may have access to privategardens and enjoy a certain amount of what is by amisnomer sometimes called carriage exercise. But apromenade in a small high-walled garden or a drive isa poor substitute for riding, or tennis, or walks in theopen country. Even when driving they get little fresh

air owing to the thick veil with which they areshrouded. And after all, it is only the small minorityof the rich that can afford private gardens or carriages.Most of them are shut up in small crowded rooms, fromwhich they seldom or never emerge. Strong vigoroushealtli must be all but impossible under such conditions.Then it must be remembered that it is not only thewomen themselves who suffer from seclusion. Theirchildren succeed to their weakness. When one halfof the parents of a race are deprived of the possibilityof vigorous health, it is no wonder if each succeedinggeneration is less healthy than its predecessor.

The oriental defence of tlie system we are consideringis that it is necessary for the preservation of femalechastity. Put into a utilitarian form the argumentwould be that seclusion secures chastity, and that un-chastity is so productive of misery that it is reasonableto secure chastity at tlie expense of all the unhealthi-ness due to seclusion. Now, in the absence of experi-ence to the contrary, it might have been supposed thatseclusion is a safeguard of chastity and that liberty hasthe opposite effect. But there is an overwhelming


129/200


amount of experience to tlie contrary in the fact that

European and even American women are certainly asvirtuous as their sisters in the east. There seems noreasonable grounds for doubting this fact. At firstsight the large number of divorce cases chronicled inEnglish newspapers would seem to point to an oppositeconclusion, as compared with the infrequency of such casesin the history of oriental families. But the reason ofthis

differenceis

not thesuperior chastity of

womenin

the east, but the oriental custom of settling such mattersby the family or caste without appealing to the law.The aberrations from virtue that in England lead todivorce cases do not as a rule in the east appear in thenewspapers in the records of judicial cases, unless theyare revenged hj murder, and not always even then, al-though in the newspapers of the east there is no lack ofmurders actuated by jealousy. As experience shows thatwomen are just as capable of being virtuous in a state ofliberty as when subjected to jealous confinement, andthat the variety of interests that occupy the mind of afree woman with plenty of liberty of action is a betterpreservative against error than stone walls and doors,the seclusion of women must, if justified at all, findsome other defence.

Can it be defended, on Darwinian gTounds, againstthe charge of being injurious to health ? No doubt,if all over the world owing to some univeisal law ofnature the whole of the human race or all the womenwere compelled to live in houses without ever emerg-ing into the open air, human nature would be able

gradually to adapt itself to its environment, andthose unable to live and be healthy without fresh airand outdoor exercise, or without their wives anddaughters enjoying Iresh air and outdoor exercise,would die out and leave no descendants. Thus therewould be left to people the world, only those fittedby hereditary temperament to be healthy and happy


130/200


indoors. But there is no such law of nature, andconsequently nations and families who seclude theirwomen are heavily handicapped in the struggle forexistence with those who live a life which, in thepresent condition of things, is healthier. Even inoriental countries like India the poor cannot secludetheir wives and daughters, and might be expected, inthe long run, to rise successfully against the rich, and

by superior bodily health and strength due to a morerational life would overthrow those, who before bytheir power and wealth were able to follow thepernicious practice of seclusion of women. This waspretty clearly shown by the rise of the poor un-civilised Marathas against their Mahometan rulers.Had it not been for the British conquest, they woulddoubtless have become the rulers of India, but only fora tiuie, until having adopted from the conquered thepractice of seclusion, and being able by their wealth tokeep it up, i\\Qj had paved the way for their own physicaldeterioration. The weakening effects of this practicepartly explains also the rapid fall of many orientalempires when attacked hj poor and hardy mountaineers,

and especially the deterioration that Mahometan nationsseem to suffer from prosperity. The Arabs, and afterthem the Turks, on first adopting Mahometanism, dis-played an immense amount of energy and valour, butin both cases after a few generations these qualitiesdisappeared or remained only among the poorer classeswho had not sufEcient means to seclude their women,It would therefore appear that though, in the long courseof ages, portions of the human race, if isolated from therest of the world, might manage to be healthy althoughsecluding their women, yet this slower process has alwaysbeen cut short by the more rapid disappearance of in-dividuals, families, and nations following this practiceand having to contend in the struggle for existence withordinary men who are the offspring of mothers whose minds


131/200


and limbs have not been cramped by seclusion. This being

the case, one may be tempted to argue in favour ofseclusion that it is not likely to damage much thehappiness of the human race, as those who follow thepractice, tend to die out, and, like suicides, leave few orno descendants. But unfortunately, besides the fact thatthis dying out involves a large amount of painfulill-health and killing, the practice has such attractionsto the oriental mind, that many of those, who take theplace of the individuals, families, and communities thathave died out owing to seclusion, soon adopt thesame bad custom, which they are enabled to do owingto the wealth they have won at the expense of thedisplaced. So that the custom remains, however muchthose who practise it suffer in health and lose thehappiness that good health confers.

And even if seclusion of women were as compatiblewith health as their liberty, the practice should stillbe eschewed by utilitarians as directly diminishing thehappiness of women. It is only after long confinementthat women come to hug their chains and preferconfinement to liberty. Naturally as they grow up theymiss the freedom they enjoyed as little girls. Norare they prepared for seclusion by heredity, for theirmale parents have been accustomed to liberty, andwomen derive their mental characteristics as muchfrom their fathers as their mothers. Thus seclusionwould seem to diminish happiness both indirectly bymilitating against health, and also directly. Thereforeoriental utilitarians have a great work to do in effecting

by precept and example the gradual extinction ofthis custom.

Another oriental custom, that affords scope to utili-tarian effort, is early marriage. This custom is therule, though not without exceptions, among the twohundred and fifty million inhabitants of India. Alarge number of those sections of the Indian com-


132/200


munity, which many young, aggravate the evil resultsof the practice by prohibiting widows from re-marriage, and subjecting them to social tyranny.Indian widows are regarded as degraded beings, whohave lost their husbands owing to misdemeanourscommitted in one of their lives, and their presenceis supposed to be ominous of evil. They are com-pelled to shave their hair, forego the use of ornaments,

eat the coarsest food, and take the lowest place inthe household hierarchy. Owing to early marriageand the prevention of widow re-marriage, there are adisproportionate amount of widows in India. InEngland, only the death of men produces widows ; inIndia, nearly every boy that dies leaves a widowbehind him, and by the prohibition of re-marriage

most of those who are once made widows remain widowsfor ever. In India, there are out of a population of254,000,000 more than 23,000,000 widows. India, withten times the population of England and Wales, hastwenty -three times the number of widows. Theposition of widows is proverbially unhappy all overthe world. In Christian countries, their unhappystate is alleviated by the religious sanction supportingwith all its power the duty of kindness and justiceto women and children bereft of their natural pro-tectors, as among tlje most sacred of moral duties.Hindu religion and custom, on the contrary, as wehave seen, goes out of its way to intensify the bitter-ness of tiie widow's lot. Thus in India, widows arenot only more numerous, but also more miserablethan in ihe rest of the world. Also early marriagehelps to make the average state of the widow excep-tionally unhappy. In England, few women becomewidows until they have passed the prime ofyouth and the most passionate age of life. In India,a vast majority of widows are young girls, whosepassions are too strong to be controlled by reason,


133/200


and, as a natural consequence, they are not unlikelyto fall away into vice and misery.

It may be answered that in Europe, there are notonly widows, but also a large number of women whoremain unmarried till their death, while in Indiaalmost every woman gets married, and old maidsare scarcely ever heard of. In England and Walesin 1881, there were out of a population of 26,000,000,only 1,000,000 widows, but of unmarried women abovethe age of twenty, there were nearly 2,000,000. This,however, is a very partial answer. The unhappiness ofEuropean spinsters should on the average be much leasthan that of Indian widows. As marriage in Europedepends mainly on a woman's own free will, almost anywoman can marry, if she is very anxious to do so.Consequently, a large proportion of European spinsters

are women either totally averse to married life, orwho are not very anxious for matrimony, and there-fore have been disinclined to accept such men ashave happened to ask for their hands. Thus, thereis good reason to believe that English spinsters areless dissatisfied with their state than Indian widows.Further, owing to early marriage, Indian wives andhusbands are more likely to be dissatisfied witheach other than English wives and husbands. Ofcourse, such generalisations are subject to excep-tions. Many English wives and husbands, after a fewyears or months of married life, find their tempersincompatible. But such unfortunate too late dis-coveries are less likely to be made in the case ofhusbands and wives who have chosen each otherafter arriving at years of discretion, than when amatch has been made probably on prudential con-siderations by the parents of bride and bridegroom.

Early marriage is also said to be bad from aphysiological point of view, as being injurious to the

health both of parents and children, on which account


134/200


Plato in his Kepublic does not allow his guardians to

marry before the age of twenty-five, andthen,

onlyto women of twenty years old and upwards. Thus,on the score of health, and as much happiness asdepends upon health, there is the same objection toearly marriage as to the seclusion of women.

But it is unnecessary to dwell upon the evils of earlymarriage and enforced widowhood, as they have beendetailed so exhaustively in the writings of Mr. Malabari,a Parsee of Bombay, who, in a true utilitarian spirit,has devoted himself heart and soul to their extinctionin India. The effect produced by his enthusiasm andliterary labours in this field is somewhat marred by thefact that the Hindus rather resent being lectured upontheir manners and customs by a Parsee or any otheroutsider. More result may be expected from the effortsof enlightened members of the Hindu community, ifonly they do not urge on the wheel of progress sorapidly as to provoke reaction. Festina lente should botheir motto. If all educated Hindus would take up thegood cause with the same enthusiasm and self sacrificeas Mr. Malabari, and with such knowledge of thedangers and difficulties in the way of reform as can onlybe possessed by a Hindu, the happiness of millions wouldbe increased, and, as this increased happiness to Indiawould not be obtained at the expense of any otherportion of the human race, general happiness wouldthereby be promoted.

Closely connected with the seclusion of women, earlymarriage, and the prohibition of widow re-marriage is

the question of caste, because it is by the tyranny of,caste rules that these practices are enforced upon the ma-jority of Hindus. Tiierefore, the evil effects of thesepractices are arguments against caste. But caste is farmore wide-reaching in its results, and rules with a rod ofiron the lives of men, as well as of women and children.Its great effect is to sub-divide India into small communi-


135/200


ties of men who can have no social intercourse with eachother. It is therefore condemned by those who have studiedthe institution, as hostile to the spread of sympathybetween man and man. " Caste," says Mr. Sherring, is"a sworn enemy to human happiness. Laws, customs,social compacts, and the sweet acts of self-denial so fre-quently practised between man and man, are intended topromote the welfare of mankind, to increase the sum ofhuman joy, to make homes tranquil, and to strengthenall the ties by which one family is bound to another.Caste was instituted for a different purpose. It seeks tosever natural ties, to alienate friends, to harden theheart, to stifle sympathy, to increase pride and self-esteem, to generate misanthropj^, to repress the kindlyaffections, and to destroy mutual confidence and trust,without which society is beset with stings, and becomes

a stranger to genuine comfort and peace."This may seem an exaggerated indictment to those

who have not realised the immense number of castes inIndia, and the strict social exclusiveness which separateseach caste from the rest of the world. In ancient Persiathere are said to have been onl}^ four castes, priests,soldiers, husbandmen, and tradesmen. In ancient Egyptthere were, according to Herodotus, seven castes, priests,soldiers, cowherds, swineherds, tradesmen, interpreters,

and boatmen. But how far these Persian and Egyptiancastes were sub-divided, and how strict were the lines ofseparation, we know very imperfectly, except that it isstated, that in Egypt the swineherd was looked downupon as a degraded being, and was not allosved to enterthe temples. It is to India where the caste system is stillin full force that one must look for experience of itsworkino-. It is very commonly supposed, that in Indiathere are only four castes (1) The Brahmins or priestly

caste, (2) The Kshatryas or military caste, (3) The Vaishyas

or mercantile caste, (4) The Shudras or servile caste. If

there were only these four castes in India, the accusation


136/200


that caste restrains sympathy within narrow limits would

have less force, for there is plenty of room for the exer-cise of sympathy for those who can have intimate friendlyintercourse with even a fourth part of their fellow-menin a thickly populated country like India. But in truth,this fourfold division is only the original starting-pointof the caste system. When the Hindus first divided them-selves into these four castes, the barrier of exclusive-

ness does not appear to have been so strict as it hassince become, and men and women of different castesmarried one another. From the offspring of these mixedmarriages new castes have arisen, until now the numberof castes is astonishingly large. In the census for 1881,over nineteen thousand caste names were given in to thecensus officers. This shows the immense number ofIndian castes, even allowing for the probability that, inmany cases, different caste names were given in by dif-ferent individuals of the same caste. So firmly fixed isthe caste system in India, that even the native Christiansare divided into castes. When such an immense numberof divisions supplements the ordinary divisions of societyaccording to place and wealth, the Hindu must often havevery few human beings with whom to associate in friendlysympathy. Think of a Hindu in his village or town.Like other men he depends for society upon his near neigh-bours, and especially upon those who are neither muchricher, nor much poorer, than himself. But by casterules he is still further limited in the circle of his possiblefriendships. He can only familiarly associate with thoseof his neighbours of about the same fortune as himself,who happen also to belong to the same caste. Withthose who belong to any one of the thousands of othercastes he cannot, as a rule, join in a social meal, or forma marriage connection. Even without such restrictionsit is often hard enough for men to find a sufficient numberof congenial friends among their neighbours. Just asfriendship adds much to human happiness, any institu-


137/200


tion which, like caste, limits a man's power oi" selectingcongenial friends must be prejudicial to happiness.

Even members of the same caste are restricted intheir social intercourse. The men take their mealsfirst, and afterwards the women by themselves. Con-versation is forbidden at the time of eating. By therules which regulate the Namburi Brahmins it is de-creed that the " Brahmani woman is strictly pro-hibited from having access to or seeing any otherman besides her lawful husband, and likewise lier ownmale children are restricted from having access to herafter they have attained the age of fourteen years."Thus caste like slavery maj^ bring about a forcibleseparation between mother and child.

We have seen reason to believe that equality isproductive of happiness. Caste in one of its principalaspects resembles slavery by being a contravention ofthe equality of men. An immense number of the re-gulations of caste are intended to make a great gulfof separation between Brahmins and the rest of man-kind. The contempt of white slave-master for blackslave, or of Greek for barbarian was much less arrogantthan the contempt with which the Brahmin is taughtto look down upon the lower castes. " Indian caste,'"says Dr. Wilson, " is the condensation of all the pride,

jealousy, and tyranny of an ancient and predominantpeople dealing with the tribes which they have sub-jected, and over which they have ruled often withoutthe sympathies of a recognised common humanity."As Dr. Wilson was a missionary, his judgment on tlie

subject might be naturally suspected, if it were notabundantly supported by extracts from the sacred booksof the Hindus. Brahmins and gods are sometimescoupled together in caste regulations. The law bookssay that in the house of a king, in a cow's fold, andin the presence of a god and Brahmin, and at thetime of worship and eating, shoes ought to be pulled

I


138/200


off. "The Brahmins are earthly gods, to be adoredand honoured with commendations," according to theKalki Purana. In the Padma Purana it is written that" the Brahmin is the exalted lord of all the castes. Tohim should gifts be made with faith and reverence.The Brahmin represents all divinities in himself, avisible god on the earth, who saves the giver in theimpassable ocean of the world," and again elsewhere inthe same book we are told that "Whatever good man bowsto a Brahmin, reverencing him as Vishnu, is blessed withlong life, with sons, with renown, and with prosperity."In all ways, says Manii, Brahmins are to be worshippedthey are a supreme Divinity. Men of the servileclass were only created for the purpose of servingBrahmins.

According to the same lawgiver a Brahmin maywithout hesitation take the property of a Shudra.The Namburi Brahmins are so proud that they willnot allow Shudras to approach within three paces ofthem, and, if a Pulyar touch them, they must im-mediately bathe and change their Brahminical threadsand clothes, and absolve themselves by reading the

Vedas before they dare to enter their houses. Thelowe)' castes are compelled by the caste regulations tohumiliating restrictions in their mode of life. TheChandala and Shoapaka must live outside towns,be denied the use of unbroken vessels, and have as theirsole wealth dogs and asses. Their clothes must bethose of the dead, tlieir dishes broken pots, their

ornaments rusty iion. Other classes must have nointercourse with them. The Brahmins and other castesare by no means to be equal in the sight of the law.If a Vaishya slanders a Brahmin he must be lined onehundred and fifty or two hundred panas; if a Brahminslanders a Vaishya, he is fined twenty-five, and, if heslanders a Shudra, only twelve panas. A Shudraslandering a Brahmin must suffer corporal punishment.


139/200


Should a Brahmin kill a Shudra, he pays no morepenance than if he killed a cat, an ichneumon, a frog,a lizard, an owl, or a crow ; but a person intendingto strike a Brahmin with intent to kill remains inhell a hundred years, and, if he actually strikes him, athousand. Every drop of a Brahmin's blood shed andattracting particles of dust, demands a thousand years'torment for each of these particles. These instances,

most of which, with many others to a similar effect,may be found in Dr. Wilson's posthumous work on" Indian Gaste," illustrate the immense arrogance withwhich the Brahmin is taught by his sacred books tolook down on his fellow-men. Nor is this relation ofcontempt on the one side and degrading inferiority onthe other confined to the Brahmins and Shudras. Allthe castes are arranged in a kind of hierarchy, thehigher members of which are taught to despise thelower, and, when they can, inflict upon them marksof inferiority. Thus the Shudras, though so far belowthe Brahmins, themselves lord it over the castes ofinferior dignity. They are divided into many castes,and some of the higher caste Shudras consider them-selves polluted by contact with lower caste Shudras.Below all the Shudras are ranked certain outcast andpolluted castes who pay to the Shudras almost as muchreverence as the Shudras pay the Brahmins. Such,for instance, are the Pulayars, who form one-twelfthof the whole population of Travancore, and must keepwell out of the way of even the Shudras. In Mr.Mateer's account of native life in Travancore we

read that " Until lately Pulayars were not allowedeven to approach the roads. When they had palm-leaf umbrellas and other small articles to sell, theylaid them down near the highway, and, standing atthe appointed distance, shouted to their customers

. . . Cottayam Pulayars put a few green twigs onthe roadside, near where they ai-e working, to warn


140/200


off high castes. Pulayars, walking on the high road,are required to run off into the jungles or fields whenhigh-caste people pass along. Where there is plentyof room, a kind of side-walk is sometimes formed inthis way. It is most painful to see a poor and in-offensive woman with a load on her back, or burdenedwith an infant, scramble up the steep side of the roadand retire into the jungle, to allow a high-caste manto pass." In this account it must be remembered that" high caste " includes Shudras as well as Brahmins.It must not be supposed that such intolerable preten-sions to superiority are submitted to without painfulfeelings of bitter indignation among the oppressedand degraded. Buddhism was a great protest againstthe tyranny of caste, and very nearly drove Brah-

minism out of India. Its success showed the strengthof the feeling of indignation among the lower castes,and the temporary nature of its success showed theimmense strength of the caste system, which, thoughfor a time overthrown, managed once moie to recoverits ascendency so completely, that now Buddhism ispractically an extinct faith in India.

All the caste regulations given above,which drawdegrading distinctions between caste and caste, must

be condemned as terribly destructive of humility,sympathy between man and man, compassion forthe weak, and, therefore, of happiness. There arealso many other regulations in the caste codes whichwill be condemned equally by the ordinary mora-list and by the utilitarian. Some of the caste regu-lations entail great inconvenience even on the castesin whose favour they are made. " All this super-stitious punctiliousness," remarks Mr. Mateer in his" Native Life in Travancore," " is fraught withgreat inconvenience to the unenlightened high castesthemselves. They are unable to travel by sea unlessthey could land daily to cook and eat their food,


141/200


that prepared with the water on board ship beinjr

ceremonially unclean. When travelling by rail alongwith other classes, they dare not even take a draughtof water to refresh themselves ; and often there isgreat suffering from hunger when habitations belong-ing to their own caste are not at hand. A friend ofours calling a native doctor to the Hills for a seriousemergency, the poor man could eat nothing but

plantain fruits during the two days he was in patientand kindly attendance." In some exceptional casesthe directions given to the castes seem directly opposedto ordinary morality, and, therefore, to happiness.For instance, according to Manu, a Brahmin mustlive by truth and falsehood rather than by hiredservice. But, on the whole, the principal objectionsthat the utilitarian will have to the caste systemwill be on account of the degradation of the lowercastes, the seclusion of women, early marriage, en-forced widowhood and unkindness to widows.

The culmination of the evils sanctioned by caste is tobe found in the practice of suttee. This rite, however,stands on a different footing from the other evilswe have been considering, inasmuch as it is recom-

mended as a counsel of perfection, not prescribedas necessary. It was, however, supposed to havesuch peculiar efficacy in securing a husband's salva-tion, that wives of the higher castes abstainingfrom it were liable to contempt and contumely.There were differences in the arrangements allowableaccording to tlie caste of the victim. Brahmin

women were not allowed to sacrifice themselvesexcept on their husband's dead body. Women ofother high castes might and did do so after theirhusbands had been dead many years, when, perhaps,they found the life of widowhood intolerable. Some ofthe lowest castes seem to have been denied the honourand privilege of committing suttee in any form. The


142/200


duty of suttee is not prescribed by Manu, but isadvocated in the Brahma-purana and may be regardedas the natural result of the severe regulations bywhich widows are oppressed. It is not unnaturalthat, to avoid the evils of existence as a widow, awom.^u should make a virtue of necessity and die onher husband's funeral pyre. Here is a description ofa case of suttee described by an eye-witness in a letterto the Bombay Courier of September 10th, 1802,which will illustrate how the ceremony was performed." About two o'clock the body (of the husband) wasbrought to the pagoda feet foremost. The wife veryrichly dressed walked close to the head. At thepagoda some ceremonies were performed by theBrahmins, and the lady threw large quantities of the

red powder, which is used at the Hooly, over everyperson near her, after which she with the corpsewent down into the river which was close by, and,after bathing and throwing dust about for a lonetime, she followed the corpse to the pile, which wasabout three feet high. She then took off all herornaments except her nut and two gold rings anddistributed them among her mother

and children.She gave a few rings to some other female relationswho attended. None of the daughters or motherseemed really affected ; they appeared to weep, butyou might see they were inwardly pleased at thehonour that would redound to their family from thevictim's fortitude. After she had given away allher jewels, the Brahmins gave her sandal-wood dustwhich she distributed to all near her. She thenwalked round the pile, the Brahmins salaaming tolier feet as she passed. When she arrived at thefeet of the corpse which was the enti'ance (the woodhaving been piled about two feet at the head andabout the height of the body as it lay), Roba (aBrahmin under whom the dead man had served)


143/200

THE PROMOTION OF HAPPINESS. 13S

got up and went to her, knelt down and made

salaam with his head to her feet, and complimentedher on her virtue and fortitude, at which she smiledand seemed highly pleased. She then turned, andhaving salaamed to her husband's feet she enteredthe pile, and walking up to the head with a firmstep she sat herself down and took the head of thecorpse into her lap, where she remained perfectlycomposed whilst the Brahmin piled up the rest ofthe wood, putting great quantities of dry cow-dunground her person. The wood was laid in a triangularform, so that the entrance at the foot was neverclosed, and you saw the woman very plain. Afterit was finished and closed at the top, it looked likean oven. There were a great many pieces put overwhere she sat, which by very little exertion fromwithout would have been thrown down upon herand crushed her to death, but there was no occasionfor that to be done. A lighted torch was given herby an old Brahmin (who remained at the entranceof the pile) with which she very deliberately set tireto the cow-dung all round her, and sat surroundedby the flame without altering a feature. When the

flame appeared at the top, the old Brahmin threw ahandful of something full in her face which instantlycaused a great blaze, and she was entirely envelopedin it. A band of country music then struck up,the Brahmins began knocking the ujiper jiart of thepile doAvn upon the bodies, and every person presentbegan clapping their hands and hollowing as loudas they could." The most painful feature in thisaccount is the provision made by pieces of woodpiled above her to prevent the victim from

bursting away from the pile if her courage failedher at the last moment. When this happened, thepoor women trying to escape were often crushedby the Brahmins under the wood of the pile, or, if


144/200


they got out of the pile, were cut down with the

sword.Such scenes were of frequent occurrence at the

commencement of the century, until suttee was placedby law on the same footing as murder by LordBentinck, who, in spite of the fact that he stampedout a custom dear to caste prejudicep, is still rememberedwith affection by the people of India as one of the best

of English Governor-generals. But muchstill

requiresto be done. Suttee being the natural result of thetyranny exercised by caste over the Hindu widow, itmay seem from a utilitarian point of view an act ofdoubtful benevolence to prevent her from escapingher miseries by a voluntary and honoured death.What is required to supplement the abolition ofsuttee, is some measure for the amelioration of thewidow's lot and her freedom from the indignities sheis now subjected to on account of her supposed crimes.But this can hardlj^ be effected by law. It may,however, be brought about gradually by the influenceof education. This is recognised by one of the noblestchampions of woman's rights in India, the PanditaRamabai, who herself a widow has set about thework of educating widows in India and teaching themto learn to support themselves and be independent.As soon as Indian women have secured the full advant-age of the education offered to the people of India,they will effect a refor

Documents

The Promotion of Happiness