Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/228

Rh devout believer in economic theory, as represented by Ricardo and his school. The later philosophy of the subject he believed to be summed up in one book, Mill’s Principles of Political Economy, which he regarded as the indispensable “vade mecum” of every politician. He was not a great reader, and Mill probably never had a serious rival in his regard, though he was much impressed by Buckle’s History of Civilization and Darwin’s Origin of Species when they severally appeared. He made a great impression in 1859 with a paper at the British Association, and he soon became a familiar figure there and at various lecture halls in the north as an exponent of orthodox economic theory. Of the sincerity of his faith he gave the strongest evidence by his desire at all times to give a practical application to his views and submit them to the test of experiment. Among Mill’s disciples he was, no doubt, far inferior as an economic thinker to Cairnes, but as a popularizer of the system and a demonstrator of its principles by concrete examples he had no rival. His power of exposition was illustrated in his Manual of Political Economy (1863), of which in twenty years as many as 20,000 copies were sold. Alexander Macmillan had suggested the book, and it appeared just in time to serve as a credential, when, in the autumn of 1863, Fawcett stood and was elected for the Chair of Political Economy at Cambridge. The appointment attached him permanently to Cambridge, gave him an income, and showed that he was competent to discharge duties from which a blind man is often considered to be debarred. He was already a member of the Political Economy Club, and was becoming well known in political circles as an advanced Radical. In January 1863, after a spirited though abortive attempt in Southwark, he was only narrowly beaten for the borough of Cambridge. Early in 1864 he was adopted as one of the Liberal candidates at Brighton, and at the general election of 1865 he was elected by a large majority. Shortly after his election he became engaged to Millicent, daughter of Mr Newson Garrett of Aldeburgh, Suffolk, and in 1867 he was married. Mrs Fawcett (b. 1847) became well known for her social and literary work, and especially as an advocate, in the press and on the platform, of women’s suffrage and the higher education and independent employment of women. And after her husband’s death, as well as during his lifetime, she was a prominent leader in these movements.

Fawcett entered parliament just in time to see the close of Palmerston’s career and to hail the adoption by Gladstone of a programme of reform to which most of the laissez-faire economists gave assent. He was soon known as a forcible speaker, and quickly overcame the imputation that he was academic and doctrinaire, though it is true that a certain monotony in delivery often gave a slightly too didactic tone to his discourses. But it was as the uncompromising critic of the political shifts and expedients of his leaders that he attracted most attention. He constantly insisted upon the right of exercising private judgment, and he especially devoted himself to the defence of causes which, as he thought, were neglected both by his official leaders and by his Radical comrades. Re-elected for Brighton to the parliament of 1868–1874, he greatly hampered the government by his persistence in urging the abolition of clerical fellowships and the payment of election expenses out of the rates, and by opposing the “permissive compulsion” clauses of the Elementary Education Bill, and the exclusion of agricultural children from the scope of the act. His hatred of weak concessions made him the terror of parliamentary wirepullers, and in 1871 he was not undeservedly spoken of in The Times as the most “thorough Radical now in the House.” His liberal ideals were further shocked by the methods by which Gladstone achieved the abolition of Army Purchase. His disgust at the supineness of the cabinet in dealing with the problems of Indian finance and the growing evil of Commons Enclosures were added to the catalogue of grievances which Fawcett drew up in a powerful article, “On the Present Position of the Government,” in the Fortnightly Review for November 1871. In 1867 he had opposed the expenses of a ball given to the sultan at the India office being charged upon the Indian budget. In 1870 he similarly opposed the taxation of the Indian revenue with the cost of presents distributed by the duke of Edinburgh in India. In 1871 he went alone into the lobby to vote against the dowry granted to the princess Louise. The soundness of his principles was not impeached, but his leaders looked askance at him, and from 1871 he was severely shunned by the government whips. Their suspicion was justified when in 1873 Fawcett took a leading share in opposing Gladstone’s scheme for university education in Ireland as too denominational, and so contributed largely to a conclusive defeat of the Gladstone ministry.

From 1869 to 1880 Fawcett concentrated his energies upon two important subjects which had not hitherto been deemed worthy of serious parliamentary attention. The first of these was the preservation of commons, especially those near large towns; and the second was the responsibility of the British government for the amendment of Indian finance. In both cases the success which he obtained exhibited the sterling sense and shrewdness which made up such a great part of Fawcett’s character. In the first case Fawcett’s great triumph was the enforcement of the general principle that each annual Enclosure Act must be scrutinized by parliament and judged in the light of its conformity to the interests of the community at large. Probably no one did more than he did to prevent the disafforestation of Epping Forest and of the New Forest. From 1869 he regularly attended the meetings of the Commons Preservation Society, and he remained to the end one of its staunchest supporters. His intervention in the matter of Indian finance, which gained him the sobriquet of the “member for India,” led to no definite legislative achievements, but it called forth the best energies of his mind and helped to rouse an apathetic and ignorant public to its duties and responsibilities. Fawcett was defeated at Brighton in February 1874. Two months later, however, he was elected for Hackney, and retained the seat during his life. He was promptly replaced on the Indian Finance Committee, and continued his searching inquiries with a view to promote a stricter economy in the Indian budget, and a more effective responsibility in the management of Indian accounts.

As an opponent of the Disraeli government (1874–1880) Fawcett came more into line with the Liberal leaders. In foreign politics he gave a general adhesion to Gladstone’s views, but he continued to devote much attention to Indian matters, and it was during this period that he produced two of his best publications. His Free Trade and Protection (1878) illustrated his continued loyalty to Cobdenite ideas. At the same time his admiration for Palmerston and his repugnance to schemes of Home Rule show that he was not by any means a peace-at-any-price man. He thought that the Cobdenites had deserved well of their country, but he always maintained that their foreign politics were biased to excess by purely commercial considerations. As befitted a writer whose linguistic gifts were of the slenderest, Fawcett’s English was a sound homespun, clear and unpretentious. In a vigorous employment of the vernacular he approached Cobbett, whose writing he justly admired. The second publication was his Indian Finance (1880), three essays reprinted from the Nineteenth Century, with an introduction and appendix. When the Liberal party returned to power in 1880 Gladstone offered Fawcett a place in the new government as postmaster-general (without a seat in the cabinet). On Egyptian and other questions of foreign policy Fawcett was often far from being in full harmony with his leaders, but his position in the government naturally enforced reserve. He was, moreover, fully absorbed by his new administrative functions. He gained the sympathy of a class which he had hitherto done little to conciliate, that of public officials, and he showed himself a most capable head of a public department. To his readiness in adopting suggestions, and his determination to push business through instead of allowing it to remain permanently in the stage of preparation and circumlocution, the public is mainly indebted for five substantial postal reforms:—(1) The parcels post, (2) postal orders, (3) sixpenny telegrams, (4) the banking