An Economist's View of Chesterton

Colin Clark

I regret that I never heard Chesterton speak, except on

radio. I once heard Belloc speak, at an undergraduate meeting
in Oxford, about 1925. His subject was 'The Servile State."
By this time he was less emphatic than he had been when he
wrote his book in 1912. The central theme of the book was
that it would be increasing fear of unemployment which would
eventually persuade labour to accept servile status (i.e. lack
of freedom to choose employment). The introduction of unem-
ployment insurance (which had already been provided for a
few trades in Britain by 1912) may have been one of the
principal factors leading Belloc to modify his conclusions.

Nonetheless, Belloc still pronounced the sentence of de-

cadence on a society increasingly dominated by a few wealthy
property owners. When asked if this tendency could be re-
versed, Belloc replied that it would be possible, but difficult.
It would mean for instance, he said, paying preferential interest
rates to small property owners rather than large (it had not
occurred to him how easy it would be for skilled financiers to
evade such a regulation). Then the inevitable bumptious under-
graduate asked a question. "Will Mr. Belloc explain to us what
is the function of the Jew in the Servile State?" Belloc replied
blandly that, of course, the Jew would be on both sides of the
controversy. "Don't you see," he added, "the function of the
Jew is analytic." Bumptious undergraduate reduced to silence.
Also, of Chesterton's circle, I once heard an address by Penty.
On this occasion at any rate he was completely incoherent.

But I had an indirect contact with Chesterton through

many years of friendship with G.D.H. Cole, the outstanding
leader of the Guild Socialist Movement in the first quarter

149
 The Chesterton Review

of this century. Cole and Chesterton were close friends,

in spite of rehgious differences. The programme of the Guild
Socialists was that industry should be nationalised, not with a
view of its being run by bureaucratic state officials, but that
it should be handed over to control by the workers in each
industryperhaps even in each enterprise. The Guild Socialists,
however, were uncertain as to whether the state was to have
reserve powers of interventionwhat was to happen when
things went wrong? Chesterton zealously supported this pro-
gramme, with more enthusiasm than detailed investigation. Few
of the Guild Socialists would have thought (the movement in
Britain died out long ago) that their principles were to be put
into application, in totality, by Tito in Yugoslavia in the 1950's.
In modern Yugoslavia each enterprise is controlled by those
who work in it. They have to sell their output as best they
can, without intervention by the state. And if the business
makes a loss, they have to meet it out of their own wages.

But I can also claim a link with Chesterton through oral

tradition, through one friend and another, in the matter of
songs. The songs in The Flying Inn were clearly meant to be
chanted, not just read. A number of other excellent songs
which were in circulation among us in those days (particularly
"The Beer They Brew in Burton" and "King Solomon Had Ten
Thousand Wives") found later printed in Drinking Songs by
Titterton, of which book I possess a very battered copy. Titter-
ton's book provided music, and very good music, for his songs.
(Chesterton wrote an introduction to this book, saying that
those songs had nothing to do with the Distributist State
except that in the Distributist State man might be happy enough
to sing them.) For the songs in The Flying Inn we had to adapt
various folk songs and Anglican hymn tunes. "Old Noah he had
an Ostrich Farm" was sung to "The Vicar of Bray"; "The Road
to Round About" to the tune of "The British Grenadiers";
"God made the Wicked Grocer" to "Jerusalem the Golden";
"The Rolling English Road" to "We Plough the Fields"; "Feast
on Wine and Fast on Water" to "Deutschland ber Alles,"
and "Those who do not have the Faith and will not have fun"
to "All things bright and beautiful".

150
An Economist's View of Chesterton

In the moving epitaph which Walter de la Mare wrote on

Chesterton the key lines were:

Chesterton the poet

Lives while men shall read.

When this century's dust has settled, and the rubbish has been
cleared away, I think that both Chesterton and Belloc will be
remembered as its outstanding poets. To poets are sometimes
granted visions of the future which the prosaic man cannot
attain. In this strange book The Napoleon of Notting Hill, written
in 1904, when everyone was complacently believing that the
world had settled into an era of permanent peace and prosperity,
Chesterton foresaw that the coming century would be one of war.

"And death and hate and Hell declare

T h a t men have found a thing to love."

It may be added that a few years earlier a similar vision had

been seen by a very different poet, Housman, in his terrible
poem "On the Idle Hill of Summer" when he had his vision
of:

"Soldiers marching, all to die."

It may be predicted that Chesterton's poetry will certainly

last; and the same is true, one hopes, of his prose fantasies.
One may also confidently expect that he will also be remembered
as an outstanding religious teacher. But Chesterton's excursions
into history and politics were more questionable. He did at
one time try his hand at a history of England; but it did not
seem that he really had his heart in it.

Belloc, on the other hand, wrote a great many very readable

historical studies. Professional historians are almost unanimous
in condemning them. This does, however, betray a certain
meanness of nature on their part. Belloc had to write to earn
money to support his wayward family, without the ample
leisure, well-stocked libraries and research assistants of academic

151
 The Chesterton Review

historians. Belloc was right in attacking the Whiggish misinter-

pretations of history and the strong Protestant bias of so many
well-known historians; though he may have tended to exagger-
ate his case. Perhaps those of us who are not professional
historians should regard it, for the present, as a drawn battle.

Belloc's achievements as an active politician, in Parliament

from 1906 to 1910, should be regarded as successful. He put
his finger on what may prove to be the incurable disease of
parliamentary government, namely, the need (which is now even
greater by far) to collect party funds to meet the costs of
elections, and the consequent persistent silent distortion of
legislation and administration in the interest of those who have
contributed abundantly to these funds. Belloc, however, could
think of no solution, except the restoration of a real monarchy.

To the Guild Socialist Movement Chesterton gave zealous

but uncritical support, Belloc much more reserved and academic.
Belloc had some understanding of simple economics, a subject
which never appealed to Chesterton. Belloc thought, though with
considerable reservations, that it might be possible to build up
large trading corporations controlled by small producers. In the
general social ferment as the First World War ended, attempts
were made to establish "Guilds", particularly in the building
trade, traditionally the stronghold of small enterprise. R.H.
Tawney, the historian, and a keen supporter of the Guild Social-
ist Movement, had his house decorated by the "Building Guild".
It was not a success.

The virus which infected and killed the Guild Socialist

Movement, within a very short span of years, was the publication
in 1918 of Douglas's Social Credit. This was indeed the easy
way out for people whose minds were very confused about what
they really wanted. The rest of the world hears with disbelief
that a number of provincial governments in Canada have been
administered by the Social Credit Party. The first of these
Social Credit election victories was in Alberta in 1935. Douglas
was then still living; and the provincial government promptly
invited him to come over (for a substantial fee) and show

152
An Economist's View of Chesterton

them how to run things. Douglas was extraordinarily hesitant;

and in the end insulting, saying that some of the Albertan
politicians were men of Central European descent, who could
not be expetced to understand his theories properly.

But before long, the provincial politicians in Alberta, as

later in other provinces, became aware of the fact that under
the Canadian Constitution banking was a Federal subject, on
which they could not legislate. They then turned their attention
to other matters of provincial administration, which they appear
(so far as a stranger can judge) to have carried out very well.
They believed in the excellent principle of decentralisation,
which had been overlaid by the Social Credit nonsense. For
the doctrine that the banks are guilty of creating a permanent
deficiency of purchasing power is complete nonsense.

Neither Chesterton nor Belloc were taken in by Social

Credit. Chesterton, unfortunately, found himself increasingly
attracted to Mussolini and his bogus "Corporate State," (One
of its principal functions in faith, as a simple-minded business-
man explained to me, was the suppression of Trade Union
activity.) Pius XI, in Quadragesimo Anno (1931) had expressed
a strong hope that the conflicting economic interests in society
could be reconciled in some form of organisation. But he made
it clear that he was not referring to Mussolini's affair, which
he trenchantly described as "excessively bureaucratic and politi-
cal in character"; and shortly afterwards, in Non ahhiamo
hisogno, he condemned the Fascist State even more strongly.

Belloc reserved his judgment on Mussolini.

Coming nearer to our own time, I regret also that I had

no contact with Eric Gill and his familythough I knew some
of his friends. The idea that a group of married people with
children can live together communally as a single familya
great many such communes have been formed in recent years,
mostly without any religious basis, and have proved short-
lived is remarkably hard to apply. Mrs. Gill, it appears, was

153
 The Chesterton Review

a remarkably strong organiser. Gill was completely deluded by

Social Credit, though he avoided its anti-Semitic overtonesbut
in such a great artist eccentricities can be tolerated. In Gill's
writings he said that we all ought to live, in effect, by subsistence
agriculturethough I do not think that he really meant it.
Douglas Woodruff's criticism was justified, when he said that
Gill professed to despise the commercial world, but at the same
time expected it to turn up from time to time with large
cheques for commissioned stone carving.

The idea of Guild Socialism, like many of Chesterton's

writings (Belloc being more guarded) had its principal origin
in mistaken ideas about the mediaeval world. In the eighteenth
century, mediaeval culture and society were regarded with un-
disguised contempt. The word "Gothic" was a term of reproach,
and anyone who pulled down a mediaeval building and replaced
it in eighteenth-century classical style was regarded with ad-
miration. Quite early in the nineteenth century these ideas
were completely reversed. One of the harbingers was Sir Walter
Scott, for whom Chesterton had the greatest admiration. This
change of ideas about the Middle Ages was closely linked with
the romantic movement in poetry, painting, music and archi-
tecture, all in reaction against the classicism of the eighteenth
century. Some of the fruits of nineteenth-century romanticism
were good, some were not. But it is not surprising that, by
the late, nineteenth century, the Middle Ages should have come
to be regarded as a model, not only for the arts, but also for
the structure of society. William Morris, a great artist and
poet, also had a very wide Influence on social thought. When
William Morris turned his attention to politics he had a big
influence, not only in England, but throughout the English-
speaking world. He advocated revolutionary Socialism (though
he confessed that he found reading Marx almost unbearingly
tedious); and he thought that the revolution might take place
in the 1950's. In News from Nowhere, he painted a glowing
picture (cheating somewhat by laying the scene in June weather
in England, when it was not raining) of a world in which no
government of any kind was necessary, and all men spent their
time happily, in artistically creative work. William Morris, and

154
An Economist's View of Chesterton

his many followers, sincerely thought that they were re-creating

mediaeval society, though without any of the warriors, kings,
noblemen and priests who were such outstanding features on
the mediaeval scene.

The mediaeval guilds, whose reconstitution Chesterton was

to advocate, were formed in the towns. These towns all held
jealousy-guarded charters, which made them little islands of
independence in a countryside where noblemen and prelates
ruled over a serf population. It appears (though there is some
doubt about this) that many of the guilds did start as religious
foundations, to meet on their patron saints' days, and to say
prayers and Masses for their deceased members. But, as Adam
Smith warned, "it is seldom that men of the same trade meet
together, even for purposes of merriment and diversion, but
that there ensues some conspiracy against the public, or
design to raise prices." The mediaeval guild economy has been
carefully scrutinised by the Belgium historian Pirenne, and
there is no escaping his conclusion that it was bad. The guilds
did indeed regulate the quality of production, prices, distribution
of materials, admission to the trade, and exclusion of competitors
from other towns. It is true that they could not pursue their
own interests without Umit. They were subject to some control
by the mayors of the towns, who had considerable powers of
economic regulation. This indeed was necessary. A competitive
economy of our type could not have worked in the Middle
Ages. We take for granted quick communication and cheap
transport, both of which were lacking.

However, the inescapable consequence of the guild economy,

as Pirenne points out, is that it created virtually a caste
system (for sons of members had priority in admission to the
guilds), leaving increasing numbers of their fellow-citizens to
a hungry and impoverished life as "journeymen."

Under the influence not only of Adam Smith, but of the

whole trend of rationalist eighteenth-century philosophy, the
remnants of the guilds in England and Scotland had already

155
 The Chesterton Review

disappeared by the eighteenth century. But guilds lasted longer

in continental Europeand up to the present century in
China.

We must try to get mediaeval Europe in perspective. It

was a period of intense and universal religious devotion
though marred by frightful heresies, now forgotten. It produced
great writings in philosophy and religion, and made some pro-
gress, for which it has not been given credit, in natural science.
Its greatest material achievement was in its religious archi-
tecture, which many judge to be the finest which the world
has ever seen. It had some achievements in handicrafts, though
not to be compared with those of later centuriesand we must
remember that only the best of mediaeval craft work has been
preserved, and that there was probably a great deal of shoddy
material produced too. But these achievements certainly do not
indicate that we ought to try to reconstitute the mediaeval
political, social and economic systems. It was a world of mainly
evil rulers, of persistent and devastating wars, with ludicrous
concepts of the administration of justice, and with the lowest
standards of hygiene. "The ancient city of London, smelly and
holy," as Sir John Betjeman described it.

It would not have been possible, at any rate not without

enormous economic sacrifices, to reconstitute a society depend-
ing solely upon individual craftsmen; and if it had been done
they would probably, as in mediaeval Europe, have formed
themselves into exclusive guilds, leaving an impoverished pro-
letariat outside. For many purposes large-scale economic organ-
isation is unavoidable. But it is also true that we have carried
this concept much too far. Small businesses do flourish in the
modern world, particularly in agriculture and building, where
large-scale organisation is rarely possible or desirable. But
there could and should be many more small businesses, and
fewer and less powerful business conglomerates. In fact, these
very large companies, financed by their own undistributed
profits, are not ordy socially and politically undesirable, but
economically unremunerative as compared with independent

156
An Economist's View of Chesterton

businesses. This has clearly been shown by analyses carried out

by Dr. Little in England and Prof. Bauml in the United States.

The remedy is simple, and is already being applied in

Germany. Companies should not be encouraged to expand by
the investment of undistributed profits, which in any case
rightly belong to the shareholders, not to the company directors.
Directors of big companies, perhaps more than other men,
suffer from megalomania, and often invest these funds unwisely.
Company tax laws should be amended to impose heavy penal-
ties on undistributed profits, to encourage existing companies
to distribute their profits to the shareholders to whom they
belong, and to make room for new businesses to be established.
The tax laws should also be amended to give small new busi-
nesses more opportunities of getting established.

Politically also we are suffering from extreme centralisation,

even in countries with Federal Constitutions. The ever-growing
powers of centrahsed governments and bureaucracies must be
checked, and political responsibility, and financial responsibihty
with it, restored to state, provincial and local governments.

157