The Freeman 1972 - The Ludwig von Mises Institute

334 THE FREEMAN Juneal Law) ; he was no anarchist. Hebelieved, as did many of his contemporaries,in a natural harmoniousorder; that God had so arrangedHis Creation that "allthings work together for good,"if we but obey Him (Romans8 :28). If this is true, the endlessattempts to rig the market androok the neighbors were unnecessary,immoral, and a cause of needlessconflict. As Bastiatl-! asked,"How could God have willed thatmen should attain prosperity onlythrough injustice and war?"Mercantilism, ancient and modern,is based on the "frightfulblasphemy," that God has so orderedthe world that the right isimpractical, common decency issuicidal, and the oppression of theweak and helpless is good business.This view Adam Smith andhis followers emphatically rejectedon philosophical and ethicalgrounds..While they might disagreeas to how much governmentis necessary and appropriate, theydid agree that slavery is contraryto the Higher Law and should beabolished. To them it was badbusiness ·and worse morals.Christian GentlemenIt may seem preposterous to amultitude of people to speak ofthe laissez-faire economists andpractical businessmen of the IndustrialRevolution as Christiangent!emen much concerned withreform. According to the popularnotion, as T. S. Ashton1;") tells us,"... the course of English historysince about the year 1760 to thesetting-up of the welfare state in1945 was marked by little buttoil and sweat and oppression."There was some of this certainly,but this is only part of the story.A contemporary historian, EarleE. Cairns,16 writing of Wilberforceand the Clapham Sect in thedecades before and after 1800, insiststhat they accomplished moreof a constructive nature than anyreform movement in history andthere were others who followedthem who accomplished much also.Then why the very bad reputationof this era? Certainly fewperiods of history are more notoriousthan the early IndustrialRevolution. Generations of Socialistsblackened the good nameof these men who did have theirfailings and this age which didhave its problems. Some of theirbitterest critics were their owngrandchildren, the BloomsburyCircle. Today, sadder and wiser,we realize that we could certainlylearn much from them, if we wouldforget our prejudices long enoughto· examine' the record. Indeed, acontemporary scholar, Karl Polanyi,17tell us that the four greatinstitutions of the ,nineteenth century- the balance of power, the