d practical political ideals and aspirations, is
also not surprising. After the Restoration, when, as we have already
shown, Winstanley's bitter opponents, the old and new landholders, were
in the saddle, and made unsparing, we had almost written unscrupulous,
use of their opportunities, such doctrines as his were little likely to
commend themselves to the privileged, cultured and educated classes.
Prior to the Reformation, education, at least the knowledge of reading,
writing and arithmetic, was undoubtedly more widely diffused amongst the
masses of the people than it was subsequently--at all events, till very
recent times. From the Restoration to within our own times, education,
even the knowledge of reading, was as a very general rule only within
the reach of the few, of the privileged classes and those more or less
dependent on their favour, with whom such ideals as those voiced by
Winstanley would naturally meet with but scant consideration. Moreover,
though we may be accused of pessimism or cynicism for saying so, it
seems to us that the main reason why teachings such as Winstanley's must
necessarily remain specially unpalatable and unwelcome so long as social
and political privileges are allowed to continue, is that they are too
simple and direct, and the path toward their realisation too clearly
indicated, to be acceptable or welcome to those who benefit, or think
they benefit, by the continuance of social injustice. Winstanley's
proposals, as the proposals of his great modern representative, Henry
George, are, indeed, a test of sincerity. It is easy to express approval
of Freedom, Justice, Honesty, Equality of Opportunities, Brotherhood, of
the Equal Right of All to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,
and so on, _in the abstract_, and to talk about the necessity for men,
_other men_, dealing honestly, equitably and righteously one toward the
other. It is difficult, though but a test of our own honesty and
sincerity, to give practical support to unpopular doctrines and
proposals which would tend to make these noble and elevating conceptions
into real, living realities, and to enforce us to act honestly,
equitably and righteously ourselves. Hence it is that even to-day those
who advocate any such doctrines, any such social change, are either
dismissed as impossible, utopian dreamers, or denounced as revolutionary
demagogues, as "prophets of iniquity," "preachers of immorality,"
"advocates of villany," as en