Richard Oastler was one of the most impressive and godly men of the 19th c., known to friend and foe as "the Factory King". In short, Oastler was a committed old Tory (supporting political power of the monarchy and the Church's institutional powers within English society), but became radicalized when he saw the depredations in the English factory system. Seeing men, women, and children worked near to death, in a state of squalor and ignorance, Oastler began a crusade to limit the time industrialists could compel workers to labor, as well banning the employment of children. He initiated a fusion of Tories and Radicals, who opposed both the liberal oligarchy of the Whigs, as well as the soft peddled liberalism of Peel's neo-tory "Conservative" party.
Oastler's life was full of failure. His reforms were consistently blocked. He was defeated in two runs for Parliament (due to the enfranchisement of £10 households; which blocked many working people, but brought in many middling sorts, many of whom were indifferent to reforms). His efforts, at one point, strained his relationship with his employer (Oastler ran a town's property on behalf of a gentleman owner), which saw him eventually tossed into debtors' jail for a few years (Oastler had entangled his own finances with the town, spending his own to fix up properties). Oastler had a strained relationship with some Radicals, and had trouble with the Chartists. Nevertheless, Radicals embraced this evangelical Tory, whose love for his fellow man won him consistent admiration. He would not relent until working conditions were improved (which they, in mild ways, were, but never to what he advocated). His motto was: the Altar, the Throne, and the Cottage. He believed that the historical features of English society were sufficient to provide a decent life for all.
A key element here, worthy of reflection, is his contempt for "political economy" as the ideological fad of liberalism. Disgusted with Malthusian planning, Ricardian economic calculation, and the reduction of life into a utilitarian spread of limited resources, Oastler questioned an account of life that seemed to benefit its apologists. Is it not odd that the industrialists and their financiers reaped the rewards of this system, while the masses choked out an existence under the black clouds of Satanic mills? While one may appreciate the insight of an analytical assessment of "political economy", the ideological trick is to substitute analysis (is) for action (ought). Liberal Whigs were quite vocal in proclaiming that such is the world and any interference was to bring about anarchy. A precursor to social darwinism, it was better to let life take its course, the weak perishing and the strong thriving. It was this way that nature would be unhindered and Britain would sustain its global power. Factory owners appealed to this rationale as to why 9 year olds had to work 60-70 hours (or more) a day. To slow down, to tinker with nature, was to court disaster.
The insanity of this view is still with us. Many Christians buy into these demonic doctrines, seduced with libertarian views of the world. A crude kind of social darwinist logic (manifest in bootstrap justification for treating the poor as lazy and weak-minded degenerates) still pervades many churches. The Cold War logic continues, justifying free-trade as the godly way in opposition to Soviet communism. It's insane how this trick was pulled off, but few are confronted with the vanity and wickedness of their opinions. They would have supported the new Poor Laws (which Oastler hated), replacing free alms with government factories that destroyed families and trapped men/women/children in the most grotesque form of wage slavery (contemporaries called these government factories "bastilles"). But per the logic of "political economy", such was the way of the world and these working people deserved their fate.
Richard Oastler (a saintly man) is worthy of remembrance (c.f. Hebrews 12:1). Out of Christian conviction, he strove to make his nation a better place for those under the grinding wield of liberal political economy. He did not advocate theocracy, but called Christians to act as Christians, under the appointed monarch and within the holy church. Unfortunately, the lure of the Beast, the wine of Babylon that the Whore communes with the kings of men, is strong. Mammon is a voracious dragon, a competing loyalty locked in mortal combat with fidelity to Christ (c.f. Matt. 6:24).
To conclude, below is a record of a conversation Oastler had with Thomas Chalmers over the 10 hour bill. Chalmers is well known among some evangelicals for his devotional works, but he was also a committed liberal. Ignorant of what he supported, Oastler set him straight (and according to the biography, Oastler converted him to the cause of factory reform). It's a stirring conversation, if nothing else.
--
"I see, [Thomas Chalmers] said, "this Bill is contrary to the principles of Free Trade"
"Decidedly," Oastler replied. "If Free Trade be right, the Ten Hours' Bill is wrong"
"I am a Free Trader, and cannot support any measure that is opposed to it," Chalmers rejoined.
"That is very strange," Oastler said. "I thought you were a Christian".
"And so I am"
"What!" exclaimed Oastler, "a Christian and a Free Trader? You surprise me."
"How so?" Chalmers asked.
"Why, Dr. Chalmers, it was from you I learned that Free Trade was anti-Christian. When a youth I read your Astronomical Lectures, and in one of them you treated on responsibility of the rich..."
"What has that to do with Free Trade?" the divine interrupted.
"Everything," said Oastler.
"There you taught that God would require of every man a true account of the use of his wealth; that if it had not been used in accordance with His laws, you said, the punishment on the offender would be most dreadful. Now the doctrine of the Free-trader is, that no law is given-no responsibility is incurred! That wealth cannot (when its owner is seeking for its increase) be misapplied. That Christianity does not concern itself with the modes adapted to increase Capital! That even the most covetous and cruel person cannot err, so long as his aim is his own aggrandisement. That then he must, of necessity, be a benefactor to society. The Free-trader, therefore, laughs at the idea of Christian laws interfering with him. He rejects the interposition of the Almighty; he is an independent agent. He cannot be a Christian. Every Christian believes that man has fallen from perfection, that he is selfish, covetous, and that he needs the unerring teaching of the Almighty. The Christian must require that all human law shall be founded on the laws revealed in the Word of Truth - 'Do unto others as you would they should do unto you'; not 'Take advantage of another's poverty or ignorance, forcing or coaxing him to sell cheap; and when he is a buyer, using the same means to make him buy dear'...not 'get money any how, even at the cost of limb and life to those employed in his aggrandisement'; for 'love worketh no ill to its neighbour.'
The Christian will never forget [he continued], the Free-trader will never remember, that the head and the eye must never be permitted to invade the rights of the hands and the feet. The Christian knows that Society is one compact body, each individual member being dependent on the rest, each requiring the protection of all. The Free-trader, on the contrary, persuades himself that each member is a separate piece of independence, an isolated self." (in Cecil Driver, Tory Radical, 468-469)
No comments:
Post a Comment