it would not be necessary to restrain him at all.  And I assure you he will get no great glow of comfort out of your calling him irresponsible after you have made him impotent.  A man does not necessarily feel more free and easy in a straight waistcoat than in a stone cell.  The moral difference is that a man can be punished for a crime because he is born a citizen; while he can be constrained because he is born a slave.  But one arresting and tremendous difference towers over all these doubtful or arguable differences.  There is one respect, vital to all our liberties and all our lives, in which the new restraint would be different from the old punishment.  It is of this that the plutocrats will take advantage.

The Plain Difference

The perfectly plain difference is this.  All punishment, even the most horrible, proceeds upon the assumption that the extent of the evil is known, and that a certain amount of expiation goes with it.  Even if you hang the man, you cannot hang him twice.  Even if you burn him, you cannot burn him for a month.  And in the case of all ordinary imprisonments, the whole aim of free institutions from the beginning of the world has been to insist that a man shall be convicted of a definite crime and confined for a definite period.  But the moment you admit this notion of medical restraint, you must in fairness admit that it may go on as long as the authorities choose to think (or say) that it ought to go on.  The man’s punishment refers to the past, which is supposed to have been investigated, and which, in some degree at least, has been investigated.  But his restraint refers to the future, which his doctors, keepers, and wardens have yet to investigate.  The simple result will be that, in the scientific Utopia of the “Clarion,” men like Mann or Syme or Larkin will not be put in prison because of what they have done.  They will be kept in prison because of what they might do.  Indeed, the builders of the new tyranny have already come very near to avowing this scientific and futurist method.  When the lawyers tried to stop the “Suffragette” from appearing at all, they practically said:  “We do not know your next week’s crime, because it isn’t committed yet; but we are scientifically certain you have the criminal type.  And by the sublime and unalterable laws of heredity, all your poor little papers will inherit it.”

This is a purely practical question; and that is why I insist on it, even in such strenuous times.  The writers on the “Clarion” have a perfect right to think Christianity is the foe of freedom, or even that the stupidity and tyranny of the present Government is due to the monkish mysticism of Lord Morley and Mr. John M. Robertson.  They have a right to think the theory of Determinism as true as Calvin thought it.  But I do not like seeing them walk straight into the enormous iron trap set open by the Capitalists, who find it convenient to make our law even more lawless than it is.  The rich men want a scientist to write them a lettre de cachet as a doctor writes a prescription.  And so they wish to seal up in a public gaol the scandals of a private asylum.  Yes; the writers on the “Clarion” are indeed claiming irresponsibility for human beings.  But it is the governments that will be irresponsible, not the governed.