diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/65915-0.txt | 3724 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/65915-0.zip | bin | 84294 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/65915-h.zip | bin | 335100 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/65915-h/65915-h.htm | 6320 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/65915-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 241693 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/65915-h/images/icon.png | bin | 3288 -> 0 bytes |
9 files changed, 17 insertions, 10044 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ba99405 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #65915 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/65915) diff --git a/old/65915-0.txt b/old/65915-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 811e96d..0000000 --- a/old/65915-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,3724 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Gladstonian Ghosts, by Cecil -Chesterton - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Gladstonian Ghosts - -Author: Cecil Chesterton - -Release Date: July 24, 2021 [eBook #65915] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Benjamin Fluehr, Tim Lindell and the Online Distributed - Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was - produced from images generously made available by The - Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GLADSTONIAN GHOSTS *** - -GLADSTONIAN GHOSTS, - -By CECIL CHESTERTON. - - - - - GLADSTONIAN GHOSTS. - - BY - - CECIL CHESTERTON. - - PRINTED BY THE LANTHORN - PRESS, AND PUBLISHED IN - LONDON BY S. C. BROWN - LANGHAM & CO., LTD. - - - - -CONTENTS. - - - DEDICATION 7 - - I. LIBERALISM AND THE ZEITGEIST 20 - - II. “WHAT PORTION HAVE WE IN DAVID?” 34 - - III. NATIONAL PENRHYNISM 51 - - IV. “MILITARISM AND AGGRESSION” 70 - - V. THE FETISH OF FREE TRADE 92 - - VI. TOWARDS ANARCHISM 114 - - VII. OUR BRITISH MOSLEMS 142 - - VIII. “RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM” 159 - - IX. SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION 180 - - X. SOME MATERIALS AND A POSSIBILITY 211 - - - - -DEDICATION - -TO - -EDGAR JEPSON. - - - - -DEDICATION. - - - My dear Jepson, - -If (with your permission) I dedicate this essay in political criticism -to you, it is because I know that, though you parade it less, your -interest in the science of politics is fully as keen as my own. In -point of fact there is no-one whose judgment in these matters I -would trust more readily than yours. You are a philosopher; and the -philosopher’s outlook in politics is always clear, practical and -realistic as contrasted with the thoroughly romantic illusions of -the typical party man. That, by the way, is why Mr. Balfour, the -philosopher, has in the domain of parliamentary and electoral strategy -hopelessly outwitted Mr. Chamberlain, the “man of business and busy -man”--to quote his own characteristically poetic phrase. - -As a philosopher you are able to see what no “practical statesman” on -either side of the House seems likely to perceive--that social and -economic politics are the only kind of politics that really matter, -and that the “chicken-in-the-pot” ideal of Henri Quatre is after all -the primary aim of all statesmanship. Three centuries of anarchic -commercialism have left us a legacy of pauperism, disease, famine, -physical degeneracy and spiritual demoralization, which in another -century will infallibly destroy us altogether if we cannot in the mean -time destroy them. And I think you share my impatience when our Radical -friends insist on discussing Irish Home Rule, Church Disestablishment -and the abolition of the House of Lords, as if such frivolities could -really satisfy the human conscience faced with the appalling realities -of the slums. - -When therefore I speak of your interest in politics I am not thinking -of that rather exciting parlour game which they play at Westminster -during the spring months. In this you probably take less interest than -I; for I must confess (not altogether without shame) that the sporting -aspect of politics has always fascinated me. You, on the other hand, -have _Bridge_ to amuse you; and, when you are brought to the bar of -the Nonconformist Conscience on this count, you may fairly plead that -any man who played _Bridge_ with the peculiar mixture of ignorance, -stupidity, criminal laziness and flagrant dishonesty with which the -Front Benches play the game of politics, would infallibly be turned out -of his club and probably cut by all his acquaintances. - -It may seem surprising that, taking this view of contemporary party -warfare, I should have troubled to write a book in criticism of it. -To which I can only reply that the parliamentary bridge-players are -unfortunately staking on their pastime not their own money but my -country’s interests; so that the incidents of the game become important -despite the frivolity of the players, and it seems to me that we are -on the eve of a turn of luck which may prove not only important but -disastrous. - -I suppose that we are not unlikely to have a General Election within -the forthcoming year; and many indications appear to point to the -probability of a sweeping Liberal victory. I want you to consider -carefully what a Liberal victory means for us and for all serious -reformers. - -A Liberal victory means one of two things; either six years -of government by the Whigs or six years of government by the -Nonconformists. There is no third alternative, for neither the old -destructive Free-thinking Radicalism of the late Charles Bradlaugh -and the almost extinct Secular Society, nor the new sentimental High -Church Radicalism of my excellent friend C. F. G. Masterman and his -associates of the _Commonwealth_ has the slightest hold on any section -of the electorate that counts politically. If you doubt this, it is -because you did not follow Masterman’s campaign at Dulwich as closely -as I did. Vehement Catholic though he was, he was forced to accept -all the political shibboleths of Nonconformity on pain of certain -annihilation; yet, even after he had gone to the very verge of what -his conscience would permit to conciliate his sectarian masters, this -did not save him from a crushing defeat. An excellent candidate, an -eloquent and effective speaker with real civic enthusiasm, he met the -same fate which overtook Bernard Shaw at St. Pancras, when he stood for -the L.C.C. And that fate will continue to overtake all who rely on -Radical support without first making their full submission--political, -theological and moral--to the Vatican of Dissent. - -The Radical wing of the Liberal Party has degenerated into a political -committee of the Free Church Councils; even the Liberal League cannot -get on without making some acknowledgement of Nonconformist authority. -But the “Imperialist” section is of course less absolutely under the -control of Salem Chapel than its rival; is it fundamentally any more -progressive? - -It is pathetic in the light of subsequent events to read again the -admirable article (to which by the way I am indebted for the title of -this book) contributed by Mr. Webb to the _Nineteenth Century_ three -years ago. Mr. Webb was so simple-minded as to suppose that Lord -Rosebery’s talk about “national efficiency” really meant something, -and that “Liberal Imperialism” was a genuine attempt to form a -party of progress free of Gladstonian tradition. Sancta simplicitas! -We can see now clearly enough that the Liberal Imperialists were -for the most part mere squeezable opportunists with all the effete -prejudices of the Pro-Boers minus their sturdiness of conviction, -men who wished to snatch a share in the popularity of the South -African War, but had not the slightest intention of abandoning a -single Mid-Victorian nostrum, which could still be used to catch a -few votes. On the Education Bills, Tariff Reform and Licensing, they -have Gladstonised, Miallised, Cobdenised and Wilfred-Lawsonised with -the best. And now that the Fiscal Question seems likely to drive back -into the ranks of the Liberal “Right” such men as Lord Goschen and the -Duke of Devonshire--the very men who were frightened to death of Mr. -Chamberlain’s “Socialism” as far back as 1885--all hope of reform from -that quarter is at an end. A “Liberal Imperialist” government means -Lord Rosebery orating nobly about nothing in particular, Lord Goschen -and the Duke of Devonshire acting up to their self-constituted function -of “drags upon the wheel,” and Sir Henry Fowler once more sitting -heavily on all enlightened municipal enterprise in the interests of -piratical monopolists. I see that the Whigs are already crying out for -“Free Trade concentration,” which will I imagine prove an excellent -excuse for doing nothing for the next half decade. - -And yet, I fear, we shall have to accept the Whigs as the lesser of -two evils. At least their offences will in the main be negative, while -the victory of the Nonconformists means a period of legislation so -disastrous that you and I and all advanced reformers will be obliged -to cling to the House of Lords as our only bulwark against the -appalling flood of reaction. For some time the Nonconformists have -been clamouring for the repeal of the admirable Education Acts of -1902-3. They have now begun to clamour for the repeal of the Licensing -Act as well. Now, quite apart from the merits of these measures, it -is as clear as daylight that all progress will be impossible if every -government devotes its time and energies to repealing the measures of -its predecessor. This disastrous precedent will be but the first-fruit -of a Dissent-driven ministry. Meanwhile our refreshments, our -amusements, even our religious observances will be subjected to silly -sectarian taboos. Social reform will be hopelessly neglected, while we -may have to face a revival of the foolish agitation in favour of Church -Disestablishment which even Mr. Chamberlain’s marvellous genius for -electioneering could not persuade the country to take very seriously in -the eighties. - -“The Whigs are a class with all the selfish prejudices and all the -vices of a class; the Radicals are a sect with all the grinding tyranny -and all the debasing fanaticism of a sect.” Those words are as true -to-day as they were when Lord Randolph Churchill spoke them nearly -twenty years ago. Indeed all that has happened since has tended to -make the Whigs more selfishly “class-conscious” and the Radicals more -debasingly sectarian. - -It may be retorted that the Tories are no better equipped for the -art of statesmanship. I assent; but I say that on the whole they are -less positively dangerous. For one thing the very cloudiness of their -political outlook renders them to a great extent amenable to skilful -and systematic pressure from genuine reformers. It is often possible -to get them to pass good measures without knowing it, as Mr. Webb and -Mr. Morant are supposed to have induced them to pass an Education -Bill which would have been rejected with unanimity by the Cabinet, -the Conservative Party, the House of Lords and all three Houses of -Convocation, had its real excellence been perceived by those bodies. -Also the Tories have not always in their pockets that dilapidated -bundle of red herrings (the Church, the Lords, etc), which the Radicals -produce periodically whenever the electorate has to be deluded. But, -when all has been said, it must be confessed that there is little to -be hoped from the Tories just now. They had their chance in 1895, when -they came into power on the cry of “Social Reform.” Had they fulfilled -their pledges then, we should never have had to face the terror of -a Gladstonian resurrection. But they failed; and the great Tory -revival which Randolph Churchill inaugurated has ended in a pageant of -fashionable incompetence above, and frivolous Jingoism (inexpressibly -disquieting to serious Imperialists) below, the wires being pulled -vigorously meanwhile by the unclean hands of Hebrew Finance--a sight -that would have made Churchill sick at heart. - -There remains the Labour Party which I discuss fully elsewhere. Here -I will only say that, while I believe that the only hope for England -and the Empire is in Socialism, I confess that, if I am to trust to -Socialists as I see them at present (outside our own Fabian Society) I -feel the hope to be a slender one. - -To conclude: if you and I vote (as I expect we shall) for Tory -candidates at the next election, it will not be from any admiration -for the present government, rather it will be from a very natural fear -lest a worse thing befall us. I have written this book for the same -reason; it may be taken among other things as a word of advise to my -fellow-citizens to weigh carefully, before recording their verdict on -their present rulers, the respective merits of the frying pan and the -fire. - -The warning, I think you at least will agree with me, is by no means -superfluous. - - Yours sincerely, - - CECIL CHESTERTON. - - - - -LIBERALISM AND THE ZEITGEIST. - - -It was the custom of Macaulay and other representative writers of the -Dark Ages to speak of the mediæval era in Europe as one of savage and -unenlightened barbarism. There is something particularly amusing to the -twentieth century observer in the patronizing tone adopted by men, who -lived in what could hardly be called a community at all, in writing of -the splendid civilization which flourished under Frederick II. and St. -Louis. For it is becoming obvious to us all now that the great movement -of the world from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century was not a -movement towards civilization but a movement away from it. Civilization -does not imply a collection of mechanical contrivances brought to a -high state of perfection--it may or may not possess such contrivances. -But it does imply a _Civitas_, a commonwealth, a conscious organization -of society for certain ends. This the age of St. Louis had, and the -age of Cobden had not. The great movement which we roughly call -“Liberalism” may therefore be very properly described as a reaction -against civilization. - -I do not say it was wrong. Let none suppose that I have any share in -the factitious dreams of the “Young England” enthusiasts or their -contemporary imitators. I know that Feudalism died in the fifteenth -century of its own rottenness, and that its revival is as hopeless and -undesirable as the revival of Druidism (much favoured I believe in -some literary quarters just now) would be. I recognise that Liberalism -in getting rid of its obsolete relics did good and necessary work -and cleared the way for better. I merely state the case historically -because it is impossible to understand the present position and -prospects of Liberalism without realizing that Liberalism is in its -essence destructive and in the strict sense of the word anti-social. - -Look at the track of Liberalism across English history. It begins -practically with the Reformation and the Great Pillage, wherein it -showed its true character very vividly in the combination of a strictly -individualistic religion with the conversion of communal property into -private property for the benefit of the new “Reforming” oligarchs. -Then it appears in the Civil War, which we are beginning to understand -better than the Whig historians of the late century understood it. On -its economic side Puritanism was the seventeenth century counterpart -of Cobdenism--a middle-class movement striking at once at the old -aristocracy, whose lands it confiscated and divided, and at the -proletariat, whom it robbed of what was left of their common heritage -and to whom it denied their traditional holidays, avowedly on religious -grounds but practically in the interests of the employing class. One -could continue the story further if it were necessary. But all that -need be said is that in the middle of the nineteenth century we find -Liberalism everywhere dominant and victorious with the result that -Englishmen had practically ceased to form a community at all. - -It is a common taunt in the mouths of Tariff Reformers just now that -Cobden and Bright opposed the Factory Acts; and Liberals, driven -into a corner on the subject, generally affect to regard this as an -unfortunate and unaccountable lapse from grace on the part of the two -Free Trade Apostles. Of course it was nothing of the sort: it was -the only possible line for them to take as honest men and consistent -political thinkers. The matter of the Factory Acts does not stand -alone: state education, when first proposed was met with Radical -opposition of a very similar kind. If anyone will look through the -speeches of the opponents of the early Factory Bills he will find that -they were attacked, just as the present government’s Education Bill -was attacked, not as revolutionary but as reactionary measures. They -were constantly compared to the Sumptuary Laws and to the statutes -regulating the position of apprentices which figure in mediæval -legislation. And the comparison is a perfectly fair one. Cobden and -Bright were fundamentally _right_ in their contention that Factory -Acts were contrary to the first principles of Liberalism. Such acts -were only passed, because the application of Liberal principles to -the questions involved had resulted in a welter of brutality, child -torture and racial deterioration, so horrible that no decently humane -man, no reasonable enlightened citizen could think of Lancashire and -its cotton trade without a shudder. When the Sovereign gave her assent -to the first effective Factory Bill she passed a prophetic sentence of -death on Liberalism and the Liberal Party. - -Doubtless the execution of the sentence has been long deferred and -may yet be deferred longer. But the backbone had been taken out of -Liberalism as soon as that concession had been made. It could not claim -any longer to have a coherent or intelligible political philosophy. -For the arguments used by the Manchester School against import duties -were precisely the same as those used against factory legislation. -The two propositions were based upon the same axioms and postulates; -if one was wrong, why not the other? And if the worship of “doing as -one likes” were unsound in the region of economics what reason was -there for supposing it to be sound in the region of politics? If Free -Contract were an untenable foundation for society, what became of Free -Trade? And, if Free Trade were to go, might not the demand for a Free -Church have to follow? The fortress of Liberalism still looked imposing -enough, but the foundations were sapped and there were ominous cracks -and fissures in the walls. - -Indeed the passing of the great Factory Acts marks the turning of -the tide. It was the public confession of the English nation that -Cobden’s and Bastiat’s Utopia of ‘economic harmonies’ was a foolish and -impossible one, based on bad economics and worse history. It was the -beginning of the reaction in favour of what I have called civilization, -that is of the conscious and deliberate regulation and control of -commerce in the public interest. Everything that has been done since -in the way of industrial reform--Housing Acts, Public Health Acts, -compulsory and free education, municipal ownership and municipal -trading--has proceeded in this direction. We are working towards what -Herbert Spencer called “The New Toryism,” that is back to civilization. - -It is no matter for surprise that most of the measures mentioned above -have been the work of Tory governments. Doubtless the Tories are stupid -and ineffectual enough, doubtless they are too much controlled by -landed interests and capitalist rings, to deal with social evils very -courageously. But at least they have this great advantage over their -enemies, that they are not obliged to reconcile everything they do -with the exploded economic dogmas of Benthamism, so that the insight -and progressive instincts of their abler leaders have been able to -force them farther along the path of progress than the sheer pressure -of political necessity has been able to force the equally reluctant -Liberals. So long as social reform remains a matter of pickings, we -shall get the best pickings from the Tories. - -But if, as I have suggested all meaning has long ago gone out of -Liberalism, how does it come about that Liberalism insists on -surviving? Are we not all expecting a big Liberal majority at the next -General Election, and would not such a majority prove that Liberalism -was very much alive? My answer is that it would not. Doubtless the -Liberals will win at the polls next year; probably they will get a good -majority. But this will prove nothing as to the spiritual vitality of -the thing they represent. It will prove that the people of this country -are annoyed with the present government and want a change. It will not -prove that they are in any real sense of the word Liberals; still less -that Liberalism has anything vital or valuable to say in relation to -current problems. - -The fact is that a party which has parted with its convictions may -continue to exist for a long time by living on its prejudices. This -is the ordinary history of movements, whether political, social or -religious, during the period of their decadence, and it is briefly the -history of Liberalism during the last fifty years. - -The Factory Acts, by their obvious necessity and their equally obvious -indefensibility from the Liberal standpoint, knocked the bottom out -of Liberalism and made a consistent Liberal philosophy impossible for -the future. But only new and growing movements require a philosophy. -When a movement has been going long enough to accumulate a fair number -of catch-words and a collection of common likes and dislikes, it can -make enormous use of these and even win great electoral triumphs on the -strength of them long after they have become completely separated from -the doctrines from which they originally sprang, and indeed long after -these doctrines have become so obsolete as to be universally incredible. - -An almost exact parallel may be drawn between the recent history -of Liberalism and the recent history of Nonconformity. English -Nonconformity was founded on the doctrines of Calvin as English -Liberalism was on those of Lock and Adam Smith. Where are the doctrines -of Calvin now? I do not suppose there is one chapel in London--perhaps -in England--where the doctrine of Reprobation is taught in all its -infamous completeness. The ordinary London Nonconformist minister -at any rate is the mildest and vaguest of theologians, and talks -like the member of an Ethical Society about little but “Truth and -Righteousness.” So far from preaching Calvinism with its iron and -inflexible logic and its uncompromising cry of “Come out and be ye -separate!” he is the first to tell you that the age of dogma is gone by -and that modern religion must be “undenominational.” Yet, in spite of -the complete disappearance of its intellectual basis, Dissent remains -powerful enough to thwart the execution of great reforms and wreck -the careers of great statesmen. And if you ask what (if not a common -theology) holds the Nonconformists together and makes them so potent -a force, the answer will be a common stock of prejudices--a prejudice -against Catholic ritual, a prejudice against horse-racing, a prejudice -against established churches, a prejudice against public houses and -music halls, a prejudice in favour of Sunday observance. All these -(except in the case of church establishment where the prejudice is the -result of a political accident erected into a religious dogma) are -natural consequences of the Calvinist theology, but in that theology -the modern Dissenter does not believe. Nevertheless, the foundation -gone, the prejudice remains, and may be found strong enough among -other things to destroy the value of one of the most beneficent reforms -which the last thirty years have seen. - -Now what has happened in the case of Nonconformity has happened also -in the case of Liberalism. The philosophy of Bastiat has followed -the philosophy of Calvin into the shades of incredibility. Yet the -prejudices born of that philosophy remain and can still be played -upon with considerable effect. They may briefly be summarized as -follows:--A prejudice against peers (though not against capitalists), a -prejudice against religious establishments, a prejudice against state -interference with _foreign_ trade (the case of home industry having -been conceded), a prejudice against Imperialism, a prejudice against -what is vaguely called “militarism”--that is to say against provision -for national defence. Add prejudices borrowed from the Nonconformists -against publicans and priests and you have the sum total of modern -Liberalism. - -Now I regard all these prejudices as mere hindrances to progress. I -wish to show in the pages which are to follow that they are not, as -the enthusiastic Radical imagines, the very latest manifestations of -“progressive thought,” but that on the contrary they are the refuse -of a dead epoch and an exploded theory of politics, that considered -as a message for our age they are barren and impossible, that a party -dominated by them is unfitted for public trust, and that, unless newer -and more promising movements can emancipate themselves from their -influence, they are likely to share the same ultimate fate. - -Peel is said to have caught the Whigs bathing and stolen their clothes. -But the present apparel of the Liberals is not such as to tempt any -self-respecting party to theft. - - - - -“WHAT PORTION HAVE WE IN DAVID?” - - -The ordinary man conceives of a Socialist as a kind of very extreme -Liberal or Radical, a man who pushes Radical doctrines further than -most Radicals dare push them. Indeed many Socialists conceive so of -themselves. Yet it is obvious that, if there is any truth at all -in what I have just written, this must be regarded as a complete -misconception. - -Socialism and Collectivism are names which we give to the extreme -development of that tendency in political thought which has proved so -fatal to Liberalism, which is indeed a reaction against Liberalism. -Karl Marx himself, revolutionary though he was, admitted that the -English Factory Acts were the first political expression of Socialism; -we have already seen that they were the death warrant of consistent -and philosophic Liberalism. Every piece of Socialistic legislation is -in its nature anti-Liberal. There is no getting away from the truth of -Herbert Spencer’s taunt when he called Socialism “The New Toryism.” -Epigrammatically expressed, that is an excellent and most complimentary -description of it. Socialism is an attempt to adapt the old Tory -conceptions of national unity, solidarity and order to new conditions. -Our case against Toryism is that its economic and political synthesis -is no longer possible for us. But we can have no kind of sympathy with -Liberalism which is the negation of all synthesis, the proclamation of -universal disruption. - -It is therefore particularly disheartening to find that “Liberal -principles” are apparently as sacrosanct in the eyes of many Socialists -as in those of the Liberals themselves. That Socialists also denounce -the idea of a State Church, that Socialists also rail at Imperialism -and condemn “bloated armaments,” that Socialists also proclaim the -universal holiness and perfection of Free Trade--this is the really -extraordinary and disturbing fact. - -This, though none seems to see it, is the real root of the difficulties -which beset every attempt to form an independent Socialist or Labour -Party. You cannot have an independent party with any real backbone in -it without independent thinking. And, omitting pious platitudes about -“the socialization of all the means of production, distribution and -exchange” there does not seem to me any perceptible difference between -the way in which the Independent Labour Party (for example) thinks -about current problems and the way in which the Liberals think about -them. They may think differently about economic abstractions, but -they do not think differently when it comes to practical politics. -Consequently whenever a question divides the Liberals and the Tories, -the I.L.P. always dashes into the Liberal camp at the firing of the -first shot without apparently waiting to consider for one moment -whether perhaps Socialism may not have an answer of its own to give -which will in the nature of things be neither the Liberal nor the -Tory answer. And then the I.L.P. and their allies of the Labour -Representation Committee boast proudly of their “independence” because -they are not allowed to speak on Liberal platforms. Of what avail is -that prohibition if the platform on which they themselves stand is in -its essence a Liberal platform. - -A little while ago the leaders of the I.L.P. were extremely indignant -because three L.R.C. representatives were said to have spoken at a -by-election in support of Liberal candidates. The defence was that -the three leaders in question spoke, not in support of the Liberal -candidate, but in opposition to the Licensing Bill and other measures -of the Conservative Government. Now it seems to me that this puts the -whole question of Socialist and Labour independence in a nutshell. If -Socialists and other champions of labour have really nothing to say -on the Licensing Bill, Education, Tariff Reform, Chinese Labour and -other topics of the hour other than what all the Liberals are saying it -seems very difficult to understand why it is so very wicked of them to -support Liberal candidates. If on every question which is really before -the country they agree with the said Liberal candidates it would seem -the obvious thing to do. At any rate I feel quite certain that they -will go on doing it, directly or indirectly, in spite of all the waste -paper pledges and resolutions in the world, until they get a political -philosophy of their own, when they will realize that the Socialist (or -if you prefer it the “Labour”) view of the licensing question, the -fiscal question and the South African labour question is and must be -fundamentally different from the Liberal and Radical view. - -And indeed for want of such realisation the rush of the Labour men -into the Liberal camp becomes more headlong every day. It began with -Radical Trade Unionists newly converted to the idea of independent -labour representation. But the Socialist wing has not shown itself a -whit steadier in its allegiance to the doctrine of real independence. -If you doubt this charge, turn to an article contributed by Mr. J. -Ramsay MacDonald to the _Speaker_ on the subject of the International -Socialist Congress at Amsterdam. The _Speaker_ if one of the ablest -is one of the most thoroughly obscurantist of Liberal papers, holding -fast and without shame by the traditions of Cobden and Gladstone. Mr. -MacDonald has been in the past one of the most uncompromising of the -leaders of the I.L.P. and is at this moment Secretary of the Labour -Representation Committee. He seems to claim, in the passage I am going -to quote, to speak for his party, and, as far as I am aware, none of -the leaders of that party have ventured to repudiate him. - -This is what he says:-- - -“If, for instance, in the next Liberal Cabinet the Rosebery faction -were strongly represented, and if no satisfactory pledges were given -upon the Government’s intentions regarding Trade Union legislation, -the Labour Party would be perfectly justified in supporting a vote of -censure--or what would amount to that--on the first King’s Speech; but -on the other hand, if the Cabinet were anti-Imperialist, and were sound -on Trade Union legislation, the Labour Party would be justified in -giving it general support and in protecting it from defeat.” - -It is hardly necessary to point out that here Mr. MacDonald gives the -whole I.L.P. case hopelessly away. None reading the above passage -could suppose for a moment that it was written by a Socialist. -Observe that the writer does not ask for a single item of socialist -or semi-socialist legislation. He is silent about Old Age Pensions, -about an Eight Hours Day or a Minimum Wage, about a Graduated Income -Tax, about Housing or Factory legislation--in a word about everything -that could by any possibility be called Socialistic. For what does he -ask? Firstly for anti-Imperialism? Now is anti-Imperialism the same as -Socialism? Is there any reason for supposing that the anti-Imperialist -wing of the Liberal party will do more for labour than the Imperialist -wing? Is Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman a Socialist or a Labourite? Is -Mr. John Morley, who for years has absolutely blocked the way in -regard to social reform, a Socialist or a Labourite? Why should the -Labour Party support the hopelessly outmoded rump of Little-England -Radicalism without at any rate making a very stringent bargain with -them? As to trade union legislation, every Socialist would doubtless -support it, but it is not in itself a Socialist measure; it is merely -what everyone supposed that the Unions had obtained thirty years ago -with the assent of Liberals and Tories alike. It therefore comes to -this--that Mr. MacDonald has declared himself as regards practical -issues not a Socialist at all, but an anti-Imperialist Radical who is -in favour of improving the legal position of trades unions. Then why, -in the name of heaven form an independent party at all? He and those -who follow him are clearly in their right place as an insignificant -section of the Radical “tail.” And that is how both Tories and Radicals -will in future regard them. - -But there is one Socialist sect in England from which we might at -least expect freedom from Liberal tradition. The Social Democratic -Federation is never tired of boasting of its independence, its -“class-consciousness,” its stern Marxian inflexibility of purpose. -Yet, when it comes to practice, it is only a trifle less enslaved by -Liberal ideas than the I.L.P. itself. During the South African War the -S.D.F. went one better than the Liberals in its narrow pro-Boerism. -Its members rallied to the support of the late Mr. Kruger (surely the -strangest leader that Social Democracy ever boasted!) and backed up the -Radical Krugerites without apparently asking any questions as to their -policy on labour matters. Later, on the education question, they again -rallied to the Radical standard (the standard of 1870!) and, like so -many Liberal Nonconformists, broke into ecstatic worship of the “ad -hoc” principle, denouncing as “undemocratic” the socialistic policy -of municipalized education which the Tory government had borrowed from -the Fabian Society. Moreover, glancing at the S.D.F. programme I find -among the “palliatives” disestablishment of the church and abolition -of hereditary monarchy. How the economic condition of the people is -going to be “palliated” by these measures I do not profess to know; I -will only remark that the “palliation” does not seem very visible in -the United States at the present time. But what I want to insist upon -is the utter futility of playing thus into the hands of the champions -of capitalism by helping to impress workmen with the idea that their -misfortunes are wholly or in part due to those purely constitutional -causes concerning which Radicals and Conservatives are at war, while -all the time we at least know that they are due to the economic -structure of society which Radicals and Conservatives alike support. - -I agree with the S.D.F. in thinking that a Labour party must have -some sort of doctrinal basis. An old party can live for a long while -on catchwords and prejudices, but you cannot build a new party up -without some definite political ideas. But these doctrines and ideas -must not be a mere re-hash of exploded Liberal doctrines and ideas -plus a theoretic belief in “the socialization of all the means, -etc.” The new party need not call itself Socialist,--perhaps had -better not do so,--but its attitude towards practical matters must -be effectively socialistic. It must stand for the rights of the -community as emphatically as the older Liberalism stood for the -rights of the individual. It must work for the state control and -regulation of industry as Liberalism worked for its liberation from -state interference. In a word, it must be Protectionist in a more -far-reaching sense than that in which the word is applicable to Mr. -Chamberlain or Mr. Chaplin. So that its political philosophy will be -emphatically anti-Liberal and may sometimes (though but accidentally) -have to be pro-Tory. - -Moreover, even if a Labour party could be a Labour party and nothing -more, there would always be a tactical as well as a philosophic -reason for clearing our movement of all complicity with the ideas -of Liberalism. During the first half of the nineteenth century it -was always supposed that the working classes of this country were -generally, if not exclusively Radical. Possibly at that time they were, -but since their enfranchisement in 1867 they have proved themselves -overwhelmingly and unrepentantly Tory. The history of the decades -which have intervened since then has been the history of the gradual -capture by the Tories of all the great industrial districts where the -working-class vote is most powerful. Politicians of the ’forties spoke -of the “Conservative Working Man” as incredulously as men would speak -of a white negro. Yet events have proved not only that such a person -exists, but that he can by his vote control the politics of nearly -every great manufacturing town in England. - -Now the Conservative working man has no fundamental objection to -Socialism. The word no doubt displeases him, partly because of its -foreign origin, partly from its vaguely revolutionary associations, -but on the practical application of Socialism he looks with very -decided favour. In fact it is not improbable that the conversion of -the labouring classes to Toryism was in part at least due to the fact -that during the sixties and seventies the Tories had for a leader Mr. -Disraeli, whose quick Hebraic imagination and insight made him perceive -the significance of the social problem, while the Liberals were led -by Mr. Gladstone, who regarded all social reform from the first with -supreme indifference which in his later days deepened into a hostility -so intense and deep-rooted that he was ready to shatter his party -and his own career over Home Rule, if by so doing he could stave off -economic questions. But to return to the Tory workman. I have said he -has no objection to applied Socialism. It would be a comparatively easy -matter to secure his support for a programme of advanced industrial -reform, were he not required to swallow first a number of Liberal -doctrines which have no relation to his class interests and to which -he really has a strong objection--anti-Imperialism, the reduction of -armaments, doctrinaire republicanism and Irish Home Rule. Once cut the -Labour party free from these things and the increase of its electoral -power will be enormous. - -Before proceeding to a more detailed examination of the Liberal -attitude towards current problems and its relation to the genuinely -progressive attitude, let me sum up the conclusions already reached. - -There is no philosophic ground for identifying Socialism with extreme -Liberalism or Radicalism. The philosophies of Liberalism and Socialism -are not merely different but directly antagonistic. - -There is no historical ground for regarding the Liberal party as the -friend of the working classes. The Liberal party is historically an -essentially capitalist party; as a matter of fact the Tory party has -carried more drastic and valuable social reforms than its rival. - -There is no tactical advantage to be gained by committing the new-born -Labour party to the specific doctrines of Liberalism. The working -classes of this country have no enthusiasm for any of these doctrines -and have a marked dislike for some of them. - -Therefore the Labour party or Socialist party or whatever the new -movement cares to call itself must if it is to succeed fling all its -Liberal lumber overboard and start afresh. It is not enough that it -should be independent of Liberal money and Liberal organisation. All -this matters little. What is essential is that it should be independent -of Liberal ideas. - - - - -NATIONAL PENRHYNISM. - - -As I have already suggested the subservience of Socialists and -Labourites to the traditions of Liberalism, so far from showing any -signs of abating gets worse every day. It has been getting markedly -worse since the beginning of the new century. It was the South African -War more than anything else which captured the English Socialists and -swept them into the most reactionary wing of the broken forces of -Liberalism. Since then the Radicals have always been able by raising -the cry of “No Imperialism!” to bend the Socialists to their will. -Hence Mr. MacDonald’s amazing indiscretion quoted in my last chapter. - -I think it was Mr. Ben Tillet who alluded to the owner of the Bethesda -Slate Quarries as “Kruger-Penrhyn.” I am not sure that Mr. Tillet or -indeed anyone else realised the full accuracy of this description. For -not only was there a very striking resemblance between the virtues -and faults of Mr. Kruger and those of Lord Penrhyn but there was an -even more remarkable analogy between the claims which the two men put -forward and the arguments by which those claims were attacked and -upheld. - -The friends of the Welsh quarrymen said in effect to Lord -Penrhyn:--“You are conducting your business improperly; your narrow -obstinacy is dangerous to the community and an obstacle to progress; -your conduct towards your employees is unfair and oppressive. We demand -that you either mend your ways or go.” Similarly the British government -said in effect to Mr. Kruger “You are conducting the government of your -country badly; your narrow obstinacy is an obstacle to progress and is -creating a situation dangerous to the peace of the world; your conduct -towards your subjects is unfair and oppressive. We demand that you -either mend your ways or go.” - -And the answer is in each case the same “Shall I not do what I will -with my own?” “Are not the quarries _mine_?” asks Lord Penrhyn: “Is not -the Transvaal _ours_?” demanded Mr. Kruger. “If my workmen do not like -my management they can leave,” said Lord Penrhyn; “If the Outlanders do -not like my government they need not come,” said Mr. Kruger. - -Now, granting the premises of these two eminent men their conclusions -certainly follow. Indeed the popular case against both was clearly -untenable. From the Liberal point of view Lord Penrhyn was as right -as Mr. Kruger; from the Conservative point of view Mr. Kruger was -as right as Lord Penrhyn. It is only by assailing the fundamental -assumptions of both that we can make out any fair case against either. -The only possible answer to the positions stated above is the Socialist -answer:--“No; the quarries do not really belong to Lord Penrhyn; the -Transvaal does not really belong to Mr. Kruger or to the Boers. Their -title depends on the use they make of them. Private property, whether -of individuals or of nations is subject ultimately to the claims of -public necessity.” - -I have dwelt on this point at some length because, as I have already -said, it was unquestionably the South African War which more than -anything else rivetted on our Socialist and Labour parties the chains -of Liberalism. It is perfectly natural that Liberals should champion -the “rights of nationalities,” since they are the chosen champions of -the rights of property. But what have Socialists to do with either -except to challenge them whenever they conflict with the general -well-being? How can Socialists accept the claim of a handful of -settlers to set up a ring-fence round a certain portion of the earth’s -surface and declare it _their_ property any more than the claim of a -landlord to enclose commons? - -Note that I am not by any means saying that no Socialist could -consistently oppose the South African War. There are many plausible -grounds upon which he could oppose it. He could oppose it for example -on the ground that the two Republics would in course of time have been -peaceably absorbed into the Empire, and that the attempt to hurry the -process by war was in every way a disastrous blunder. Or again he could -take the ground that the war dangerously strengthened the already too -powerful financial interests of the Rand and paved the way for such -reactionary measures as the introduction of Chinese labour. I will not -discuss here whether such arguments are sound or unsound. I only say -that the particular ground of debate chosen, the inalienable “right” of -a people to do what it likes with its own, is one that no Socialist can -take without self-stultification. - -The manner in which the leaders of the English Labour movement with a -few exceptions flung themselves recklessly into the most unintelligent -sort of pro-Krugerism is one example and one very disastrous in its -consequences of the extent to which they have allowed themselves to be -saturated with the Liberal theory of wholly irresponsible Nationalism. -But it is by no means the only one. The parallel case of Ireland is in -many ways even more curious. - -In considering the eternal Irish question from a Socialist standpoint -there are four dominant facts to be kept always in mind. The first -is that Nationalism in the Irish sense is not a Socialist ideal in -any sense, but is merely a kind of very narrow parochial Jingoism. -The second that the Irish Nationalist party is preeminently a _Parti -bourgeois_ drawing its main strength from the middle orders--small -tradesmen, tenant farmers and publicans, and that its political and -economic ideas are those generally characteristic of that class--rigid -individualism, peasant proprietorship and the like. The third that it -is a clericalist Party, representing not the enlightened Catholicism of -the Continent but the narrowest kind of political Ultramontanism.[1] -The fourth that Mr. Gladstone’s adoption of the Home Rule cause was a -deliberate move on his part intended to stave off economic reforms in -this country. - -Now in these circumstances it would seem almost incredible that -Socialists should feel any kind of sympathy with Irish Nationalism. Yet -apparently they do feel such sympathy. Mr. Gladstone indeed builded -better than he knew. He doubtless believed that by espousing Home -Rule he could “dish” Mr. Chamberlain and draw the attention of young -Liberals and Radicals away from social questions in which they were -beginning to take a languid interest; but he could hardly have expected -to effect this in the case of the Socialists and Labour leaders -themselves. Yet to a great extent his policy has achieved this, and we -actually find Socialists clamouring for the retention of Home Rule in -the Liberal programme, though they must know perfectly well that its -retention means the indefinite postponement of industrial matters. - -There is no kind of excuse for the Nationalist partialities of -Socialists because they know or ought to know that the theory that -England oppresses Ireland is a radically false and untenable one. -That Ireland is oppressed one need not deny; but it is not England -that oppresses her. It is capitalism and landlordism that oppress -Ireland as they oppress England. If the S.D.F. means anything at all -by its “recognition of the Class War” it ought to recognise this. And -recognising it, it ought to set its face like flint against a policy of -disunion and racial antagonism and teach the proletarians of Ireland -and England to “unite” (that is to be Unionists) according to the old -Socialist formula instead of encouraging the proletarians of Ireland to -regard those of England as aliens and tyrants. - -To say the truth I am a little tired of the wrongs of Ireland. I am -quite willing to admit that she is an “oppressed nationality” with the -proviso that this phrase is equally applicable to England, France, -Germany, Italy and the United States. But one is tempted to point out -that concessions have been made to the Irish peasantry such as no one -dreams of making to the workers of Great Britain. How much “fixity of -tenure” has the English labourer in the wretched hole which his masters -provide for him? Do we sign away millions of British money and British -credit to save _him_ from the oppression of his landlord? Not at all. -But then he does not shoot from behind hedges; nor has he as yet had -even the wisdom to organize a strong and independent political party -whose support is to be obtained for value received. - -In a word I contend that the association of English Socialism and -Labourism with the aspirations of Irish Chauvinists is theoretically -meaningless and practically suicidal. It is our business to meet the -old Gladstonian cry that everything else must wait because “Ireland -blocks the way” with a counter-cry, “It is Ireland’s turn to wait; -Labour blocks the way.” - -All this does not of course mean that no kind of devolution is -practicable or desirable. There is a sense in which I am myself a -convinced “Home Ruler.” I believe that a number of causes (quite -independent of Irish Jingoism) are combining to make a vast extension -of our system of local government imperative. Mr. H. G. Wells has shown -that the administrative areas of our local authorities are at present -much too small, and the authorities themselves are quickly finding this -out from practical experience. Parliament is overwhelmed with business -which intelligent local bodies could transact much better. Imperial -Federation, when it comes, will of necessity entail a large measure of -local autonomy. Altogether some scheme of provincial councils seems -less fantastic to-day than it did when Mr. Chamberlain outlined it -in the ’eighties. But there is no earthly reason for conceding to the -least trustworthy and most militantly provincial part of the United -Kingdom anything more than you give to the rest. Ireland should get -such autonomy as we might give to the north of England and no more. -Ireland is no more a Nation than Yorkshire, but there is every reason -why both Ireland and Yorkshire should be taught to manage their purely -internal affairs to the best of their ability. - -But, if exclusive Nationalism is essentially unsocialistic, what are -we to say of Imperialism? The answer is that there is nothing wrong -with Imperialism except the name which suggests Louis Bonaparte and -the dragooning of subject peoples. With the thing, in its British -sense, Socialists have no kind of quarrel. Indeed if Socialists would -only give up their vague invectives against “Empire,” which lead in -the long run to nothing more than the unmeaning backing of the effete -anti-imperialist, anti-socialist, anti-Church-and-State Radicalism -current fifty years ago, and seriously face the problems raised by -British expansion from an unswervingly Socialist standpoint, we might -get on a good deal faster. The problem of Imperialism (“Federationism” -would be a better word) may be briefly stated thus:--How can we -consolidate the widely scattered and variegated dominions which fly the -British flag into one vast Commonwealth of practically international -extent? Have Socialists any answer to this question? Or are they to be -content with the old Radical answer that this cannot or should not be -done? - -That any Socialist should return such answer is to me I confess -astounding. To say that such a practically international commonwealth -is impossible is to say that _a fortiori_ the international -commonwealth of which Marx and Lassalles dreamed is impossible. -If the proletarians of England and Ireland, Australia and South Africa, -India and Canada cannot unite, what hope is there that those of France -and Germany, Russia and Japan will do so. Surely it is a curious way -of showing your enthusiasm for the Federation of the World to break -up all existing federations into smaller and smaller divisions. The -practical Socialist policy in relation to the Empire is clearly not to -destroy it, but to socialize it--that is to prevent its exploitation by -capitalist cliques and financial conspiracies, to organise it in the -interests of its inhabitants as a whole, and to use its power to check -the evil force and cunning of cosmopolitan finance. - -For indeed the dark of deeds such finance can only, as we Socialists -believe, be checked by the political force of the community. And in -order to check it at all effectively the community must be operative -on a scale as large as its own. That is why the older Socialists were -internationalists; that is why so many of the more thoughtful of -modern Socialists are imperialists. Mr. Wells has pointed out at what -a serious disadvantage municipalities find themselves in dealing with -private monopolies since the latter can operate over any area that is -convenient to them, while the operations of the former are confined -within the narrow and arbitrary frontiers drawn by Acts of Parliament. -Exactly the same is true in international affairs. Mr. Beit and Mr. -Eckstein can safely snap their fingers at small nationalities, however -progressive. Against a Socialistic British Empire they would be utterly -powerless. - -And as the organization of the Empire can be made the most powerful of -Socialist weapons if we can once get control of it, so the popular -sentiment of Imperialism can be used for the purposes of Socialist -propaganda if we know how to turn it to account. For we Socialists -alone possess the key to the problem--the key for which nonsocialist -Imperialists are looking. It is to be noted that as soon as the -ordinary Imperialist gets anywhere near the solution of an imperial -question he gets unconsciously on to the Socialist track, as for -instance in the growing demand for the imperialisation of our great -carrying lines. Even Mr. Chamberlain’s propaganda, though Socialists -cannot think it sufficient, is a sort of groping after the socialist -solution, an admission of the necessity of intervention by the -united British Commonwealth to check and regulate the disintegrating -anarchy of commercial competition. In fact our word to the stupid and -thoughtless Imperialism of the streets is in reality the word of St. -Paul to the Athenians:--“What ye ignorantly worship that declare we -unto you!” - -The same general line of thought has its application to the problems -of foreign policy. The old Cobdenite doctrine of non-intervention in -the affairs of other nations had its origin in Cobden’s general view -of diplomacy as existing only to promote the interests of trade--by -which of course he meant the interests of the merchant, manufacturer -and capitalist. That cannot possibly be our view. For Socialists to -accept the Liberal doctrine of non-intervention would amount to a -denial of that human solidarity of which they have always considered -themselves the especial champions. In point of fact Palmerston is a -much better model for Socialists in regard to continental affairs -than Cobden or Bright or even Gladstone. For, though Gladstone was -certainly not a non-interventionist, his anti-Turkish monomania made -him blind to the evil power of Russia, whose existence is a standing -menace to liberty and progress, and whose power and vast resources -make her a more formidable enemy of all that we value than Turkey -could ever be if she tried. Socialists should press not merely for -the protection of our “proletarian” fishermen against the freaks of -tipsy or panic-stricken Russian admirals, but for a steady policy of -opposition to Russia all over the world and the support of any or every -nation, Japs, Finns, Poles, Afghans and even the “unspeakable” Turk -against her. During the perilous days through which we have recently -passed, it must have occurred to many that our position would have -been much stronger if we could have counted on the support of Turkey, -as we could have done had we never abandoned, in deference to Mr. -Gladstone’s theological animosities, the policy of Palmerston and Lord -Stratford de Redcliffe--the policy of first reforming Turkish rule and -then guaranteeing it against Muscovite aggression. The only difference -between our policy and Palmerston’s should be this, that while -Palmerston confined himself to the encouragement of political liberty, -we ought to aim at the promotion of economic liberty also. We should in -fact try to put England at the head of the Labour interest throughout -the world as Cromwell put her at the head of the Protestant interest, -and Palmerston of the Liberal interest. And in doing this we should be -prepared to make full use of those weapons which neither Cromwell nor -Palmerston would ever have hesitated to employ. - - - - -“MILITARISM AND AGGRESSION” - - -We are continually being told by Socialists of the hazier sort that -Labour has no concern with the question of national defence. We have -had recently a considerable ebullition of this particular form of -imbecility provoked by the efforts of one who has always seemed to -me quite the sanest and most far-sighted of English Socialists, Mr. -Robert Blatchford, to draw general attention to the importance of the -subject. Mr. Blatchford is in controversy very well able to take care -of himself, and in this instance he has overwhelmed his critics with -such a cannonade of satire, eloquence, indisputable logic and inspired -common-sense that it would be quite impertinent of me to offer him my -support. But the episode is so very typical of the ineffable silliness -of “advanced” persons that I cannot pass it by without comment. - -As to the contention so much favoured by those who have been assailing -Mr. Blatchford’s “militarism” that England is not worth defending and -that a foreign invasion would be no evil to the bulk of the people, -the position has been so thoroughly dismantled by “Nunquam’s” heavy -artillery that I need hardly trouble about it here. As Mr. Blatchford -says, a few weeks of Prussian or Muscovite rule would probably be the -best cure for reformers of this type. But the whole argument is on the -face of it absurd. That your country is badly governed is an excellent -reason for changing your present rulers. But it is no reason at all for -welcoming (patriotism being for the moment set on one side) a cataclysm -which would destroy good and bad alike--the good more completely than -the bad--and would inevitably throw back all hope of reform for -at least a century. As well might a man say that, since London was -admittedly in many ways an ugly and horrible place, he proposed to vote -for the abolition of the fire-brigade. - -So also with the very popular platitude which asserts that a peaceful -and unaggressive people need not fear attack, and that, if we refrain -from injuring our neighbours they will refrain from injuring us, -(unless presumably we happen to be North Sea fishermen). The obvious -controversial retort is that the people who maintain this doctrine -are for the most part the very same who a little while ago were never -tired of maintaining that the Boers were peaceful and unaggressive and -lamenting that in spite of this their country was attacked, conquered -and annexed by a powerful neighbour. Of course I do not accept this -account of the Boers, whom indeed I respect far too much to accuse -of Tolstoian proclivities. But the point is plainly unanswerable -for those who do accept it. In any case the whole of the above lofty -generalization is flatly contradicted by history and experience. -Indeed, if the strong will not wantonly attack the weak, then is our -preaching vain! Why are we Socialists? What is the good of Trade -Unionism? The humane capitalists will not attack us if we remain -“peaceful and unaggressive.” Perhaps not. As Mr. Hyndman (I think) once -said:--One does not muzzle sheep! But, if there is anything which the -whole history of human institutions proves, it is this, that the people -that does not know how to defend its liberties will lose them, and that -it is not the strong and aggressive nation but the weak and defenceless -nation that has cause to dread aggression from its neighbours. - -In a word the doctrine of non-resistance and its consequence, the -abolition of armaments, is good Anarchism and may therefore in a sense -be called good Liberalism. But Socialism it is not and cannot be. - -There is however, a position sometimes maintained by controversialists -rather saner than those dealt with above. It is suggested that, while -it may be admitted that an army of some sort is necessary, there -are plenty of people already concerned with the promotion of its -efficiency, and that Socialists, having other and more important work -to do, had much better leave the question alone, intervening only to -restrain the militarists when their demands become excessive. - -Now to this contention there are as it seems to me three complete -answers. By far the most important objection to such a policy is -that it would make it permanently impossible for us to gain the -confidence of the electorate. The people of Great Britain (especially -the working classes) will always demand as the first condition of -supporting any government that it shall be able and willing to defend -the country against foreign aggression. No party which was not -thought to fulfil this condition would find it possible to achieve -or retain administrative power. And those of us whose desire is not -to sit in arm chairs and read Tolstoi and congratulate ourselves -on the non-conformity of our consciences, but to get some sort of -socialism put into bricks and mortar, must feel the urgent necessity of -convincing the voters that we are trustworthy in this respect. - -Moreover if you leave the discussion of army reform to the -representatives of the landed and capitalist classes, such reforms -as we get will be carried out exclusively in the interests of those -classes. At present our military and naval forces are officered and -controlled by one class; they are an appendage of that class and will -always, so long as this is so, be employed successfully to protect its -interests. So long as the English people are asked to choose between -such class army and the risk of a German invasion, they will choose -the former, but it by no means follows that they would do so were a -practicable alternative placed before them. - -And this brings me to my third point. It so happens that for -the purpose of formulating an alternative, Socialists are in an -exceptionally favoured position. Our army has by common consent -broken down. It is not even effective for the purposes for which the -capitalist classes want it. It is not only, as foolish people suppose, -the War Office that is decadent and inefficient; the army is decadent -and inefficient. Our soldiers are perhaps the best raw material in -the world, but the whole machinery of war and defence is eaten up by -a corruption which is all the worse for being largely careless and -unconscious. The two worst enemies of the British Army are the power of -money and the power of caste. These are our enemies also. We Socialists -alone are in a position to see what is really wrong. Would it not be -worth our while to bring our best brains to bear upon the subject and -see whether our Socialism cannot provide us with a remedy. - -In spite of the unfortunate prevalence of the sort of sentimentalism -referred to above, there have always been in the socialist movement -witnesses to the common-sense view of militarism. Here and there -throughout this volume I have been obliged to criticize the attitude -of the Social Democratic Federation; I therefore admit the more gladly -that on this question that body has indubitably led the way. Its views -are obtainable in the form of a remarkably able pamphlet[2] from -the pen of Mr. Quelch, wherein the old Liberal Quakerism is thrown -completely overboard and the institution of universal citizen service -on something like the Swiss model put forward as the socialist solution -of the problem of national defence. The Fabians followed in “Fabianism -and the Empire,”[3] adopting a suggestion of Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb’s -that the half-time age in factories and workshops should be raised to -21, and the time thus gained devoted to training in the use of modern -weapons. Finally there is Mr. Robert Blatchford, whose plan is too -elaborate to be detailed here--I refer my readers to his articles in -the _Clarion_ during July, August and September last year and to his -forthcoming book on the subject--but whose cardinal demand is for an -immense increase in the numbers and efficiency of the volunteers, who -are to form a citizen force of almost national dimensions. Of course -the Fabian programme and, I gather, Mr. Blatchford’s also imply the -existence of at any rate a small professional army in addition. - -Now it seems to me that the one defect of the S.D.F. plan is that, -if I understand Mr. Quelch’s pamphlet rightly, it professes only to -provide a militia for the defence of these islands. That is to say it -does not provide for the defence of our possessions in different parts -of the world nor for any aggressive movement against the territory of -the power with which we chance to be at war; while even for purely -defensive purposes it is open to the grave military objections which -can always be urged against relying solely on irregular troops. - -I have already discussed the question of Imperialism and I need not -go into it again. But I suppose that all but the most fanatical -Little-Englanders, whatever their views on expansion, would admit that -it is both our right and our duty to assist in the protection of our -fellow-citizens in other parts of the world against unprovoked attack. -If, for example, Germany were to make a wanton attack on Australia, or -Russia on India, or the United States on Canada, I suppose that every -sensible Englishman would admit that we ought to come to the assistance -of our fellow-countrymen. But in that case we shall want an army for -foreign service as well as for home defence. - -The other point needs rather more explanation because it is constantly -misunderstood by people who will not try to comprehend the nature of -war. Such persons are always confusing aggression in the political -sense as the cause of war with aggression in the strategic sense as -a method of conducting it. A war may be waged solely for defensive -purposes, yet it may be the right course from a military point of -view to take the offensive. France found this in the wars of the -revolution; and Japan fighting (as I believe) for no other purpose than -the protection of her own independence against the lies of Russian -diplomacy and the brutalities of Russian power, has yet been obliged -to conquer Korea, invade Manchuria, and lay siege to Port Arthur. -Similarly we might easily find ourselves engaged in a purely defensive -war with France or Germany, in which it might be still the only safe -policy to raid the territory and seize the over-sea possessions and -especially the coaling-stations of our enemies. - -As a matter of fact the distinction so often made between offensive and -defensive war is more theoretic than practical. It is seldom possible -to say in the case of a modern war that either side is unmistakably -attacking or defending. Which side was the aggressor in the Crimean -or Franco-German wars? Are the Japs aggressors because it was they who -actually declared war or are they only defending their country? The -real question to be asked is not which side is the aggressor, but which -nation is so situated that its triumph will be beneficial to mankind as -a whole. - -Lastly there are the serious disadvantages from a military standpoint -of trusting to a citizen force alone. Experience seems to prove that -such a force is suitable only to a certain kind of warfare. The example -of the Boers to which Mr. Quelch appeals so confidently tells directly -against him. The Boers doubtless did wonders in the way of guerrilla -fighting and in the defence of strong positions, but they never -followed up their successes effectively, and they had to waste a great -deal of time, when time was of the utmost value to them, in sitting -down before Ladysmith, Kimberley and Mafeking when a professional army -of the same size would have taken all three by assault. - -It seems to me that we can get an excellent military policy for -Socialists by a judicious combination of the three suggestions to which -I have referred. Taking Mr. Webb’s plan first, let us by all means by a -modification of the Factory Acts (much needed for its own sake) train -the whole youthful population in the use of modern weapons--and not -in the use of modern weapons alone but in the best physical exercises -available and above all in discipline, endurance and the military -virtues. Then, following Mr. Quelch and the S.D.F. we might keep them -in training by periodic mobilizations on the Swiss pattern without -subjecting them to long periods of barrack life. From the large citizen -force so formed we ought to be able to pick by voluntary enlistment -a professional army which need not be very large, but which should -be well-paid, efficiently organised and prepared for any emergency. -Another and larger professional army would be needed for the defence of -distant dependencies such as India. - -These forces must, of course, be constituted on a basis of equality of -opportunity, efficiency and reliability and capacity to command being -the only passports to promotion and no bar being placed between the -most capable soldier, whatever his origin and the highest posts in the -army. From the purely military point of view this would be an enormous -improvement on the present system. It is worth noting that the two -armies which, organised in an incredibly short space of time out of the -rawest of materials, broke in pieces every force which could be put -into the field against them, the army of Cromwell and the army of the -First Republic, were alike based on the principle of the “career open -to talent.” So the policy which I suggest would, I sincerely believe, -convert our impossible army into one of the best fighting machines in -the world. Not only would the officers under such a system be more -capable than some of the fashionable commanders, whose glorious defeats -and magnificent surrenders we were all eulogising five years ago, but -better chances and a higher rate of pay would attract to the ranks of -the professional army the very best type of man for the purpose, which -the present system can hardly be said to do. - -Beyond this we want an effective General Staff and an Intelligence -Department not only alert but strong enough to enforce its demands on -the government, as well as a complete overhauling of our war-machine -both on its civil and military side. But there is no space for details -here; Socialists could hardly do better than leave them to Mr. -Blatchford to work out.[4] - -No one who thinks seriously of the consequences of such a policy can -doubt that, if it could be carried out, it would effect a greater -transference of real power to the democracy than any Reform Bill. The -objection which most reformers instinctively feel to any proposal to -increase military establishments rests, I fancy, at bottom on their -sense that such establishments are organized by a class to protect its -narrow class interests. So it is that British troops are found useful -to British governments not only in Egypt and South Africa but also -at Featherstone and Bethesda. With such a military organisation as I -have suggested this menace would disappear. Nay, the weights would -be transferred to the other scale. Nothing, I conceive, is so likely -to put a little of the fear of God into the hearts of our Liberal -and Conservative rulers as the knowledge that they have to deal with -a democratic army and a democracy trained in arms. This, I know, -will sound shockingly heterodox to idealistic persons who are fond -of repeating (in defiance of universal human experience) the foolish -maxim of John Bright, the Quaker apologist for plutocratic Anarchism, -that “force is no remedy,” and the equally unhistorical statement that -“violence always injures the cause of those who use it.” But practical -men pay little attention to such talk, knowing that nothing helps a -strike so much as a little timely rioting and that the most important -reforms of the late century were only carried when it was known that -the mob of the great towns was “up.” As a matter of fact, force is -the _only_ remedy. If Socialism comes about, as I think it probably -will in this country, in the constitutional Fabian way, this will only -mean that the Socialists will themselves have captured the control of -the army and the police and will then use them against the possessing -classes, forcing them to disgorge at the bayonet’s point. And, if it -does not superficially wear this aspect, that will merely be because -the latter, seeing how invincible is the physical force arrayed against -them, may very likely surrender position after position at discretion -until they find that they have no longer anything to defend.[5] - -It may be remarked incidentally that social reform would receive a -considerable impetus from such a policy. Not only would periodic -mobilizations take the workers for a time out of the foetid atmosphere -of their slums and factories and perhaps make them less contented to -return, but the heads of the army would themselves be compelled to -become social reformers and insist on some decent minimum of housing -and factory conditions in order to keep up the physical efficiency of -the material of which they would have to make soldiers. Herr Molkenbuhr -the German Social-Democrat pointed out to the Socialist Congress at -Amsterdam this year that this had happened in Germany even under an -undemocratic and often really oppressive form of conscription. An -immense impetus given to housing and factory legislation would be -among the by-products of Army Reform, if carried out on the right -lines. - -I have left myself no space here to deal adequately with the Navy. I -will therefore pass it by here with the remark that an invincible navy -is absolutely essential to the welfare of the workers of this country, -whose food comes almost entirely from overseas, and that the navy has -never been like the Army a menace to popular liberties. It is generally -thought that our navy is in a much more efficient state than our army -is known to be in; but a thorough overhauling would do it no harm -and might expose weaknesses which we do not suspect. At any rate any -attempt to weaken our naval predominance should be resolutely opposed -by all Socialists as by all sensible men. - -Of course an effective army and navy will cost money. But the Socialist -will be by no means so frightened of high estimates as the old Radical -who regarded all taxation as being of the nature of a compromise with -Satan. The Socialist knows that at least £600,000,000 a year goes at -present into the pockets of landlords and capitalists and shareholders -generally, and, until this is absorbed, the cry of “ruinous -expenditure” cannot be expected to appall him. - - - - -THE FETISH OF FREE TRADE. - - -Let it not be supposed that I propose to argue the eternal Fiscal -Question here. For the last twelve-month and more we have had quite -enough flinging backward and forward of childish platitudes, scraps -of obsolete economics, and masses of irrelevant and ill-digested -figures by both parties to the controversy. You are quite safe from -figure-shuffling as far as I am concerned, and you are equally safe -from bodiless _a priori_ economics. For me, indeed, the question is -not one that can ever be decided on general principles. To ask whether -nations ought to adopt Protection is exactly like asking whether men -ought to wear over-coats. Obviously in both instances the answer -depends on a number of attendant facts not stated--on the weather, -the constitution of the men, and the thickness of the coats in the one -case, on the character of the people, the distribution of their wealth, -the state of their commerce, and the character of the proposed tariff -in the other. Tell me that you wish in certain specified circumstances -to impose protective duties on certain specified imports, and I am -willing to examine the evidence and express an opinion. But so long -as you put the issue as one of abstract principle, I must ask to be -excused from indulging in what seems to me an utterly barren and -profitless exercise in immaterial logic. - -Of course, as I have already insisted, there is a sense in which every -Socialist is of necessity a Protectionist and Preferentialist. As Mr. -Bernard Shaw once expressed it, (I quote from memory) he believes -that the highest wisdom of governments is to know “what to protect -and what to prefer.” For him the Utopia of “economic harmonies” is a -foolish and mischievous dream. He knows that the commercial instinct -unless subjected to energetic and unsparing state supervision, is -certain to become a cause of ruinous social disorder. His whole mind -will be set to the task of regulating it, directing it, curbing its -excesses, and protecting the public interest against it. In a word the -advanced social reformer of the new school is necessarily an emphatic -Protectionist, only differing from Mr. Chamberlain and his supporters -in that he gives to the word “Protection” a wider scope and a fuller -meaning than they. - -Now it inevitably follows that there is not and cannot be any kind of -objection from his point of view to a protective tariff on grounds -of principle. The theoretic objection which used to be urged against -such a tariff was founded on the assumption that Adam Smith, Bastiat -and others had demonstrated the futility and peril of all legislative -interference with commerce. Cobden put the whole case as he and his -party saw it in one phrase of one of his ablest speeches, when he -declared that you could not by legislation add anything to the wealth -of a nation. That is a doctrine which no one (save perhaps Mr. Auberon -Herbert) now holds; which no one who approves for instance of any kind -of factory legislation can possibly hold. And that doctrine once fairly -out of the way, the question becomes simply one of expediency and the -balance of utilities. - -But, when we come to the balancing, another point of divergence -instantly arises. The Socialists’ conception of utilities differs in -essence from that of Free Traders and Protectionists alike. For Mr. -Chamberlain, for Mr. Morley, for the Tariff Reform League and for the -Cobden Club, the aim of commercial statesmanship is simply and solely -to increase the aggregate commercial wealth of the country. But this is -by no means what the Socialist is mainly concerned about. His object -is not so much to increase the sum total of such wealth as to secure -its better distribution and more socially profitable use. He sees that -the economic struggle between nations is by comparison a matter of -surface fluctuations, while the economic struggle between classes is an -enduring and essential feature of our social system. And whether or no -he likes the old Marxian phrase “Class War,” he is bound to recognise -the existence of a class antagonism cutting right across society as a -fact without the understanding of which the structure of capitalist -civilisation is unintelligible. - -This implies that the Socialist, whether he be a “Free Trader” or -no, has to dismiss as untenable practically the whole of the old -economic case for Free Trade. Adam Smith did doubtless prove that -under a system of absolutely free exchange, every country would tend -to engage in those trades which were (for the moment at any rate) -most commercially profitable to it; but he never proved or attempted -to prove that these would be the trades which were most socially -beneficent. It might, for example, happen that the White Lead trade -proved the most commercially advantageous industry in which Englishmen -could engage. But would any modern reformer say that in that case it -would be well for us to abandon all our other industries and take to -the manufacture of white lead--with all its inevitable concomitants. -It may be urged that such a case is not likely to occur. But cases -differing from it only in degree may very well occur--have indeed -occurred already. Such a case is the decline of our agriculture and -the consequent flooding of the towns with cheap unskilled labour; -such also is the tendency already more than faintly visible for -small trades, largely unskilled and often sweated, to supplant our -staple industries. And these things, though they are the inevitable -consequence of unrestricted competition and though Cobden would have -regarded them with complete equanimity, are the very things against -which social reformers have for years been fighting a long and -apparently a hopeless battle. No Socialist can give them a moment’s -toleration. Whether Socialists will think Mr. Chamberlain’s remedy -adequate is another thing. For Mr. Chamberlain’s point of view--a -purely commercial one--is at bottom identical with that of his -Cobdenite opponents. - -And it is just this that makes mere statistics of trade and comparisons -between imports and exports so barren and misleading. What we want to -know is not how much tribute the capitalist gets out of our foreign -trade, but what wages the labourer gets, what are the conditions under -which he works, and what is the amount of employment available. Thus -for instance foreign investments pay the capitalist as well as British -investments and are accordingly highly esteemed by the Cobdenites as -“invisible exports.” But they are not equally satisfactory to the -workman who loses his job and drifts into the ranks of the unemployed. -From this point of view Protection if it kept capital in the country -and even attracted foreign capital might be eminently beneficial to -the workers, even though the aggregate of national wealth were thereby -diminished. - -Now we have reached two conclusions. Firstly that Socialists will -approach the tariff question with an open mind; secondly that they will -approach it mainly from the standpoint of its effect upon the social -condition of the people and upon the distribution of wealth. - -That, I say, is what one would naturally expect Socialists to do. -What the English Socialists and the leaders of organised labour in -this country have actually done is to fling their Socialism and their -“class-consciousness” to the winds, to stampede once more into the -Liberal camp (as they did before over South African affairs), to sing -pious hymns in honour of the memories of Bright and Cobden, oblivious -of the former’s opposition to factory legislation and the latter’s -freely expressed detestation of trade unionism, to trot out for the -confusion of Mr. Chamberlain the very doctrines which Socialist -economists have spent the last fifty years in riddling with destructive -criticism, and generally to devote their energies to the hopeless task -of strengthening the ruined fortifications which protect Liberalism -from the attacks of the time-spirit. - -When the Fiscal Question first began to agitate the minds of Englishmen -the new-born Labour Party was in an unusually strong position. It was -as yet uncommitted on the subject, and both sides would willingly -have paid a high price for its support. Nothing strikes one more in -Mr. Chamberlain’s early speeches than his evident anxiety to gain at -all costs the sympathy of Labour. And the Liberals were at that time -equally anxious. Had the leaders of British Trade Unionism followed the -excellent example set them by Mr. Redmond and the Irish Nationalists, -had they held their hands and said frankly to both combatants “What -social reforms will you give us as the price of our support?”--what -unprecedented pressure might they not have been able to exert! To Mr. -Chamberlain they might quite fairly have said “You say that ‘all is not -well with British Trade’: we agree with you, we have been saying so -for years. But before we accept your proposed remedies we want reliable -guarantees that the working classes shall not be the sufferers. Tack -on to your programme a maximum price for bread (or some system of -municipal bakeries which would achieve the same object) and a minimum -wage for labour, and we will consider them.” To the Liberals again -they could have said “You tell us that Mr. Chamberlain’s policy will -not remedy the evils to which he rightly draws attention; granted, -but what is your remedy? If we help you to resist these proposals -what drastic measures are you ready to propose for dealing with the -unemployed and kindred problems?” Had they taken this line, they might -have achieved much. But, having the game in their hands, the labour -leaders deliberately threw all their cards away. Directly the question -of fiscal reform was mooted, without waiting for any pledge from -either party, they began to violently espouse one side and violently -denounce the other. By this they fruitlessly abandoned their excellent -strategic position. Mr. Chamberlain, seeing that he had nothing to hope -from them, treated them as enemies and organised the Tariff Reform -movement frankly as a purely capitalist affair, leaving Labour out of -account in the formation of his celebrated Commission as completely as -Cobden himself left it out of account in the formation of the Anti-Corn -Law League. The Liberals on the other hand are not so foolish as to -give pledges to those who do not ask for them, so that the opposition -to Mr. Chamberlain is as completely capitalist-ridden as is his own -propaganda. Thus, instead of standing to win either way, Labour now -stands to lose either way. Should Mr. Chamberlain succeed, as he very -well may, if not at this election at the one after it, his tariff will -be framed by powerful organisations representing capital and finance, -who will naturally follow their own pecuniary interests. Should the -Opposition triumph they will come into power quite unpledged, save -to Lord Rosebery’s programme of “commercial repose” which is the -newest name for our old friend “laissez faire.” And we shall be unable -to make use of the stir made by Mr. Chamberlain’s agitation, as we -might well have done had we acted wisely, in order to get measures -which we really do want and which are in some sense of the nature -of counter-remedies--the nationalisation of railways, an imperial -shipping fleet with preferential rates, and the re-organisation of our -agriculture by state aid and state supervision. - -But there are reasons other than tactical ones why Labour should have -refused to adopt the Liberal attitude of non-possumus in regard to -fiscal reform. Whether or no Mr. Chamberlain’s tariff scheme would -have been favourable to the interests of labour,[6] there are a great -many proposals which are clearly and unmistakeably in its interests -which are yet in their nature protectionist even in the narrow sense in -which that word is ordinarily used. - -It is characteristic of the Liberal party that even when it has dropped -accidentally across a right conclusion it invariably seizes with great -eagerness upon the wrong reasons for supporting it. The most striking -example of this is to be found in the case of Chinese Labour. For -myself, I detest Chinese Labour, and am prepared to go, I fancy, a -good deal further than the Liberal front bench in fighting it. But -then I am a Protectionist; and I believe that a plentiful supply of -cheap labour is the worst curse with which a nation can be visited. -The Liberals and their Labour henchmen, precluded by reason of their -Free Trade orthodoxies from taking up this sane and tenable position, -have to devote their energies to denouncing the “slavery” involved in -the conditions of the Ordinance. Now no Socialist can be expected to -get very excited on this point. He hates slavery, but he recognises -that in one form or another it is an inherent part of the capitalist -system, and the difference between telling a man that he must work -for his master or be imprisoned and telling him that he must work for -his master or be starved, can hardly seem to him important enough to -make all this fuss about. Moreover “forced labour” is implicit in the -Socialist ideal, though most of us would prefer to begin by applying -it to the Rand shareholders. As a matter of fact the conditions of -the Ordinance are a mitigation of the evils resulting from Chinese -Labour, not an aggravation of them. They serve to circumscribe to some -extent the limits of the damage which the imported Chinaman can do. My -objection to them is that I do not for one moment believe that they -can be made effective. But the danger of denouncing the conditions -of importation instead of denouncing the importation itself, is that -one of these days our Hebrew masters will say to us:--“Very well. You -object to conditions; you shall have none. We will import Chinamen -freely and without restriction, and they shall supplant white men, -not in the mines only, but in every industry throughout South Africa. -We shall reap still larger dividends, and the danger of a white -proletariat will be still more remote. Now we hope you are satisfied.” -What will our Free Trade Labourites say then? - -A less serious but more amusing example of the shifts to which trade -union leaders are sometimes reduced in their efforts to reconcile the -obvious interests of the workers with their holy and sacred “Free Trade -Principles” was afforded by an episode which took place at the Leeds -Trade Union Congress last year. It appears that in certain mines in -these islands the capitalists have taken to employing foreign unskilled -labour. Their motives are doubtless the same as those of the Rand -magnates, namely to bring down the price of labour all round by the -competition of indigent Poles and Italians with the fairly well-paid -workers of this country. It was a very natural thing for capitalists -to do; it was an equally natural thing for workmen to resist. They are -resisting and a resolution was proposed at the Congress condemning the -employment of foreign unskilled labour in the mines. So far so good; -but now comes the comedy of the situation. To exclude the foreigner -as a foreigner is clearly protection of the most bare-faced kind; and -the proposal had to be recommended to a body which had just declared -in favour of unmitigated Free Trade. Then some genius had an almost -miraculous inspiration. It was suggested that the foreigner ought -to be excluded, not because he was a foreigner, not even because -his labour was cheap, but because he could not read the Home Office -regulations which are hung up in the mines. The plea was eagerly -clutched at, and seems to have been received with all solemnity. -The correspondent of the _Daily News_ who had at first regarded the -resolution with natural suspicion felt all his scruples vanish, and -actually hailed the declaration as proof of the unflinching Cobdenism -of the workers. Now what I want to know is--does anyone, does the -_Daily News_ correspondent himself really believe in the sincerity of -this ridiculous excuse? Would the British miners have been satisfied -if the regulations were printed in Polish or Italian? Or, supposing -this to be impossible, would they be satisfied if the immigrants learnt -enough English to read them? Of course they would not. The objection -to foreign unskilled labour is a purely protectionist objection, as -inconsistent with Free Trade as anything proposed by Mr. Chamberlain. I -may add that it has my entire sympathy. - -Very soon, much sooner I think than they suppose, the leaders of -organised labour will be forced by the sheer pressure of events to -throw “free trade principles” over-board and find another foundation -for their economic faith. For buying in the cheapest market clearly -implies buying labour in the cheapest market; and the capitalists will -not be slow to grasp its consequences at a time when the expansion -of European civilisation is every day throwing new drafts of cheap -labour on the market. Less developed races with a lower standard of -life are exceedingly useful weapons to the hand of the capitalist -eager to force down wages. Already the appearance of the Chinaman in -South Africa is parallelled on the other side of the Atlantic by the -employment of negro blacklegs to defeat the Colorado strikers. What -has happened in Africa and America may happen--is indeed beginning to -happen here. Are the labour leaders prepared to go on defending Free -Trade, if Free Trade should prove to mean the free importation of great -masses of cheap blackleg labour from Poland, Italy and China? And, if -they so far abandon Free Trade as to shut out such labour, what about -the goods which it produces? Suppose the capitalist, forbidden to bring -the Chinaman here, take to exploiting him in his own country, relying -on our policy of free imports to secure the admission of his sweated -goods. Will not the champions of labour begin to regard the question of -free imports in a different light? The slope is steep and slippery and -the end is--Protection! - -Yes the Labour party will have in the end to become protectionist. -Already progressive municipalities do not buy in the cheapest market -but in the best market, regard being had to the remote social -consequences of the purchase. And since the home market is the only -one where they can exercise any real or effective supervision over the -conditions of production, we have the curious spectacle of local bodies -with a big Liberal majority forced into what is in effect a policy of -Protection by the protests of unimpeachable Free Trade Labourites such -as Mr. Steadman. Of course the new Protectionism will not be that of -Lord George Bentinck or even of Mr. Chamberlain. It will “protect” -not the landlord or the capitalist but the labourer and if to this end -import duties are found useful it will make no more fuss about imposing -them than any other necessary piece of state intervention. - - - - -TOWARDS ANARCHISM. - - -There is an entertaining story told (I know not with exactly how much -accuracy) of a well-known Liberal trade unionist, who has recently -become a Member of Parliament. He is a typical labour leader of the -last generation, a Liberal in politics, a Nonconformist in religion, -a deacon (I understand) of his native chapel, a veritable pillar of -proletarian respectability, and an unflinching opponent of Socialism in -every shape and form. Once it was his duty to attend an international -congress of the representatives of his trade, where he found, I should -suppose, the revolutionary trade unionism of the Continent little to -his taste. However, that may have been, a resolution was proposed at -the congress in question demanding a statutary eight hours day. This -reputable and independent Briton rose to oppose it, and in so doing -made a characteristic Liberal speech, recommending the workmen to -rely on themselves, not to appeal to governments, to win what they -desired by their own efforts, and so on. Somewhat to his own surprise, -the speech on being translated was greeted with no inconsiderable -applause--applause which at the conclusion of his fine peroration -became thunderous, and was mingled with enthusiastic shouts of “Vive -J---- et l’Anarchie!” He had unfortunately succeeded in conveying the -impression that by such phrases as “rely upon your own efforts” he -meant to indicate the throwing of bombs! - -This story gains considerably in point by the events of the last two -years. For, during that period, the kinship (always innate) between -Liberalism and Anarchism has been made apparent to the whole world in a -most startling manner; and we have seen the Nonconformist section of -the Liberal party, a section which above all others has always claimed -an almost hypochondriac tenderness of conscience, trying to affect the -repeal of a measure to which it takes exception, by means of a campaign -which involves nothing less than a cynical repudiation of the duties of -citizenship and an anarchic war against human society. - -Anyone who possesses a temperament sardonic enough to enable him -to take pleasure in tracing the moral _débacle_ of what was once a -great party can hardly amuse himself better than by following the -history of the campaign against the Education Acts both before and -after they became law. No one burdened with much moral or social -enthusiasm will be able to do so with sufficient calm, for I venture -to assert that a more disgraceful debauch of cant, hypocrisy, flagrant -misrepresentation amounting sometimes to flat lying, sectarian venom, -the prostitution of religious excitement to base ends, all exploited -with an utterly shameless disregard of the public interest, cannot be -found in the records of English politics for the last century or more. - -That is a strong statement; to support it let me recall the facts -of the case. First I would ask a fair-minded man to glance through -some of the innumerable letters and articles which have flooded the -Nonconformist and Radical press from the first introduction of the -Education Bill down to the present time, and I would ask such a man -to say what, taking his impressions from this source alone, he would -have supposed the purport of that Bill to be. I think I may say without -the slightest exaggeration that he would imagine that its effect must -be (1) to hand over _all_ elementary schools to the Church of England -to be disposed of at her pleasure, (2) to impose on all teachers in -such schools a new and stringent religious test, whose effect would -be to prevent any but Anglican (and perhaps Roman Catholic) teachers -from obtaining employment. I do not think there is any exaggeration in -the above plain summary. On every side one still hears phrases like -“handing over the schools of the nation to the Church,” “imposing a -religious test on teachers,” “giving the People’s property to the -Priest,” “establishing clericalism in the public schools,” etc., which -can have no other rational meaning than that stated above. Now it is -not a matter of argument but one of simple fact that the Education -Act did nothing of the kind,--that nothing of the kind has ever been -proposed in the whole course of the controversy. What the Act did -do was (1) to give effect in denominational schools (already mainly -supported out of public funds) to an enormously increased measure of -public control, where before clerical control had been unbridled (2) -to mitigate largely the effect of such religious “tests” as can in any -sense be said to have existed in such schools. No new “test” of any -sort or kind was imposed, and the Provided or Board Schools remain of -course entirely unaffected except as to their transference from one -publicly elected and unsectarian body to another and far more efficient -one. - -Consider for one moment the state of affairs which prevailed before -the passing of the Act. There were then two kinds of public elementary -school recognised by the State--the Board School and the Voluntary -School. Schools of the former type were under the control of School -Boards, bodies of irregular distribution and greatly varying -importance. It must always be remembered that throughout more than -half of England there were no School Boards at all. In the big towns -you had doubtless often enough large and efficient Boards administering -elementary education over the areas of great cities like London, -Glasgow and Birmingham. In the country districts when they existed at -all, the Boards were often elected to govern ridiculously small areas -(sometimes with only one school in a whole district) and were most -commonly inefficient and reactionary. - -Such was the situation of the Board Schools: that of the Voluntary -Schools was still more impossible. These schools, founded originally -on denominational lines, were controlled despotically by a private -board of clerical or clerically-minded managers. No effective public -control was insisted upon. Even where a voluntary school was situated -within a school board area, the School Board had no shadow of authority -over it. And, as I have already mentioned, rather less than half of -England possessed School Boards at all. The only pretence of public -supervision then existing in the case of voluntary schools was to be -found in the infrequent visits of notoriously complacent inspectors -from Whitehall. Indeed the inspectors had to be complacent, for few -voluntary schools had the means to make themselves educationally -efficient even though they might wish to do so. Though more than two -thirds of the money spent on their upkeep came out of the public -exchequer in the form of government grants, the remaining third had -to be raised by private subscription, that is to say had to be begged -vigorously from the most incongruous people, from Churchmen anxious to -preserve definite theological teaching and from rich ratepayers and -even Railway Companies anxious to avoid the incidence of a School Board -rate. As a natural consequence the schools which, be it remembered, -were reckoned as part of the national machinery for education, were -counted in the statistics of school accommodation, and were indeed the -only schools available for a considerable part of the child population, -were in a state of chronic and hopeless beggary, and dragged on a -miserable existence,--starved, irresponsible, notoriously inefficient, -yet practically safe from public intervention. - -Meanwhile technical education, unnaturally divorced from elementary, -was confided to the care of the County and Borough Councils. Secondary -education was nobody’s business. It would have been entirely neglected -had not some progressive School Boards stretched the term “elementary” -to cover as much as they could until sharply pulled up by the Cockerton -judgment, while some of the more progressive Councils stretched the -term “technical” in much the same way, and would probably, but for the -intervention of the Act, have met with the same fate. - -Now what did the Education Acts do? The first and by far the most -important change which they made was to transfer all education to the -County and Borough Councils.[7] The effect of this was to provide that -in future there should be everywhere throughout England one popularly -elected local authority responsible for every kind and grade of -education within its administrative area, and that this body should -be that responsible for local government as a whole. Thus they made -possible for the first time the co-ordination of all forms of education -and the co-ordination of education with other municipal and local -services. - -This change had of course the effect of sweeping away the old system of -electing educational authorities _ad hoc_. This seems to have struck -many people as a flagrant piece of injustice, an impudent repudiation -of democracy, and a shameless invasion of popular rights. It is -difficult to understand why. A County or Borough Council is fully as -democratic a body as a School Board, if democratic be taken to mean -elected by popular suffrages. And if it is seriously contended that -a body ought to be specially elected to deal with education alone, -because the issues at a general municipal election may be confused, -why not carry the principle further and have _ad hoc_ bodies for each -branch of local activity? Indeed why should the principle be applied -only to local affairs? Why not elect a separate Parliament to deal with -foreign affairs, another to deal with Colonial matters, another to deal -with social reform and so on? The fact is that the much vaunted _ad -hoc_ principle never had any real existence. It is not contained, as -Nonconformists and Radicals seem to imagine either in the Bible or in -Magna Charta; it is no part of the Natural Rights of Man or the Social -Contract or even of the British Constitution. It is nothing but the -last relic of a thoroughly discredited system of local government. -The framers of the Education Act of 1870 themselves knew of no such -principle. They created _ad hoc_ bodies to deal with education, simply -because government was then so undeveloped in this country that there -was no other body to which it could be entrusted. County Councils -did not then exist; the Local Government Act of 1889, which like the -Education Act of 1902 we owe to a Tory government, had not yet been -passed. Over the greater part of England there was no democratic local -government at all. Therefore it was necessary to create a stop-gap -authority to deal with education. Similarly there were in the earlier -part of the century innumerable other _ad hoc_ bodies, entrusted with -the duties of lighting the streets, making public improvements, etc., -but they have all been swept away and their powers absorbed by county, -borough, town, district or parish council. In course of time it was -inevitable that the obsolete School Boards should follow them into the -limbo of rejected experiments. It now only remains for Parliament to -complete its work by abolishing our hopeless and discredited Boards of -Guardians. - -I suppose I ought in passing to refer to the contention that the -administrative machinery of the Acts is undemocratic because the -Councils are to govern through Committees. The absurdity of such a -view will be obvious to anyone acquainted with the machinery of local -government. All local bodies act through committees in educational and -other matters. The Committee is a purely executive body, absolutely -subject to the authority which creates it; and in this respect there is -no essential difference between the Education Committee and that which -controls the trams, the parks or the music halls. - -To return to the other provisions of the Acts of 1902-3. The second -effect which they have is to give to the local authority complete -control over the “Voluntary” Schools--now called Non-Provided -Schools--in all matters relating to secular education. This, I know -well, will sound an audacious statement in the ears of those who -have taken their views from the declarations of the Liberal press. I -can only recommend such people to buy a copy of the Act and read it -for themselves. They will find that the managers of the non-provided -schools are expressly compelled to carry out any instructions of the -local education authority in regard to secular education, that in the -event of failure to do so they can by a single stroke be deprived of -all the benefits of the Act, and that the authority has two nominated -representatives on the board of managers who are responsible to the -public alone and can at once appeal to the public authority should -their denominational colleagues show symptoms of recalcitrance. - -Lastly all the cost of maintaining these schools (except for the upkeep -of the buildings) is to come from public funds, the balance once borne -by private subscriptions now coming out of the rates (bear in mind that -already two thirds of their income was derived from taxes) so that a -great nation is no longer placed in the humiliating position of having -to rely on private charity in order to meet its educational needs, -while denominational schools will no longer be able to plead beggary as -an excuse for inefficiency. - -That in plain English is what the Education Act of 1902 and the -London Education Act of 1903 have effected. I defy any Liberal -or Nonconformist opponent of the measure to show that I have -misrepresented their purport in any particular. - -But no sooner was the first draft of the Bill before the country than -the campaign of unscrupulous mis-statement began. The loudest and most -popular cry was that the Bill “imposed” a religious test on teachers. -I remember once at a public debate asking a gentleman who urged this -with great rhetorical effect to point out to me the Clause of the Bill -which imposed such a test. There upon I experienced the keen pleasure -of watching my antagonists struggle through a copy of the Bill in the -hopeless endeavour to find such a clause. Of course he did not find it -for the same reason which prevented Tilburina from seeing the Spanish -Fleet. There is no religious test imposed by the Act. Its sole effect -in this respect is firstly to introduce an elective and nonsectarian -element into the body which appoints the teacher and secondly to allow -that body to over-ride any religious test imposed upon assistant -teachers by the Trust-deeds of the school. - -Then came the cry that the “People’s Schools” were being “handed over -to the Priest.” What this meant I cannot conceive. The reference could -hardly be to the denominational schools which before the passing of -the Act were absolutely under the control of the “Priest” while under -the Act his control is to say the least of a very shadowy and much -mitigated character. I am therefore forced to the conclusion that those -who used the phrase really supposed--or at any rate wished others to -suppose--that the Board Schools were handed over to the Church, which -is of course so monstrously untrue, so devoid of even the faintest -shadow of foundation in fact, that it is difficult to put it on paper -without laughing. - -There is, so far as I can see, no escape from one of these conclusions. -Either the Nonconformists who made use of these catch-words and of -many others like them had never read the Education Acts, or they were -incapable of understanding the plainest English, or, having read the -Acts and knowing their purport they deliberately misrepresented them. -Take which ever explanation you choose:--are they men whom we can -safely trust with political power? - -Later the agitation passed through another phase. After flagrant -misrepresentation came nauseous cant and fantastic casuistry. I believe -that the English Nonconformists profess a great horror of Jesuits. But -nothing attributed to the latter in the fiercest of Pascal’s satires -can equal the extraordinary casuistical _tour de force_ whereby the -former tried to find a distinction between the payment of rates and -the payment of taxes. With one voice the Nonconformists declared that -it would sear their consciences as with a hot iron if they had to pay -a penny towards the support of schools where “Romanising” teaching was -given. Whereto sensible men replied by pointing out that for years the -Nonconformists had been paying for the cost of such schools out of the -taxes. Then it was that the new ethical principle was discovered. It -appears to be as follows:--_It is not wrong to pay money to a national -body to meet the cost of supporting Denominational Schools but it -is wrong to pay money to a local body for the same purpose._ I will -not attempt to follow the various lines of argument by which this -remarkable conclusion is reached. I merely set down the conclusion -itself for the amusement of my readers. - -It should be remembered moreover that all the time that they were -ranting about “Rome on the Rates” and the wickedness of compelling -Dissenters to pay for teaching in which they did not believe the -Nonconformists were themselves forcing on the provided schools and -endeavouring to force on all schools a form of religious instruction -notoriously abhorrent to Anglicans (at any rate of the Catholic type), -Romanists, Agnostics and Jews. Could sanctified hypocrisy go further? - -Yes, it could and did! No sooner was the Education Bill law than the -leaders of Nonconformity with Dr. Clifford at their head entered upon -the _Opera Bouffe_ rebellion (mischievous enough despite its silliness) -known as “Passive Resistance.” That is to say that, fortified by -the magnificent ethical principle italicised above, they considered -themselves justified in repudiating their plain duties as citizens in -the hope that by so doing they might injure the educational machinery -of the country. The form which their very prudent insurrection took was -that of refusing to pay their rates and compelling the community to -distrain on their goods. - -With the manifold humours of the movement, with the sale of Dr. -Clifford’s trowels and the sad fate of his bust of Cromwell, with the -evident eagerness of our Nonconformist martyrs to part with their -Bibles at the earliest possible moment, with the diurnal letters of Dr. -Clifford to the _Daily News_, with his just anger against the brutal -authorities who let a “resister” out of prison, with the even more -delicious letters of minor lights of Dissent, with the fear expressed -by one of these lest his heroic action should be supposed by the -cold world to be merely an economic distraint for rent,[8] with the -olympian wrath of those aspirants for the martyr’s crown who found -their hopes blighted by the baseness of some unknown person who had -cruelly paid their rates for them--with none of these do I propose to -deal. Doubtless the proceedings of these brave martyr-rebels, whose -motto, like that of the conspirators in one of Mr. Gilbert’s operas, -“is Revenge without Anxiety--that is without unnecessary Risk,” are -delightful, if regarded from the standpoint of humour. It is to be -regretted that we cannot altogether afford so to regard them. No -Christian can free himself from a sense of shame at seeing Christian -bodies sink so low, nor can any patriotic Englishman, whatever his -creed, watch the signs of the times without anxiety when he sees what -was once a great English party flatter such men and condone such a -policy. - -Seriously considered the “Passive Resistance” campaign proved -two things. The immense impetus which it has gained among the -Nonconformists is a symptom of that utter disregard of the public -interest which has in all ages been characteristic of political -sectaries. The toleration, if not encouragement, of it by the bulk -of the Liberal party shows how superficial is the conversion of -Liberals from their former anarchic view of civic duty. For “Passive -Resistance” cannot be justified except the philosophic doctrines and -assumptions of Anarchism be first accepted. Mr. Auberon Herbert might -be a passive resister without inconsistency, for he regards taxation as -a mere subscription sent by the subscriber to an organisation of his -own choice and to be used only for such purposes as he may approve. -He therefore maintains that all taxes should be voluntary and, were -he to “resist” at all, would doubtless resist in the case of all -state expenditure which he may think undesirable,--armaments, wars, -state ceremonial, and even municipal enterprise. Now this theory, -if once accepted, will tell much more against the progressive side -than against the reactionaries. The Nonconformists are as likely as -not, I imagine, to “resist” the payment of money required to start a -municipal public house; taking example from them, other persons may -resist payment of taxes needed to furnish old age pensions on the -ground that their consciences forbid them to allow their money to be -used for the discouragement of the virtue of thrift. In a word the -only logical conclusion of the “passive resistance” policy is complete -Anarchism--Anarchism from which the Liberal ideal sprang and in which -it will end. - -For us Collectivists, of course, the problem does not arise at all. -From our point of view it is not Dr. Clifford’s money that is going -to support Roman Catholic schools, but some of the money which the -community allows Dr. Clifford to handle subject to certain conditions, -one of which is that he should pay his contribution towards the general -expenses of government. If he does not like the use made of it, he has -his vote as a citizen and such influence as his abilities may command, -and that is all he is entitled to. That is the case against Passive -Resistance, and I can only say that, if it is invalid, the whole case -for taxation is invalid also. - -Finally what strikes one most about this propaganda is its utterly -cruel and cynical carelessness of the interests of the children. At -a time, when education is so necessary to our national existence, it -is no light thing when a deliberate attempt is made by responsible -citizens to wreck our educational machinery in the interest of a -group of sects. This is no exaggeration. We are told explicitly that -the object of the agitation is to make the Education Act unworkable, -that is to say to make it impossible to educate the children properly. -How far in this direction the leaders of the movement are prepared to -go may be seen from the case of Wales, where they are dominant and -can act as they please. There they have formulated a policy whereby -the deliberate ruin of Welsh education will be brought about by Welsh -“patriots,” the object being to defeat what they are pleased to call -the “Welsh Coercion Act,” which of course is not a Coercion Act at all, -but merely an Act making provision for the upkeep of the children’s -schools in cases where local authorities neglect their duties and leave -the unfortunate children fireless and bookless. I could wish that the -Nonconformist leaders, who are so fond of the “Open Bible” would -devote a little attention to Matthew XVIII 6. - -Where it will all end no-one can say. Given favourable circumstances -and a fair and firm administration of the law, I believe “Passive -Resistance” in all its forms would soon die of its own inanity. The -Dissenting Anarchists failed to capture the L.C.C. thanks to the -patriotism and good sense of the Progressives at whom they have been -snarling ever since; and it hardly seems as if, outside Wales, they -would achieve much in the arena of municipal politics. In Wales, where -they have perhaps a slightly stronger case, some compromise might -be effective,--the proposals of the Bishop of St. Asaphs might form -a basis for discussion. But, of course, the whole situation would -be profoundly changed, were a Parliament dominated by Dissent to be -returned at the General Election. In that case the settlement of -1902 would be upset, whole question would be flung once more into -the melting pot, and our educational system would be fought for by -Churchmen and Dissenters, as two ill-tempered dogs fight for a bone. -That is what is quite likely to happen if we are not very careful, and -serious educationalists can only look to the future with anxiety and -disquiet. Though perhaps in the last resort we can rely on the House of -Lords! - - - - -OUR BRITISH MOSLEMS. - - -I have no wish to say anything disrespectful of the religion of Islam. -In many respects it is a very good religion; without doubt it is a -great one and one of the most vigorous in the world. It is said still -to make more converts annually than any other. It reigns unchallenged -from Morocco to Persia, it is dominant throughout a large part of -India, and is spreading more and more every year amongst the wild -tribes of Central Africa and the islanders of the Malay Peninsular. In -this country the orthodox Mohammedan creed has made but little headway; -nevertheless a number of more or less heretical Moslem sects, among -which the Wesleyans, the Baptists, and the Congregationalists are -perhaps the most important, flourish there exceedingly and, if not on -the increase, are at least fairly holding their ground. - -One of the basic moral tenets of the Moslem faith is, as everyone -knows, the prohibition of alcohol, and this tenet, despite doctrinal -variations, is held with equal firmness by the English sects above -mentioned. The analogy is not a fanciful one; I express it in this -way because I wish to emphasize the fact that the objection of the -_Daily News_ and of those whose views it represents to beer and -spirit drinking is an objection not to the social evils inseparable -from alcoholic excess, nor to the many corruptions connected with the -private drink trade, but simply and emphatically to the thing, itself. -It is, in fact, a religious tapu. I can respect it as such, and I can -respect the Samoan _tapus_ described by Stevenson, but it is necessary -to recognise its nature, if we wish to understand its relation to what -plain men mean by the temperance problem. - -It may reasonably be deduced that the demand so constantly made that -temperance reformers of all schools should unite on a common programme -is utterly impracticable. They cannot unite, because they do not want -the same things. There is no point of contact possible between those -who think beer so bad a thing that they are angry that anyone should be -supplied with it and those that think it so good a thing that they are -angry that it should not be supplied in a pure state and under decent -conditions; between those who object to the modern public house because -they think it at once evil and seductive and those who object to it -because they think it demoralisingly ugly and uncomfortable. In short -there is no possible community of interest between those for whom the -liquour problem is how to _supply_ alcoholic liquors with the greatest -social profit and the least social damage and those for whom the -problem is how to prevent such liquours from being supplied at all. - -“The average man” says Mr. Edward R. Pease “wants beer.” This -remarkable discovery is alone sufficient to place Mr. Pease at the -head of all our temperance reformers, for he is the only one of them -who seems to have realised its incontestable truth and importance. His -admirable book “The Case for Municipal Drink,”[9] which I strongly -advise all my readers interested in the question to obtain and study, -is the most perfect presentation I know of the position of those who -wish to know how best to supply drink, not how best not to supply -it. Contrast it with the views constantly set forth in the _Daily -News_--views which may be taken to represent those espoused by at least -a large section of the Liberal Party--and you have something like a -clear issue. - -Now if we could only get these two contradictory conceptions of -temperance reform clearly defined and separated, the drink question -would be a much easier thing to discuss than it is. Unfortunately -they have got almost indissolubly tangled by reason of the fact that -so many who secretly hold the dogmatic teetotal view will not avow -it frankly, while many others (practically the whole Liberal and -Progressive parties for example) hastily adopt measures which have no -_raison d’etre_ save in this view without thinking seriously about -their nature. If the teetotal enthusiasts would say frankly (as some -but by no means all of them do) that they want absolute and unqualified -Prohibition and only support Local Veto and the much-vaunted Temperance -Policy of the London County Council as steps towards Prohibition--then -at least we should know where we were. But when the _Daily News_ itself -was plainly and publicly challenged by the Rev. Stewart Headlam to -say whether it meant that or not, it pointedly evaded the question. -The fact is, of course that if this policy were frankly explained its -supporters would be snowed under at the next election even more finally -than the supporters of Local Veto were in 1895. So they do not avow it, -but try to get essentially prohibitionist legislation through under -cover of vague phrases like “temperance reform” to which we are all -urged to rally. - -Take Local Veto for example. What was the main proposal involved in -Sir William Harcourt’s famous measure. It proposed that every ward -(the smallest area known to English local government) should have the -right by a two-thirds majority to veto all licenses within its area or -by a bare majority to reduce them by one fourth. Now was this measure -intended to lead to Prohibition or was it not? If it was, then the -English people who did not want Prohibition did well to reject it; -but if it was not, and its supporters generally insist that it was -not, whither was it intended to lead. Its obvious effect in practice, -as Mr. Pease has justly pointed out, would be that the rich districts, -where public houses are few and cannot in any sense be regarded as a -social evil, would probably expel them as derogatory to the interests -of property and the “character of the neighbourhood,” while all the -drinking would be concentrated in the worst slum areas, where public -houses, not of the best type, are already dangerously numerous and -crowded, and where prohibition would have no chance whatever. This is -clearly not a temperance reform in any sense of the word. It could -have been framed only in the interests of men who regard alcohol as so -positively a devilish thing that they rejoice at the destruction of any -place defiled by its presence regardless of the ulterior consequences -to temperance itself. - -The Temperance Policy of the London County Council is at least as -strong a case in point. What is this much-trumpetted policy? It is -this; that when the County Council has to acquire the license of a -public house in the course of making some street improvement, it -first pays huge compensation to the publican and then abandons the -license, thus practically throwing the ratepayer’s money into the sea. -That is all. In the course of its distinguished career the L.C.C. has -spent more than £300,000 in this wise and beneficent manner. - -Now what does the County Council suppose that it is doing? For a -systematic reduction of drink licenses in certain districts there is -doubtless much to be said, though I am inclined to think that the -importance of this as a factor in the temperance problem is grossly -exaggerated. But, if that is to be effected, the whole licensing -system must be brought under review and houses suppressed according -to a well-considered plan. Care would for example be taken that the -worse kind of houses were suppressed and the better retained. The -Council suppresses them on no plan whatever--simply where it happens -to be making a street improvement. The result is, of course, that -the gain to temperance is absolutely nil. A street is to be widened; -the public houses on one side of the street are pulled down, their -licenses purchased and abandoned; those on the other side remain. The -people who used to drink on the one side go over and drink on the -other. The suppressed publican (or the brewer he represents) gets ample -compensation; the unsuppressed publican gets his neighbour’s trade in -addition to his own without paying one farthing for it. And the public? -What does the public get? The satisfaction of knowing that the workman -may have to cross the road in order to refresh himself. - -The fact is that the Progressive party, dangerously subject to -intimidation by the Nonconformist chapels, has adopted a policy -entirely meaningless from the standpoint of enlightened temperance, -in obedience to the irrational demands of those who think that the -destruction of any public house must be a righteous act. - -Now the same spirit which revealed in the Local Veto Bill and still -shows itself in the County Council policy has been to a great extent -responsible for the opposition encountered by the government’s -Licensing Act. I do not say that this Act could not be fairly -criticised upon other grounds. The terms accorded to the Trade are -certainly high--in my view too high--and of the compensation granted -too much seems likely (in the case of a tied house) to go to the -brewer and too little to the publican. But that is not the ground -chosen by the most vehement enemies of the measure. The ground -explicitly chosen by them is that the publican is an enemy, a wicked -man, whom we ought to punish for his misdeeds. If it were the case -of any other trade, would anybody venture to deny that a man whose -livelihood is taken away by the arbitrary act of the governing powers -through no fault of his own is entitled, whatever be his strict -legal position, to some measure of relief. To which the only answer -vouchsafed by the teetotal faction consists in windy abuse of the -publican as a “vampire.” I think that private monopoly in the Drink -Trade is a great evil; so is private monopoly everywhere else. But -to abuse the man who merely sells what the public demands and the -community instructs him to supply is fanaticism and not statesmanship. - -Now if, leaving this foolish cult, whose voting power is by no means -in proportion to the noise it makes, we ask ourselves what kind of -temperance reform sensible reformers really want, we shall not find it -difficult to answer. - -First and foremost then we want good liquour and especially good beer. -Everyone who frequents public houses knows how hard this often is to -obtain. Yet beer is our national drink, of which we ought to be proud. -Properly manufactured it does no one any harm, though when made of -chemical “substitutes” instead of sound malt and hops it is as noxious -as any other adulterated concoction. Beer-drinking, within reasonable -limits, and provided the beer be sound liquour, is a national habit -which no wise ruler would attempt to suppress. For it is the best -prophylactic against the inordinate consumption of cheap and bad -spirits which really is a national curse in Scotland and elsewhere. - -Secondly we want decent surroundings. It is a most unfortunate thing -that few temperance reformers have any personal acquaintance with -public houses or with alcoholic drinking. For if they had they would -know that a man is much more likely to brutalise himself if he is -compelled to drink “perpendicularly” in a dirty, ugly, and gloomy bar -than if he can sit down comfortably, talk to his friends, play cards -and listen, perhaps, to a little music. That is why another phase of -the L.C.C. “temperance” policy, the refusal of drink licenses to music -halls, is so manifestly absurd. A man who drinks at a music hall, where -he is being amused in other ways, is much less likely to get drunk than -one who drinks in a public house bar (as such bars are now conducted) -where there is nothing to do but to go on drinking. As Mr. Headlam has -excellently expressed it, it would be a great deal better policy to -turn every public house into a music hall than to turn every music -hall into a teetotal institution. The second thing we want then is a -humanised public house. - -Thirdly we want to get rid of the private commercial monopoly which -exploits the drink trade, whereby vast fortunes are made at the expense -of the community. These immense profits are the direct result of the -monopoly granted by the community to private traders in return for a -nominal fee. To grant away what is practically public money in this -way is monstrous. It is satisfactory to find that something like High -License is foreshadowed in this year’s Licensing Act. But High License -is not enough. - -The sensible remedy is the municipalization of the liquour traffic -which would fulfil all the above conditions. The municipal public -house would refuse to sell any but the best liquors, and it would -supply these with humanising instead of demoralising surroundings. The -profits which the public are entitled to the public would receive. -And let me say here that there is no reason whatever why we should -wait for a municipal monopoly--which means waiting till Doomsday. The -idea that municipal houses must not compete with privately owned ones -rests ultimately upon the mischievous notion already examined that -the drinking of alcohol is in itself an evil thing upon which the -state ought to frown if it cannot actually suppress it. The typical -British workman (whatever “democratic” politicians may say) does not -go into the public house in order to get drunk but in order to refresh -himself. If the municipality gives him better drink under more pleasant -conditions than the publican he will frequent its houses without -demanding that drunkenness shall be either encouraged or connived at. -And the competition of the municipal house will infallibly raise the -standard of those houses that remain in private hands. - -Why does not the London County Council abandon its “Settled Temperance -Policy” and go as straight for municipal public houses as it has gone -for municipal trams? The common answer is that the Council has no power -to run public houses; but this is no answer at all. Till this year it -had no power to run steamers on the Thames. But it wanted the power, -it agitated for it, embodied it in its Bills and eventually forced a -Tory House of Commons to concede it. Has it ever asked for power to -run public houses? Not once. Moreover, even as things stand, it could -if it pleased get to work on the right lines instead of on the wrong -ones. Instead of abandoning licenses it could retain them and lease the -new houses to publicans at pretty high ground rents and on stringent -conditions such as would insure that the house should be of the best -type possible under private management. Besides there is Earl Grey’s -Trust, an organisation founded expressly to anticipate most of the -results of municipalism. They could easily have let the Trust take over -the licenses, but they have persistently refused to do so. The fact is -that the London Progressives do not want to municipalise the retail -liquour trade. They do not want to do it, because they dread the power -of the Nonconformist chapel and the forces which find their political -rallying ground in the local P.S.A., forces of which the guiding -principle is not temperance, but a hatred of alcohol _per se_. But -surely it is possible to make a last appeal to the Progressive leaders. -After all they have pricked that bubble once. To their eternal credit -they have defied and bitterly offended the chapels over the education -question, and no very dire consequences have followed. Will they not -take their courage in their hands and defy them on the drink question -also? - - - - -“RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM.” - - -Who could have believed five years ago that we should ever have heard -again, from any quarter more deserving of notice than the foolish and -impotent Cobden Club, the almost forgotten cry of “Peace, Retrenchment -and Reform.” That it has become once more the rallying cry of the -whole Liberal party is significant, as nothing else could be, of the -extent to which that party has moved backwards during the last decade -or so. So far from the Liberal party having been “permeated” with -Socialism since 1885, everything that has happened since then has -tended to weaken the progressive collectivist element in its ranks and -to strengthen the reactionary individualist element. We hear nothing -now of the well-meant if somewhat amateurish attempts at social -reform which were popular with the followers of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain -twenty years ago,--nothing of “ransom” or of “three acres and a cow.” -As little do we hear or see of the Collectivist-Radical ideals of the -early nineties, of which the _Star_ and the old _Daily Chronicle_ were -once such vigorous exponents. Not only do the leaders of Liberalism -care for none of these things, but those who professed such enthusiasm -for them speak of them less and less. Mr. Massingham now-a-days appears -to have eyes and ears for nothing but the diabolical wickedness of -Imperialism. Dr. Clifford, once the rising hope of collectivist -Dissent, is now too busy promoting sectarian anarchism to pay any -perceptible attention to the “condition-of-the-people” question. It -used at one time to be said that Mr. Gladstone’s stupendous authority -made it difficult for the party to become definitely Collectivist -while he led it; but when he retired the new era was to begin. Well, -Mr. Gladstone is dead; but where is the new era? Mr. Gladstone’s -place has been taken by men who have inherited all his obsolete -prejudices--only lacking his abilities; the “left wing” of the Liberal -party on which so many hopes were built is weaker and less disposed -to a forward movement than ever. The consequence is that since 1895 -we have seen nothing but Ghosts--ghosts of dead things which everyone -thought to have been nicely nailed down and buried long ago. The South -African War raised the ghost of Gladstone with his anti-imperial bias -and his narrow nationalist philosophy. Then the Education controversy -brought up the ghost of Miall with all the Dissidence of Dissent and -all the Protestantism of the Protestant Religion. Lastly with the -Fiscal Question has come to light the yet older and mouldier ghost of -Cobden from whose shadowy lips issue the once famous formula--“Peace, -Retrenchment and Reform.” - -Since this dilapidated Manchester sign-post has now become the -meeting point of all sections of the Liberal party, Radical and Whig, -Imperialist and Little Englander, and since some of the leaders of -Labour and even (strange to say) some of the Socialists are taking up -their places in the shadow, it becomes imperative to ask what meaning -exactly the words are intended to convey. With “Peace” I have dealt -fully already, and have endeavoured to define the Socialist attitude -towards it. But “Retrenchment and Reform” demand further examination. - -No surer proof of the utter emptiness of what is called “Liberal -Imperialism” can be advanced than the manner in which its leaders have -joined in the demand for retrenchment. I can understand the position -of those who manfully opposed the South African War; I can understand -the position of those who manfully supported it. Both are honest and -consistent and worthy of all respect. But surely there never was a -meaner spectacle than this of eminent and influential politicians -shouting vigorously with the Mafficking crowd while war is popular, -and then, when the brief season of ultra-patriotic excitement is over, -grumbling and whining when presented with the inevitable bill of costs. -It is equally absurd and unworthy. If we want an Empire, if we want -a strong foreign policy, if we want vigour and efficiency--we must -be prepared to pay for it. If we think the price too high, then, in -heaven’s name, let us be honest and admit that the Little Englanders -were in the right all along. Do not let us court an easy but most -contemptible popularity by swaggering as Imperialists, when what we -really want is all the sweets of Empire but none of the burdens. That -is what “Liberal Imperialism” seems to mean. Indeed Liberal Imperialism -has proved nothing better than a fizzle. Three years ago we thought -that there might be something in it. So far-sighted a reformer as Mr. -Sidney Webb celebrated in a memorable magazine article “Lord Rosebery’s -Exodus from Houndsditch,” expressing the hope then widely entertained -that the Liberal Imperialist movement meant the final laying of -Gladstonian Ghosts and the creation of a Progressive party alive to -the needs of the new time. That hope is at an end. Lord Rosebery and -his retainers have re-entered Hounds ditch with triumphal pomp and -ceremony, and are now distinguishable from their frankly Gladstonian -colleagues only by the greater fluidity of their convictions. - -But expenditure on offensive and defensive armaments, though a most -necessary item, is by no means the only item in our national accounts. -We spend a great deal of money on education; we ought to spend more. We -spend a great deal of money on Home Office matters--factory inspectors -and the like; again we ought to spend more. We want to spend money -in a variety of other ways upon the improvement of the condition -of the people. We want Old Age Pensions, we want free meals for -school-children, we want some sort of provision for the unemployed, we -want grants in aid of housing and other forms of local activity. How -are we to get these things and yet retrench. Will not better education -cost money? Will not more efficient factory inspection cost money? -Will not Free Feeding cost money? Does not almost every kind of social -reform mean increased expenditure? It is significant that the demand -for “retrenchment,” which is the Liberal cry in national affairs, is -in local affairs the cry of the “Moderates,” that is of the magnates -and monopolists who wish to exploit the public. But Liberal or Moderate -it is always a reactionary cry. If we are to do our duty by the people, -we cannot retrench. - -And indeed why should we want to retrench--we I mean who profess -ourselves Socialists? Our complaint is not that too much of the -national revenue goes into the coffers of the state, but that too -little finds its way thither. Too much of it goes to swell the incomes -and maintain the status of a wealthy class of idle parasites. The more -we can get hold of and use for public purposes the better. And the more -we pile on taxation (always supposing we pile it on in the right place) -the nearer we approach to the Socialist ideal. Retrenchment of public -expenditure and the reduction of taxation to a minimum is essentially -an individualist policy. The socialist policy is to pool the rents and -profits of industry and devote the revenue so obtained to useful public -work. - -But, if retrenchment is an inadmissible policy for Socialists, what -about reform? I can only say that I wish all such words as “reform,” -“progress,” “advanced” etc. were at the bottom of the sea. They are -mischievous because they lend colour to the vague idea which exists in -the minds of so many “moderns” that if we keep on moving fast enough -we are sure to be all right. It never seems to occur to people that -something depends on the direction. What I want to know about a man -is not whether he is “progressive” or “advanced” or “modern” or “a -reformer,” but whether he wants to do the same things that I want -to do. If he wants to do the exact opposite the less “advanced” and -“progressive” he is the better. When therefore amiably muddy-minded -people talk about “Reform” all we have to ask them is, “What reform?” -What did Cobden and Gladstone mean by “reform?” What do the present-day -Liberals and Radicals mean by it? One thing is certain; neither has -ever meant social reform--the only kind that seems to me to matter; or, -if the thought of social questions ever crossed their minds at all, -at least neither has ever meant collectivist social reform--the only -kind that in my view can ever be effective. What the Liberals meant and -mean, so far as they now mean anything at all, was and is political -reform and political reform along certain defined lines. - -The old Radical programme of political change is worn so threadbare -that it is hardly worth discussing at this time of day. As however, -in the general resurrection of Gladstonian Ghosts, which we are now -witnessing, a very attenuated spectre of the Old Radical-Republican -propaganda of the ’sixties seems disposed to put in an appearance, it -may be worth while to say a word or two about it. - -As to Republicanism itself it hardly demands attention in the twentieth -century. No-one except Mr. John M. Robertson even professes to think -it important. The S.D.F., it is true, still puts the abolition of -monarchy in its programme of palliatives, but that I imagine is merely -a comparatively harmless concession to revolutionary tradition. -Doubtless hereditary monarchy is theoretically illogical; but the -time has gone by when men deduced perfect theories of government _a -priori_ from the Social Contract or the Natural Rights of Man. What we -now ask concerning an institution is--does it obstruct the execution -of necessary reforms? Now no one can seriously maintain that the -British Monarchy obstructs anything. The power of the Crown, such -as it is, has, since the accession of the present Sovereign at any -rate, been used almost entirely in the interests of genuine progress. -Hereditary monarchy supplies us on the whole with a very convenient -method of obtaining a representative of the nation who shall not, like -a President, be the nominee of a political party. A great deal of -national veneration and sentiment has grown up round the Throne, and -it would be foolish to waste time in attacking an immensely popular -institution which does no harm and has its decided advantages. - -The old outcry against Royal Grants so dear to the heart of Mr. Henry -Labouchere may be similarly dismissed. It was never likely to be -popular with a people averse above all things to the suspicion of -meanness; and it has now become hopelessly obsolete, partly because -of the general collapse of republican sentiment, and partly because -people have begun to realise that it is a little ridiculous to get -violently excited because the King is given a few thousands in return -for certain services, some of which are decidedly important and all -of which the nation really desires him to perform, while we allow -landlords, capitalists and financiers to pocket many hundred times as -much in return for no services whatsoever. - -The question of the House of Lords appears at first sight a more -serious one. But, when examined closely its importance is seen to be -much exaggerated. In order to make out a case strong enough to induce -us to turn aside from our more urgent tasks and spend weary years in -agitating for the disestablishment of the Upper House, Radicals must -show that the Lords are in the habit of rejecting measures of great -intrinsic importance to the people at large and really demanded by -them. Can they show this? I think not. The only measure of importance -which the Lords have rejected during the last thirty years has been -the Home Rule Bill, and a subsequent appeal to the people proved -conclusively that the Lords were right in so rejecting it--that the -people of Great Britain were not as a whole really in favour of it, in -fact that there was no such effective demand as there ought clearly to -be before so great a change is made in the constitution of the realm. -Even if the Radicals had the solid democracy at their back (as they -certainly have not and are not in the least likely to have) it would -still take some ten years to disestablish the Lords. On the other hand, -if we have the democracy at our back in support of any particular -reform that we want, it will not take much more than ten weeks to -intimidate or circumvent them. The Lords are too acute and too careful -of their own interests to resist for any length of time measures upon -which Englishmen have once made up their minds firmly. As a matter of -fact the objection to the House of Lords is not a reformer’s objection -but a Liberal partizan’s objection. The existence of the Second -Chamber, as at present constituted, undoubtedly hampers the Liberal -party in its competition with the Tories, because the Tories can get -more drastic measures of reform through the Upper House than they can. -But with us to whom it is a matter of supreme indifference by which -party reforms are carried this consideration need not weigh. - -It cannot of course be denied that the present constitution of the -Upper House is a flagrant anachronism. The structure of our society -is no longer feudal, and government by a hereditary territorial -aristocracy is therefore out of date. Moreover there are practical -disadvantages in the present system, since, though the Lords do not -reject anything which the people really want, they do sometimes -mutilate valuable measures in the interest of property owners. If -therefore it be found possible without wasting too much valuable -energy to introduce new elements into the composition of the Second -Chamber, one would not refuse to consider the idea. This is in fact -almost certain, to be done some day--probably by the Tories anxious to -strengthen the Upper House. The inclusion of elected representatives -from the Colonies might be a very good way to begin. - -With the Disestablishment of the Church the case is rather different. -The abolition of hereditary aristocracy, though difficult and -not particularly urgent, might be a good thing in itself. Church -Disestablishment on the other hand would, I am convinced, be not only a -waste of time and energy, but a most undesirable and retrograde step. -Surely it is not for us Socialists to agitate for the desocialisation -of national religion and for the transfer of what is now in effect -national property to private and irresponsible hands. Moreover the -denationalisation of the Church would be from a tactical point of -view a most fatal step. I say this without reference to the question -(upon which Socialists will hold all sorts of divergent opinions) of -the truth of the doctrines of the Church of England or indeed of any -form of Christianity or Theism. It has been often pointed out that -the Church has shown itself more easily permeable by the Socialist -movement than have any of the Dissenting bodies. Many reasons have -been suggested to account for this, and no doubt there is an element -of truth in all of them. Without doubt the Catholic and Sacramental -system of theology blends more easily with Socialism than the -Evangelical theology does. It is also unquestionably true that the -feudal traditions which still linger in the English Church are more -akin to the ideas of Socialism than are the Liberal and Individualist -traditions of Dissent. But one of the most important causes of the -more sympathetic attitude of the clergy of the Established Church -is surely this, that the Church, being established and endowed, is -responsible to the people and to the people alone, while the “Free” -Churches are bound hand and foot to the wealthy deacons and elders on -whose subscription they are forced to rely. Disestablish the Church -and the rich subscriber will rule her with a rod of iron. Democratic -priests will be hampered and harassed as democratic ministers are now. -This, it seems to me, is not a result to which (whatever our religious -views) we can look forward without anxiety. Whether “priestcraft” be -a good or a bad force, it is without doubt an extremely powerful one; -and it is clearly the business of Socialists, whether Christian or -Secularist, to see that, so far as is possible, it shall be exercised -on their side. The sound Socialist policy is not to disestablish the -Church of England, but to establish concurrently all religious bodies -of sufficient magnitude and importance to count. Had this been done -in Ireland thirty years ago, as Matthew Arnold recommended, had we, -instead of disestablishing the Anglican Church there, established and -endowed the Roman Catholic Church along side of her, how much less -serious might our difficulties in that country have been! - -As to the elective franchise and kindred questions they can hardly be -regarded as any longer pressing. It would be a good thing, I do not -deny, if our conditions of registration were simplified, but that is -not a question upon which the people feel or can be expected to feel -very keenly. No class is now intentionally disfranchised,--it is only a -matter of individuals. In other words, though there are anomalies and -inconveniences in our electoral system, there is no longer any specific -grievance. Women might perhaps have a grievance if any large number -of them demanded the right to vote, but until this is so politicians -cannot be expected to pay much attention to the matter. There is -a stronger case for redistribution, but this (owing to the gross -over-representation of Ireland) is generally regarded as a Conservative -rather than a Liberal measure. - -The only political reform that seems at all worth fighting for is -the payment of members. This is really desirable and important, and -should be pushed to the front when political questions are under -discussion. For not only would it open Parliament more freely to the -representatives of the workers, but it would also make the position -of an M.P., a more responsible one. A paid representative, it may -reasonably be supposed, would take his profession more seriously, -and would at the same time be looked after more sharply by his -constituents. We have on the whole quite enough gentlemanly and -well-meaning amateurs in politics to whom legislation is a harmless -hobby, and who are readily enough outwitted and captured by the keen -and energetic representatives of finance who do take their business -seriously and mean to win. Therefore if we are to have any political -changes at all let us go straight for payment of members. - - - - -SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION. - - -In previous chapters I have generally begun by criticising the Liberal -policy in relation to the matter to be discussed. It would seem natural -in this chapter to deal with the Liberal policy in relation to social -reform. But in that case the essay would be an exceedingly short one. -There is no Liberal policy in relation to social reform. - -The nearest thing to a least common denominator which I can find after -searching diligently the speeches of the Liberal leaders and their -backers is that most of them are in favour of doing something to -the “land monopoly.” Exactly what they propose to do to it I cannot -quite discover. “Overthrowing the land monopoly” may mean Leasehold -Enfranchisement; it may mean the Taxation of Land Values; it may -mean Small Holdings, Free Sale or the Nationalisation of Land. The -last suggestion may be dismissed; we are certainly no more likely to -get that from the Liberals than from the Tories. Small Holdings are -excellent things, but the principle has been conceded, and we are as -likely to get a further extension of it from the Tories as from the -Liberals, in any case this policy does not touch the essence of the -social question. Leasehold Enfranchisement, Free Sale, etc., are sham -reforms of middle-class origin of which we now hear little. There -remains the Taxation of Land Values. - -The Taxation of Land Values is very popular with the Liberals just -now. Whether it would be equally popular with them were they in office -is perhaps a matter for legitimate speculation. It will be remembered -that it was part of their programme in 1892, and is to this day faintly -discernable on the newly cleaned slate of the party. As however it is -re-emerging into prominence it maybe well to say something in reference -to it. - -A good deal of confusion is inevitable concerning this particular -proposal, arising from the fact that it may be regarded in two entirely -different lights. It may be considered simply as one way among many -others of raising revenue to meet necessary public expenditure, or it -may be regarded as a practical application of the economic doctrines -associated with the name of Henry George, who taught that all revenue -should be raised by a single tax (or more properly rent) on the site -value of land. Now Georgian economics have made practically no headway -in this country; their _a priori_ logic, their reliance on abstract -assumptions rather than on history and practical experiment, their -rigidity and inflexibility of application, are exasperating to a people -naturally impatient of metaphysics but keenly alive to immediate -social needs. People who begin their economic speculations, as the -Georgites generally do, by discussing what are the natural rights of -man and deducing from this an ideally perfect system of taxation and -government put themselves out of court with practical men. There are -no natural rights of man; there is no abstractly perfect economic -or political system; we are painfully struggling by means of many -experiments and many failures towards something like a decently -workable one. - -But, though Georgism is a horse so dead that to flog it would be -profitless malignity, the taxation of land values, conceived not as -the _only_ means of raising revenue, but as an _additional_ means of -doing so, is very much in favour both with some of the leaders and -with the whole rank and file of the Opposition. Nor is the reason far -to seek. The misery and waste produced by our present social system -are so patent and terrible that a vague feeling that “something must -be done” has been spreading rapidly through all classes, and even -Liberals have caught the infection. Most drastic reforms however -are impossible for them because such reforms would clash with the -interests of the capitalists and traders who form the backbone of the -party. To them therefore the proposal to tax land values comes as a -special interposition of Providence to succour them in their need. -It professes to do something for the poor,--exactly what they might -find some difficulty in saying. But a certain amount of ill-digested -Georgism can be exploited in support of their case, while at the same -time a loud and definite appeal can be made to the Liberal capitalists -and the Liberal bourgeoise to share in the plunder of the land-owners. -Unfortunately the cock will not fight. The working classes, not -believing in Georgian economics, are, because of the hardness of -their hearts, supremely indifferent to the taxation of land values. -Neither the ingenuity of eccentric economists nor the eloquence of -Liberal capitalists can induce them to take the slightest interest in -the subject. No Trades Union Congress can be persuaded to take it up; -no Labour candidate will make it a prominent plank in his platform. -The workers may not be expert economists, but they are not quite so -easily deluded as the Liberals suppose. They have a very shrewd eye to -their own interests, and are quite acute enough to know that it is the -capitalist and not the landlord who is the most active and dangerous -enemy of the labourer, and to perceive that the talk about “the land -monopoly” is merely a clever if somewhat transparent dodge on the part -of the former to divert public indignation from himself to his sleeping -partner in exploitation. - -I am for getting the last farthing of unearned increment wherever -it can be got. But I can see no earthly reason for taxing unearned -increment from land more than any other kind. What we really want is -a heavily graduated income tax with a discrimination against unearned -incomes. This would hit the landlord and the capitalist equally hard, -and is therefore not likely to find favour with the Liberal party. - -But even if the taxation of land values were as perfect a method of -raising revenue for public purposes as its advocates assert, it would -still be necessary to insist that no alteration in the incidence of -taxation will ever solve the problem of poverty. Suppose that you have -got every penny of unearned increment into the public treasury, the -question then arises--What are you going to do with it? If you keep -it locked up in a box, the last state of the people will be worse -than the first. If it is to be of benefit to anybody this revenue -must be used by the State as industrial capital. That is to say the -socialisation of industry must go hand in hand with the reform of -taxation. - -Now what the Labour party really wants just now is two or three genuine -installments of Socialism on which to concentrate its energies. A party -without a programme is always an absurdity; a labour party without -a programme is an absurdity passing the just limits of farce. It is -futile to think that you can keep a party together much less build up a -new one, with no common basis save the desire to amend trade union law, -which appears to be the only demand on which the L.R.C. is united at -present. - -And the programme of the Labour party must, for reasons already cited, -be a Socialist and not a Liberal programme. I do not mean that the -whole party should call itself Socialist or should be committed -to Socialism as that term is understood by the S.D.F. We have been -surfeited in the past with abstract resolutions in favour of “the -socialisation of all the means of production, distribution and -exchange.” But I do maintain that the programme must be collectivist in -tendency and must have the organisation of industry by the state and -the abolition of industrial parasitism as its ultimate goal. Also it -must as far as possible appeal directly to the interests of the people -for with all his great qualities the British workman is constitutionary -defective in the capacity for seeing far before his nose, and will not -readily grow enthusiastic about the soundest economic measure which -does not obviously improve the position of his class. At the same -time the labour party would do well to avoid too much narrowness of -outlook, since there are, as we shall see, some measures which do not -appear at first sight to benefit the worker directly, but which are -indispensable conditions of his ultimate emancipation. Such measures -should therefore be put along side of the more patently beneficial one -and their connection with these as far as possible made plain to the -electorate. - -The greatest strides which applied Socialism has made during the last -twenty years have been made in connection with the municipalities. The -best proof that can be given of the immense and salutary growth of -municipal activity in recent years is to be found in the angry panic -which this growth has produced among the financial exploiters of public -needs. The latter, having at their back boundless wealth and influence, -a powerful and lavishly endowed organisation, a vast army of lecturers -and pamphleteers, and the greatest and most weighty of British -newspapers, opened a year or so ago a fierce campaign against what -they called “Municipal Socialism.” Never did so potent an army suffer -so humiliating a reverse. On the progress of municipal trading the -attack made no impression whatsoever. The public at large saw through -the game and gave the public-spirited authorities their generous and -energetic support. The municipal movement has received no check; it -has gone on more triumphantly than ever. Energetic local bodies have -pushed their activities further and taken the satisfaction of public -needs more and more out of the hands of private speculators, vesting -it in those of responsible public officials. But the opponents of -municipalism are still active, clever and unscrupulous; and we cannot -afford to leave the public interest at any disadvantage in dealing with -them. It is unquestionably at such a disadvantage at present, partly -on account of the inconveniently restricted boundaries of local areas, -partly because of the anti-progressive bias of the Local Government -Board, and partly because of the state of the law in regard to the -powers of local authorities. The first point has been discussed so -excellently by Mr. H. G. Wells and others that I need do no more than -allude to it here; with the second I shall deal later. But the third is -of special importance. - -In the present state of the law a private individual or a collection of -private individuals may do anything which the law does not expressly -forbid; but a municipality or local body of any kind may only do -what the law expressly permits. Thus for instance the London County -Council has by law the power to run trams, but when it attempted to -run an omnibus line to and from its tram terminus, the private omnibus -companies successfully invoked the law against it. This is absurd; -it is intolerable that a public authority should not be permitted -to supply what its constituents definitely demand without going to -a largely indifferent and largely hostile parliament for permission -to do so. Broadly speaking County and Borough Councils at any rate -should have power to do anything that the nation through the national -legislature does not definitely prohibit. It would be well for the -Labour party in Parliament to demand a free hand for progressive -municipalities such as can only be secured by legislation on these -lines. - -The Housing Question connects itself closely with this matter, for its -only possible solution will be found to be along the lines of municipal -activity. But, in addition to a free hand for municipalities to build -houses when and where they like, it would be well to consider whether -in the face of the present house famine it is wise to raise our local -revenues by what is in effect a heavy tax on houses. The payment of say -half the rates on well-built and sanitary working-class dwellings out -of the proceeds of government grants would give a much needed impetus -to both municipal and private enterprise in this direction. - -Meanwhile the Labour men on municipal bodies should make the fullest -use of such powers as they already possess and push forward vigorously -with their campaign of municipal socialism in such a manner that the -workman may perceive its direct benefits. His Housing should be visibly -cheaper and better, his trams visibly quicker, less expensive and more -comfortable, his gas and water supply visibly improved on account -of their transfer to a public body. At the same time of course the -labour employed by the municipality in conducting these industries -should receive what we may call (to borrow a phrase from diplomacy) -“most favoured employé” treatment. It may be remarked that it is not -desirable that municipal undertakings should aim at large profits. -Theoretically this is indefensible for it means that the consumer pays -more than his fair share of the rates; practically it is undesirable, -since it tends to obscure the real benefits of municipal enterprise. - -In national affairs the progress of definite socialism cannot -perhaps be so rapid. But the Labour party might well press for the -nationalisation of mines, especially of coal fields (already demanded -by the Trade Union Congress), the state regulation and ultimate -nationalisation of railways, canals and other means of transit, and -should insist on government departments doing their own work wherever -possible and paying not less than the standard rate of wages.[10] - -But legislation of this kind has only an indirect effect upon the -real problem that confronts the people of this country,--the people -of all countries which have developed along the lines of industrial -civilisation. With the appalling evidences of physical degeneration -confronting us, we cannot, whether we are Socialists or Labourites or -only decently humane and patriotic Englishmen, do without a social -policy. In the last resort, all progress, all empire, all efficiency -depends upon the kind of race we breed. If we are breeding the people -badly neither the most perfect constitution nor the most skilful -diplomacy will save us from shipwreck. - -What are we to do with the great masses of unskilled, unorganised -labour in our big towns? That is the question which intelligent -thinkers are now asking themselves; and, as Carlyle said “England -will answer it, or on the whole England will perish.” We have drained -our country side and destroyed our agriculture to a great extent -deliberately in order to obtain this vast city proletariat. Its -condition is appalling; it is starved at school, over-worked when it -is just growing into manhood, and afterwards drifts into the ghastly -back-waters of our towns, now sweated, now unemployed, always an open -sore, a contamination, a menace to our national life. That is what -fifty years of applied Liberalism have made of about a third of the -English people. - -Well, the first thing we must do is to try to save the next generation -if we cannot save this one. The child at any rate must be protected. -One of the first and most urgent of the social reforms needed is the -feeding of children in public elementary schools. To teach unfed -or underfed children is a sheer piece of profitless brutality. -Compulsory and free feeding is as necessary to us as compulsory and -free teaching--more necessary in fact for more could in the long run -be made of an ignorant people that was fit and healthy physically -than of a race of white-faced cripples, whom society had crammed with -book-learning to satisfy its theories as barbarously as it crams geese -with food to satisfy its palate. We are entitled therefore to demand -the free feeding of all children attending Public Elementary Schools. -Of course all sorts of less drastic proposals will be made--proposals -for feeding destitute children only, or for making a charge, or for -recovering the cost of the meals from the parents. Some of these -proposals will be better than others, and we must take the best we can -get. But none of them will solve the problem. Nor will the problem be -solved by any merely permissive legislation, giving local authorities -the _power_ to feed children without compelling them to use it. A local -authority has no more right to underfeed its children than a parent -has. All local authorities must be held responsible for the proper -feeding of school children with their areas of administration, as they -are already held responsible for their proper instruction. - -At the same time another policy might be adopted the results of which -would indirectly be of perhaps still greater value. I suggest that -while these experiments are proceeding there should be a periodical -physical examination of all the children in the elementary schools -by duly authorised medical officers. This would be a good test of -the success of the new feeding policy and might form the basis for -an extension of the principle of grants in aid to encourage those -municipalities which were most zealous in looking after the physical -well-being of the children. But its usefulness would not end there; it -would provide us with what we most want a really reliable collection of -sociological data upon which future reforms could be based. - -But when the child leaves school the need of protection by no means -ceases. Our factory code already recognises that the setting of -children to hard commercial work before their minds and bodies have had -time to develop is as wasteful (from a national point of view) as it is -inhuman. But the application of the principle is still half-hearted. -Children over eleven can in some parts of the Kingdom be employed in -factories provided that they put in one school attendance per day; the -age at which even this provision ceases to operate is fourteen, after -which the children are held to become “young persons,” and may work -sixty hours or more per week. This is clearly very little security -for the physical and moral development of the race. No child should, -under any circumstances whatever, be allowed to work for wages until -he or she is--say fourteen. From fourteen to twenty the “half-time” -arrangement might be made to apply, and, as has already been -suggested, we could use the time so gained in order to give the young -people effective technical, and, in their latter years, also military -training, thereby immensely improving their physique and at the same -time forming a national reserve of almost invincible strength. - -But after all most social problems come back in the end to the wages -problem. If the workers received better wages many of the questions -which now perplex us would solve themselves. And here we are brought -directly to what Mr. Sidney Webb has called “the policy of the National -Minimum.” The principle of the national minimum has been long ago -embodied in legislation, and is in reality the root idea of factory -acts, public health acts, restrictions on over-crowding and most other -social reforms of the last century. But its possibilities are by no -means exhausted. We must develop it further along the same lines until -it gives us what we most want, a statutary minimum wage for labour. -This has been partially established in a few of the most prosperous of -our staple industries by the development of Trade Unionism. Its much -needed application to the unskilled trades where the rankest sweating -abounds can only be made possible by the exertion of state authority. -To those who are soaked in the Liberal tradition of “free contract” of -course the legal minimum wage will seem a piece of odious tyranny, but -there is, as it seems to me, no essential difference between the fixing -of maximum hours by law and the fixing of minimum wages. It is at least -as important to the community that its citizens should not be underpaid -as that they should not be overworked. - -The Trade Unions to which we owe nearly all that betterment of the -condition of the workers which Liberals absurdly attribute to Free -Trade, cannot possibly be allowed to remain in the impossible position -in which recent legal decisions have placed them. But that is no -reason for agitating for what is called the _status quo ante_, which -is neither practicable nor desirable. The sound demand is that the -law should be made clear; that it should put single employés and -combinations of workmen on an equal footing; that legal disabilities of -Trade Unions should be removed; and that the liability of Trade Unions -should be definitely confined to those authorised acts of its servants -or agents for which a corporate body may fairly be held responsible. -This on the face of it is reasonable, and should be applicable to -employers’ associations also, so that when the time comes for the -enactment of a Compulsory Arbitration Law (as in Australia)--that is -when the trade unionists themselves recognise the desirability of such -a measure, the machinery for its execution will be available. - -Then there is the perennial and apparently impenetrable problem of the -Unemployed. This is one of the problems which in all probability cannot -be finally solved except by a complete reorganization of society. But, -wisely handled, it can be palliated and reduced to more manageable -proportions. In discussing this question a distinction must always -be made between the temporary unemployment to which all workmen are -liable, and the permanent or chronic unemployment of the great masses -of the unfit which our social system is always throwing off. These poor -wretches are no more to be blamed for their idleness and worthlessness -(from the social standpoint) than the rich shareholder is to be blamed -for his. But their presence unquestionably complicates the problem and -their treatment must inevitably be different. The first thing to do is -to get at the facts. For this purpose there should be a Labour Bureau -in connection with every considerable local authority which should -keep a record of the state of the labour market from time to time. -These bureaus should be in constant communication with a Department -of Labour at Westminster, which is one of the most pressing needs of -the hour. As to relief works, Mr. Long’s farm colonies are good so -far as they go; schemes for re-afforestation and the reclamation of -fore-shores are perhaps even better. But it is well to keep in mind -that the great aim of all social reformers should be to eliminate the -“unemployable” class altogether. Mr. Webb’s “national minimum” policy -if carried out in all its branches would practically do this. - -The question of employment is closely connected with the whole question -of our Poor Law, which badly wants re-modelling. Such a process should -include the abolition of the Poor Law Guardians (the last relic of the -_ad hoc_ principle and a far more indefensible one than the School -Boards) and the transfer of their powers to the local authority best -fitted to deal with them,--probably the County and Borough Councils. It -should also of course include the establishment of universal Old Age -Pensions, a measure whose popularity is as manifest as its justice, as -was proved in 1895, when it contributed enormously to swell the Tory -majority. The fact is that our present Poor Law was the first product -of middle class Liberalism, flushed with its stupendous victory of -1832. It is founded unmistakeably on the principles of that creed, -which, believing in the eternal justice of “economic harmonies,” -regarded the fact of a poor man being out of work as convincing proof -of his worthlessness and criminality. It is as impossible for us, as -the old Poor Law was for them. - -Less obvious but not less certain is the connection between all these -problems and the decline of our agriculture. It is the decline of -agriculture which has driven into the towns the masses of unskilled -labour with which we have to deal. Indeed the Liberals foresaw and -deliberately planned this, when, first by the Poor Law and afterwards -by the Repeal of the Corn Laws, they drove labour off the land in -order to obtain it cheaply in the great industrial centres. And that -is how the situation has worked out, so that it is important, no less -in the interest of the town proletariat than in that of the country, -that we should re-organise the first and most necessary of our staple -industries. The idea apparently entertained in some Liberal circles -that this can be done by the taxation of land values is, as Mr. -Brougham Villiers has pointed out in “The Opportunity of Liberalism” -(not altogether I should suppose to the gratification of his Liberal -friends), on the face of it absurd. The end at which we are aiming is -not that the state should own the ground rents but that it should own -the land and the capital used to develop it, and it is towards this end -that our policy should be directed. To this end we want an energetic -system of state aid to farmers such as that already inaugurated by -Sir Horace Plunkett and others in Ireland. We want loans to farmers -on state security and experiments in cooperative farming under state -supervision and with state encouragement; we want increased powers for -local authorities in rural districts to buy and develop land; above -all we want light railways, cheap and rapid transit, an agricultural -parcels post (as proposed by Mr. Rider Haggard); and finally we want an -end put to the monstrous system whereby Railway Companies charge higher -rates to British than to foreign producers. When this policy has been -fairly tried we shall see whether we also want a protective tariff. -We do not want a tariff which will merely raise the landlord’s rent, -but, as I have already pointed out, Socialists have no theoretic bias -against such a tariff if it can be shown to be necessary to the public -interest. - -But there is one question to which Socialists ought to devote a great -deal more attention than they show any signs of devoting at present. -Lord Randolph Churchill, the ablest and most far-sighted of modern -party leaders, saw its importance twenty years ago, and put it in the -fore-front of his programme. That question is the reform of government -departments. Until this is honestly faced and dealt with, the -Individualist will always have a powerful controversial weapon against -Socialist propaganda. When the Socialist demands that the state shall -undertake more duties, his opponent has only to point to the duties it -has already undertaken and ask if he wants any more duties performed -like that! A national system of transit run as the War Office is run -would hardly be an unqualified blessing and would probably produce -a reaction of the most damaging kind. The only answer is to reform -the government departments and make them workmanlike and efficient -bodies. Until this is done we shall be checked at every point every -time we want a measure involving state ownership carried. Moreover -we shall find it impossible to give effect to our policy of state -regulation. The War Office has on the whole been most unfairly treated -in being gibbetted as the supreme type of red tape and inefficiency. -In neither respect is it really worse than most other branches of our -administration--not so bad for example as the Local Government Board, -which is so hopelessly understaffed and so miserably ineffective that -it is obliged from mere instinct of self-preservation to oppose every -forward movement in municipal politics lest it should be overburdened -still further. It matters little who is its representative in the -Cabinet. It is the Board itself and not its President for the time -being that obstructs progress. Yet an efficient Local Government Board, -encouraging progressive local bodies and harrying up backward ones, is -an essential part of the “national minimum” policy. From every point -of view therefore it is essential that our departments of state should -be put on a new and better footing. A businesslike Home Office and a -businesslike Local Government Board would do more for social reform -than many acts of Parliament. - - - - -SOME MATERIALS AND A POSSIBILITY. - - -Successive Reform Acts have so widened the basis of the franchise -in this country that the working man has now the issue of the great -majority of elections in his hands. By the working man I here mean -the manual labourer who earns weekly wages; the definition is not -scientific, but it is I think effectively descriptive. It is difficult -to define a working man, but people know him when they see him, as -Mr. Morley said of a Jingo. The manual labourer then is master of the -situation; and it becomes a matter of primary importance for any party -which wishes for a parliamentary majority to consider what manner of -man he is, and what kind of policy is likely to receive his favour. - -Now I have no sympathy at all with the contemptuous tone adopted by -most Socialists towards the working man. This scorn of the average -artisan or labourer may be regarded as the connecting bond between all -schools of modern Socialism in this country, the one sentiment common -to Mr. Hyndman and to Mr. Bernard Shaw. Were that scorn just, its -expression would be imprudent; for John Smith of Oldham, however stupid -he may be, is, as Mr. Blatchford has remarked “very numerous,” and in -a country ruled by the counting of heads it would be good policy to -treat him with respect and good humour. But it is not just. As a matter -of fact, the working man is by no means the slavish imbecile that some -Socialists seem to think him. The fact that he has built up with iron -resolution, in the face of stupendous difficulties, and at the cost of -terrible sacrifices, the Trade Union system of this country--perhaps -the noblest monument of the great qualities of the British character -that the century has seen--might well protect him from the sarcasms of -wealthy idealists. If he is not a Socialist, is that altogether his -fault? Or is it by any chance partly ours? - -The British workman is not, as I have said, by any means a fool. He -does not enjoy being sweated; he is not in love with long hours and -low wages; he does not clamour for bad housing or dear transit. On -the contrary, when sufficiently skilled and educated to be capable of -effective organisation, he is a keen trade unionist, ready to stand -up promptly and with conspicuous success for the rights and interests -of his class; and he has shown himself able and willing to support -legislation for his own benefit and that of his fellows. The Socialists -have in him excellent raw material of which a most effective fighting -force could be made. How do they use him? - -The first thing that a Socialist of the old school does, when brought -face to face with a working class audience, is deliberately to insult -it. I heard of one Socialist orator who began his address to an East -End meeting with the sentence--“What are you? Dogs!” I suggest that -this is not the way to placate the unbeliever or to allay the suspicion -with which his conservative instincts lead him to regard a new idea. -Moreover it is not true. The working man knows perfectly well that he -and his class are not “dogs”; and he rightly concludes that a man so -profoundly ignorant of his condition is not the man to improve it. -However, having collectively and individually insulted those whom he -seeks to convert, the preacher launches joyously into the abysses -and whirlpools of German philosophy and economics, calls his hearers -“proletarians” (to their intense astonishment), tells them that they -are being robbed of “surplus value,” discusses abstruse matters -concerning the relations between “exchange value” and “labour power,” -and generally leads them through mazes of foreign scientific jargon -from which they eventually emerge gasping for breath. Now I submit -that this is an absurd way of going to work. Not so did Cobden and his -allies act, when they set out to convert the middle classes to the -dogmas of Adam Smith. They had a systematic theory of economics as -elaborate as that of the Marxian, but they did not pelt miscellaneous -popular gatherings with its technicalities. They crystallised it into -one simple, effective and intelligible phrase,--“To buy in the cheapest -market and to sell in the dearest.” I will not disguise my personal -conviction that this maxim is of and from the Devil. But (perhaps for -that reason) it is lucid and unmistakeable and makes a definite and -persuasive appeal to the instincts and prejudices of the commercial -classes. I fear I cannot say as much for the crystallizations favoured -by Socialist propagandists. “The Abolition of the Wages System” and -“Production for Use and not for Profit” convey to the workman, I -imagine, no clearer meaning than they convey to me. - -I am aware that there has been of late in Socialist circles something -of a reaction against this sort of thing, as also against the futile -Marxian prophecies to the effect that “economic forces” would produce -a “Crisis” which would have the effect of abolishing the capitalist -system whether anyone wanted it abolished or no. But the reaction -has taken an entirely wrong turn. It has resulted so far in nothing -better than an outburst of sheer sentimentalism as unacceptable to -the hard conservative common-sense of the workers as the doctrinaire -revolutionism that preceded it. The chief expression of this -sentimentalism may be found in the repudiation of the Class War by -the leaders of the I.L.P. and the substitution of vague talk about -Universal Love and the Brotherhood of Man. Now here the I.L.P. leaders -have got hold of quite the wrong end of the stick. The existence of -the class war is a fact of common observation. A short walk down any -street with your eyes open will show it to you. Indeed it is obvious -that there is and must be a permanent antagonism between the buyers -and sellers of labour--or if our hyper-economic critics prefer it of -“labour-power.” And moreover this fact of the class war is a fact, -which every workman (as also every capitalist) recognises in practice, -if not in theory. All trade unionism is built upon his recognition of -it; so is the demand for a labour party. The error of the S.D.F. did -not lie here. - -The Marxians were not wrong in saying that there was a class war; -there is a class war. They were not wrong in saying that the worker -ought to be educated in class-consciousness; they ought to be so -educated for their class-consciousness is the best foundation for our -propaganda. Where the Marxians were wrong in regard to the class war -was in their tacit assumption that “class-consciousness” was identical -with Socialism. It is not. Socialists and Trade Unionists are alike in -their _recognition_ of the class war, but they differ widely in their -attitude towards it. The Socialist wishes so to organise society as -to bring the Class War to an end; the Trade Unionist wants the war to -go on, but he wants his own class to get better chances in it than -they get at present. As regards practical matters the path of the two -is for the present largely identical. Extended factory legislation, -old age pensions, housing, the municipalisation of monopolies are -desired by Socialists and Trade Unionists alike, though not entirely -for the same reasons. Here and there, on Trade Union Law, on Compulsory -Arbitration in industrial disputes, in some instances on Child Labour, -the attitude of the two may appear different, but it only requires the -better economic education of the unions to bring them into line with -the Socialists on these points. Nevertheless, the distinction as well -as the relation between the two must be kept constantly in mind, if -the attitude of the typical manual worker towards Socialism is to be -understood. - -I confess that it strikes me as a little absurd that the very wing of -the Socialist army which most enthusiastically defends the obviously -sensible policy of forming an alliance with the Unions without asking -its allies to swallow imposing Socialist formulae, should be the one -to throw over the one effective link between Socialism and Trade -Unionism,--the recognition of the Class War. The result of this -repudiation and of the high-sounding humanitarian rhetoric with which -it is accompanied has been to hopelessly estrange the I.L.P. from the -Trade Union movement, so that it is now hardly more influential in that -direction than the S.D.F. itself. The I.L.P. does indeed to some degree -enlarge its boundaries, but the type of man it now principally attracts -is not the trade unionist or the labourer. The sort of person who finds -the I.L.P. creed as mirrored in the utterance of Messrs. Keir Hardie -and Bruce Glasier exactly to his taste is the wavering Nonconformist in -process of ceasing to believe in God who is looking about for something -“undenominational” to believe in. Universal Love, Brotherhood, -Righteousness--all that sort of thing suits him down to the ground. The -phenomenon is no new one in history. Just the same kind of sentiment -underlays the political propaganda of Isaac Butt, of Vergniaud, of Sir -Harry Vane. Its track is across history; its name is Girondism, and -its end has always been futility and disaster. The pious Girondins -were shocked at Danton’s declaration “terror is the order of the day,” -just as the I.L.P. rhetoricians are shocked at the recognition of the -Class War, because it contradicted their sentimental assumptions. But -Terror was the order of the day, and it was only because Terror was the -order of the day that France was saved from foreign conquerors and the -Revolution became an accomplished fact. - -But, if the worker really does recognise the class war and if the -path of Socialism is for the present along the lines of the class -war, why does the worker distrust the Socialist? I have hinted at my -answer in a previous chapter, but I will take the present opportunity -of elaborating it a little. When Socialists of either of the above -types leave German dialect and Girondin declamation, which he does -not understand and come to practical business which he does, they -give the working man very little that he values and much that is -profoundly distasteful to him. When for example they touch on war and -foreign politics they give him, under a veil of specious rhetoric -which does not convince him, the general impression that they want -to see England “licked.” He does not like this, and he expresses his -dislike vehemently and not always very peaceably. Doubtless he often -vents his anger on people whose patriotism is as real as his own, and -who merely differ from him as to the merits of some particular war or -expedition. But on the whole the astonishingly shrewd instincts of -the workers do not mislead them. They are right in feeling that there -is in the Socialist movement a strong under-current of unmistakeable -anti-patriotism, a genuine hatred and contempt for England and her -honour. If anyone doubts this, I do not think he has spent so much time -in Socialist clubs as I have. - -If all this anti-patriotic sentiment, which disgusts and repels the -workers so much, were an essential part of Socialism we might have to -accept our unpopularity as the inevitable penalty of our convictions -and make the best of it. But, if I have not proved that it is nothing -of the sort, this book has been written in vain. Anti-patriotism, -anti-imperialism, anti-militarism, these are not Socialist doctrines -but the faded relics of a particularly debased form of Liberalism. -There is nothing in Socialism to prevent us from appealing to the -passionate patriotism of the masses; there is much in it to give point -to such an appeal. - -The workman is a Tory by instinct and tradition. He is a Jingo--a -much healthier and more reputable Jingo than his brother of the -stock-exchange,--but still a Jingo in the most emphatic sense. I am -moreover convinced that he is at heart a protectionist. He dislikes -the idea of a tax on bread, especially as Mr. Chamberlain gives -him no really convincing guarantee of better industrial conditions -to follow; but I believe, and I note that I have the support of so -irreproachable a Liberal and Free Trader as Mr. Brougham Villiers in -this belief, that, if at any time during the last quarter of a century -the protection of manufactures alone had been offered to the working -classes, they would have accepted it with the utmost eagerness. It is -noticeable that as soon as the workman goes to the Colonies he becomes -an out and out Protectionist. This would hardly happen if he had -imbibed the pure milk of Cobdenism with as much relish as the Liberals -would have us believe. - -Here then is your Tory Jingo Protectionist working man. What are you -going to do with him? It is easy enough to abuse him, but he is your -only possible electoral material, he is the man by whose vote you have -got to establish Socialism if it is to be established at all. There are -much fewer Liberals than Tories among the workers and such as there -are will much less readily join you, for they represent generally the -uncompromising individualist Radicalism which spread from the middle -orders down through the upper ranks of the artisans during the dark -days of Manchester ascendancy. It is from the Tory much more than from -the Liberal worker that the Labour party gets its votes,[11] even now, -while its still burdened with a dead weight of senseless Liberal -traditions. How much greater would its expansive force become if once -this burden was removed. - -What deduction must we draw from these things? Surely this; that we -must appeal to the working classes on a double programme of practical -and immediate industrial reform at home and at the same time of -imperial federation, a spirited foreign policy and adequate provision -for national defence. I believe this experiment would succeed, at any -rate it has never yet been effectively tried. When Mr. Bernard Shaw -taunts the workers with their steady Tory voting, one feels disposed to -ask him what he expects. Surely he would not have them vote Liberal? -And if he replies that they should vote Socialist, one may throw down -this direct challenge--Would Mr. Shaw himself (the most brilliant, -the most acute and the most sincere of English Socialists) vote for a -good many of the Socialist and “Labour” candidates who have from time -to time presented themselves before the British electorate? Would he -not himself often prefer a Tory? But is there any reason to suppose -that if a leader came to us with the specific talent and temperament -of the demagogue (the value of which to a politician Mr. Shaw knows as -well and regards as highly as I do) and made his appeal on the Fabian -programme plus a vigorous and intelligent Imperialism, the people of -England would refuse to return him? I think not. - -If the Labour party could only be persuaded to make such an appeal it -might yet redeem its mistakes and become a dominant force in politics. -If not, if we go on as we have been going on in the past,--if -the S.D.F. goes on pelting the “class-conscious proletariat” with -multi-syllabled German metaphysics, if the I.L.P. continues to give -altruistic and humanitarian commonplaces to those who ask for bread, -if some of the brilliant _intellectuels_ of middle class Socialism -continue to treat the working classes as if they did not matter and -could be trapped into Socialism against their will,--if in a word -we go on insulting and bewildering those whom we wish to convert, -addressing them in all the unintelligible tongues of Babel and forcing -down their throats doctrines which they detest, then we shall never -lead the workers. And if we do not lead them someone else will. Yes -someday we shall be faced in this country by the appearance of a man -who understands the working classes and can make them follow him. All -parties will look at him askance the Labour party most of all. He will -be called “Jingo,” “Reactionist,” “Taker of Tory Gold.” But he will -have the people of England behind him, because he will comprehend them -and believe in them, desire what they desire, feel as they feel. And if -he does what such a man did once in this country, when the “Girondin” -Vanes and Sydneys were babbling about “democratic ideals” as we are -babbling now, if he drives our talkative and incompetent Commons from -their House and establishes a popular Caesarism on the ruins of our -polity,--the blame will not be his. The blame will be ours. It will be -ours because we, whose mission it was to lead the people could only -find time to despise the people,--because we could not and would not -understand! - - - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] Note for example the action of the Irish Members in securing the -exclusion of Convent Laundries from the operation of the Factory -Acts--action of which every enlightened Roman Catholic, to whom I have -spoken of it, has expressed strong disapproval. - -[2] Social Democracy and the Armed Nation, Twentieth Century Press, 37a -Clerkenwell Green, E.C. 1d. - -[3] Fabianism and the Empire, edited by Bernard Shaw, the Fabian -Society, 3, Clements Inn, W.C. 3d. - -[4] There is one of Mr. Blatchford’s proposals to which I feel the -strongest possible objection; that is the suggestion that those who do -not volunteer for his citizen force should pay extra taxation. This -sounds fair enough, no doubt, but its effect would clearly be that -the rich could escape service and the poor could not--which is hardly -a Socialist ideal. Surely it is sounder policy to make such citizen -training as you give compulsory for all able-bodied citizens. - -[5] Since these pages were sent to the press a striking confirmation -of my view has been furnished by recent occurrences in Russia. There, -it will be remembered, the populace (acting on strictly Tolstoian -principles) marched _unarmed_ to lay their grievances before their -Sovereign. We all know what happened. They were shot down and cut to -pieces by Cossacks. One hopes that the survivors will be less faithful -to Count Tolstoi’s gospel in the future, and will perhaps realise that -“moral force” is an exceedingly poor protection against bullets and -bayonets. - -[6] Lest I should be accused of “sitting on the fence” (a phrase much -beloved by those who always want to have judgment first and evidence -afterwards) I may as well state definitely that in my opinion a -protective tariff, if framed by genuine reformers solely in the public -interest, would be decidedly advantageous to Labour. - -[7] I omit mention of the proviso whereby certain Non-County Boroughs -and Urban District Councils have authority over Elementary but not over -Higher Education. The concession was a most unfortunate one, but it -does not affect the general drift of my argument. - -[8] The gentleman in question announced, if I remember rightly that he -proposed to avoid this misunderstanding by showing in his front garden -a placard with the inscription-- - -“MY GOODS ARE BEING SOLD TO PROMOTE RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.” - ---a remarkably candid confession! - -[9] _The Case for Municipal Drink_ by E. R. Pease (King & Son). - -[10] The Labour Party might also take up the question of the -development of Crown Lands (especially those containing minerals), to -which Mr. Sheridan Jones has lately been drawing public attention. - -[11] A good illustration of this may be obtained by comparing the two -by-elections which have taken place since the present parliament was -elected, in North-East Lanarkshire. In both cases a typical orthodox -Unionist and a typical orthodox Labourite were in the field. But the -Liberal candidates were of a very different type in the two cases. In -September 1901 (while the South African War was still in progress) -the Liberal candidate was Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, of the “Daily Mail,” -an Imperialist of so pronounced a kind that all the organs of the -Anti-Imperialist press and many of the Leaders of Anti-Imperialist -Liberalism advised the electors to vote for the Labour candidate. This -year on the other hand the Liberal candidate was a strictly orthodox -Liberal who succeeded in uniting all sections of the party. I give the -figures for both elections. - - By-election 26/9/01. - - Sir W. Rattigan (U) 5673 - - Mr. C. Harmsworth (L) 4769 - - Mr. R. Smillie (Lab) 2900 - - By-election 10/5/04. - - Mr. Finlay (L) 5619 - - Mr. Touch (U) 4677 - - Mr. Robertson (Lab) 3984 - -The noticeable thing about these figures is the enormous increase in -the Labour poll. It may reasonably be supposed that the fulminations -of a large section of representative Liberal opinion against Mr. -Harmsworth produced some effect on the voting, and one may therefore -take it that a fair number of electors, who voted for Mr. Smillie in -1901, voted for Mr. Finlay in 1904. Yet Mr. Robertson’s gain is far -greater than Mr. Finlay’s. This can only mean that a large number -of working men, who, in time of war voted for the Tory Imperialist -candidate, voted for the Labour candidate in time of peace. - - - - -TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE - - -This eBook makes the following corrections to the original text: - - Pg 23 “pratically” changed to “practically” - Pg 47 comma added after “origin” - Pg 53 comma added after “leave” - Pg 57 “Ultramonanism” changed to “Ultramontanism” - Pg 63 “inpossible” changed to “impossible” - Pg 64 period added after “divisions” - Pg 70 “ebulition” changed to “ebullition” - Pg 72 comma added after “attacked” - Pg 77 period added after “unconscious” - Pg 84 comma changed to period after “system” - Pg 95 period added to “Mr Chamberlain” - Pg 107 period removed before colon - Pg 116 “repudition” changed to “repudiation” - Pg 119 period added after “Voluntary School” - Pg 124 period added after “ad hoc” - Pg 124 comma added after “foreign affairs” - Pg 131 “nausious” changed to “nauseous” - Pg 144 “shold” changed to “should” - Pg 147 “couse” changed to “course” - Pg 149 “abandon the the” changed to “abandons the” - Pg 150 period added after “for it” - Pg 152 period added after “statesmanship” - Pg 156 period added after “surroundings” - Pg 167 “inadmissable” changed to “inadmissible” - Pg 168 “attentuated” changed to “attenuated” - Pg 182 comma added after “a priori logic” - Pg 183 “economic of political” changed to “economic or political” - Pg 198 “socialogical” changed to “sociological” - Pg 199 “develope” changed to “develop” - Pg 209 period added after “kind” - Pg 218 “to-wards” changed to “towards” - Pg 202 “employées” changed to “employés” - Pg 225 “artizans” changed to “artisans” - Pg 230 comma changed to period after “Gold” - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GLADSTONIAN GHOSTS *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/65915-0.zip b/old/65915-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 3ba6617..0000000 --- a/old/65915-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/65915-h.zip b/old/65915-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 1d85374..0000000 --- a/old/65915-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/65915-h/65915-h.htm b/old/65915-h/65915-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index e2032e9..0000000 --- a/old/65915-h/65915-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,6320 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - Gladstonian Ghosts, by Cecil Chesterton—A Project Gutenberg eBook - </title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - - h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; -} - -p { - margin-top: .51em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .49em; -} - -hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 33.5%; - margin-right: 33.5%; - clear: both; -} - -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} -@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;} } - -div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} -h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} - -table { - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; -} -table.autotable { border-collapse: collapse; } -table.autotable td, -table.autotable th { padding: 4px; } - -.tdl {text-align: left;} -.tdr {text-align: right;} - -.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - left: 92%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; - font-style: normal; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; - color: #999999; -} /* page numbers */ - -.left {text-align: left;} -.center {text-align: center;} -.big {font-size: 1.6em;} -.margin {margin-top: 5em;} -.titlePage {margin-left: 25%;} - -/* Footnotes */ -.footnotes {border: 1px dashed;} - -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} - -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: - none; -} - -/* Transcriber's notes */ -.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:smaller; - padding:0.5em; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; } -.transnote li {text-align: left;} - </style> - </head> -<body> -<p style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Gladstonian Ghosts, by Cecil Chesterton</p> -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online -at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you -are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this eBook. -</div> - -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Title: Gladstonian Ghosts</p> - <p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: Cecil Chesterton</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: July 24, 2021 [eBook #65915]</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Language: English</p> - <p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left'>Produced by: Benjamin Fluehr, Tim Lindell and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)</p> -<div style='margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GLADSTONIAN GHOSTS ***</div> -<h1 class="left titlePage">GLADSTONIAN GHOSTS,</h1> - -<p class="titlePage">By CECIL CHESTERTON.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"> - <p class="center big">GLADSTONIAN GHOSTS.</p> - <p class="center margin">BY<br /> - CECIL CHESTERTON.</p> - <p class="center margin">PRINTED BY THE LANTHORN<br /> - PRESS, AND PUBLISHED IN<br /> - LONDON BY S. C. BROWN<br /> - LANGHAM & CO., LTD.</p> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS.</h2> -</div> - -<table class="autotable" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdl"><a href="#DEDICATION">DEDICATION</a></td> -<td class="tdr">7</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">I.</td> -<td class="tdl"><a href="#LIBERALISM_AND_THE">LIBERALISM AND THE ZEITGEIST</a></td> -<td class="tdr">20</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">II.</td> -<td class="tdl"><a href="#WHAT_PORTION_HAVE">“WHAT PORTION HAVE WE IN DAVID?”</a></td> -<td class="tdr">34</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">III.</td> -<td class="tdl"><a href="#NATIONAL_PENRHYNISM">NATIONAL PENRHYNISM</a></td> -<td class="tdr">51</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">IV.</td> -<td class="tdl"><a href="#MILITARISM_AND">“MILITARISM AND AGGRESSION”</a></td> -<td class="tdr">70</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">V.</td> -<td class="tdl"><a href="#THE_FETISH_OF_FREE">THE FETISH OF FREE TRADE</a></td> -<td class="tdr">92</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">VI.</td> -<td class="tdl"><a href="#TOWARDS_ANARCHISM">TOWARDS ANARCHISM</a></td> -<td class="tdr">114</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">VII.</td> -<td class="tdl"><a href="#OUR_BRITISH_MOSLEMS">OUR BRITISH MOSLEMS</a></td> -<td class="tdr">142</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">VIII.</td> -<td class="tdl"><a href="#RETRENCHMENT_AND">“RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM”</a></td> -<td class="tdr">159</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">IX.</td> -<td class="tdl"><a href="#SOCIAL_RECONSTRUCTION">SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION</a></td> -<td class="tdr">180</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">X.</td> -<td class="tdl"><a href="#SOME_MATERIALS_AND_A">SOME MATERIALS AND A POSSIBILITY</a></td> -<td class="tdr">211</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<div class="center"><img src="images/icon.png" style="height: 4em; margin-top: 2em;" alt="" /></div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p class="center">DEDICATION</p> -<p class="center">TO</p> -<p class="center">EDGAR JEPSON.</p> -</div> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="DEDICATION">DEDICATION.</h2> -</div> - - -<p style="margin-left: 2em"> -My dear Jepson, -</p> - -<p>If (with your permission) I dedicate -this essay in political criticism to -you, it is because I know that, though -you parade it less, your interest in the -science of politics is fully as keen as -my own. In point of fact there is no-one -whose judgment in these matters I -would trust more readily than yours. -You are a philosopher; and the philosopher’s -outlook in politics is always -clear, practical and realistic as contrasted -with the thoroughly romantic -illusions of the typical party man. -That, by the way, is why Mr. Balfour, -the philosopher, has in the domain of -parliamentary and electoral strategy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</span> -hopelessly outwitted Mr. Chamberlain, -the “man of business and busy man”—to -quote his own characteristically poetic -phrase.</p> - -<p>As a philosopher you are able to -see what no “practical statesman” -on either side of the House seems likely -to perceive—that social and economic -politics are the only kind of politics -that really matter, and that the “chicken-in-the-pot” -ideal of Henri Quatre is -after all the primary aim of all statesmanship. -Three centuries of anarchic -commercialism have left us a legacy -of pauperism, disease, famine, physical -degeneracy and spiritual demoralization, -which in another century will infallibly -destroy us altogether if we cannot in -the mean time destroy them. And I -think you share my impatience when our -Radical friends insist on discussing Irish -Home Rule, Church Disestablishment -and the abolition of the House of Lords, -as if such frivolities could really satisfy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</span> -the human conscience faced with the -appalling realities of the slums.</p> - -<p>When therefore I speak of your -interest in politics I am not thinking -of that rather exciting parlour game -which they play at Westminster during -the spring months. In this you probably -take less interest than I; for I -must confess (not altogether without -shame) that the sporting aspect of -politics has always fascinated me. You, -on the other hand, have <i>Bridge</i> to -amuse you; and, when you are brought -to the bar of the Nonconformist Conscience -on this count, you may fairly -plead that any man who played <i>Bridge</i> -with the peculiar mixture of ignorance, -stupidity, criminal laziness and flagrant -dishonesty with which the Front Benches -play the game of politics, would infallibly -be turned out of his club and -probably cut by all his acquaintances.</p> - -<p>It may seem surprising that, taking -this view of contemporary party warfare,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</span> -I should have troubled to write a book -in criticism of it. To which I can only -reply that the parliamentary bridge-players -are unfortunately staking on -their pastime not their own money -but my country’s interests; so that -the incidents of the game become important -despite the frivolity of the players, -and it seems to me that we are on the -eve of a turn of luck which may prove -not only important but disastrous.</p> - -<p>I suppose that we are not unlikely -to have a General Election within the -forthcoming year; and many indications -appear to point to the probability of a -sweeping Liberal victory. I want you -to consider carefully what a Liberal -victory means for us and for all serious -reformers.</p> - -<p>A Liberal victory means one of two -things; either six years of government -by the Whigs or six years of government -by the Nonconformists. There is no -third alternative, for neither the old<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</span> -destructive Free-thinking Radicalism of -the late Charles Bradlaugh and the almost -extinct Secular Society, nor the new -sentimental High Church Radicalism of -my excellent friend C. F. G. Masterman -and his associates of the <i>Commonwealth</i> -has the slightest hold on any -section of the electorate that counts -politically. If you doubt this, it is -because you did not follow Masterman’s -campaign at Dulwich as closely as I did. -Vehement Catholic though he was, he -was forced to accept all the political -shibboleths of Nonconformity on pain of -certain annihilation; yet, even after he -had gone to the very verge of what his -conscience would permit to conciliate -his sectarian masters, this did not save -him from a crushing defeat. An excellent -candidate, an eloquent and effective -speaker with real civic enthusiasm, he -met the same fate which overtook -Bernard Shaw at St. Pancras, when he -stood for the L.C.C. And that fate will<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</span> -continue to overtake all who rely on -Radical support without first making -their full submission—political, theological -and moral—to the Vatican of Dissent.</p> - -<p>The Radical wing of the Liberal -Party has degenerated into a political -committee of the Free Church Councils; -even the Liberal League cannot get on -without making some acknowledgement -of Nonconformist authority. But the -“Imperialist” section is of course less -absolutely under the control of Salem -Chapel than its rival; is it fundamentally -any more progressive?</p> - -<p>It is pathetic in the light of subsequent -events to read again the admirable -article (to which by the way I -am indebted for the title of this book) -contributed by Mr. Webb to the <i>Nineteenth -Century</i> three years ago. Mr. -Webb was so simple-minded as to -suppose that Lord Rosebery’s talk about -“national efficiency” really meant something, -and that “Liberal Imperialism”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</span> -was a genuine attempt to form a party -of progress free of Gladstonian tradition. -Sancta simplicitas! We can see now -clearly enough that the Liberal Imperialists -were for the most part mere squeezable -opportunists with all the effete -prejudices of the Pro-Boers minus their -sturdiness of conviction, men who wished -to snatch a share in the popularity of -the South African War, but had not the -slightest intention of abandoning a single -Mid-Victorian nostrum, which could -still be used to catch a few votes. On -the Education Bills, Tariff Reform and -Licensing, they have Gladstonised, -Miallised, Cobdenised and Wilfred-Lawsonised -with the best. And now that -the Fiscal Question seems likely to drive -back into the ranks of the Liberal -“Right” such men as Lord Goschen -and the Duke of Devonshire—the very -men who were frightened to death of -Mr. Chamberlain’s “Socialism” as far -back as 1885—all hope of reform from<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</span> -that quarter is at an end. A “Liberal -Imperialist” government means Lord -Rosebery orating nobly about nothing -in particular, Lord Goschen and the -Duke of Devonshire acting up to their -self-constituted function of “drags upon -the wheel,” and Sir Henry Fowler once -more sitting heavily on all enlightened -municipal enterprise in the interests of -piratical monopolists. I see that the -Whigs are already crying out for “Free -Trade concentration,” which will I -imagine prove an excellent excuse for -doing nothing for the next half decade.</p> - -<p>And yet, I fear, we shall have to -accept the Whigs as the lesser of two -evils. At least their offences will in -the main be negative, while the victory -of the Nonconformists means a period -of legislation so disastrous that you -and I and all advanced reformers will -be obliged to cling to the House of Lords -as our only bulwark against the appalling -flood of reaction. For some time<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</span> -the Nonconformists have been clamouring -for the repeal of the admirable -Education Acts of 1902-3. They have -now begun to clamour for the repeal -of the Licensing Act as well. Now, -quite apart from the merits of these -measures, it is as clear as daylight that -all progress will be impossible if every -government devotes its time and energies -to repealing the measures of its predecessor. -This disastrous precedent will -be but the first-fruit of a Dissent-driven -ministry. Meanwhile our refreshments, -our amusements, even our religious -observances will be subjected to silly -sectarian taboos. Social reform will be -hopelessly neglected, while we may have -to face a revival of the foolish agitation -in favour of Church Disestablishment -which even Mr. Chamberlain’s marvellous -genius for electioneering could -not persuade the country to take very -seriously in the eighties.</p> - -<p>“The Whigs are a class with all<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</span> -the selfish prejudices and all the vices -of a class; the Radicals are a sect with -all the grinding tyranny and all the -debasing fanaticism of a sect.” Those -words are as true to-day as they were -when Lord Randolph Churchill spoke -them nearly twenty years ago. Indeed -all that has happened since has tended -to make the Whigs more selfishly -“class-conscious” and the Radicals -more debasingly sectarian.</p> - -<p>It may be retorted that the Tories -are no better equipped for the art of -statesmanship. I assent; but I say -that on the whole they are less positively -dangerous. For one thing the very -cloudiness of their political outlook -renders them to a great extent amenable -to skilful and systematic pressure from -genuine reformers. It is often possible -to get them to pass good measures without -knowing it, as Mr. Webb and Mr. -Morant are supposed to have induced -them to pass an Education Bill which<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</span> -would have been rejected with unanimity -by the Cabinet, the Conservative Party, -the House of Lords and all three Houses -of Convocation, had its real excellence -been perceived by those bodies. Also -the Tories have not always in their -pockets that dilapidated bundle of red -herrings (the Church, the Lords, etc), -which the Radicals produce periodically -whenever the electorate has to be -deluded. But, when all has been said, -it must be confessed that there is little -to be hoped from the Tories just now. -They had their chance in 1895, when -they came into power on the cry of -“Social Reform.” Had they fulfilled -their pledges then, we should never have -had to face the terror of a Gladstonian -resurrection. But they failed; and the -great Tory revival which Randolph -Churchill inaugurated has ended in a -pageant of fashionable incompetence -above, and frivolous Jingoism (inexpressibly -disquieting to serious Imperialists)<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</span> -below, the wires being pulled -vigorously meanwhile by the unclean -hands of Hebrew Finance—a sight -that would have made Churchill sick at -heart.</p> - -<p>There remains the Labour Party -which I discuss fully elsewhere. Here -I will only say that, while I believe that -the only hope for England and the -Empire is in Socialism, I confess that, -if I am to trust to Socialists as I see them -at present (outside our own Fabian -Society) I feel the hope to be a slender -one.</p> - -<p>To conclude: if you and I vote -(as I expect we shall) for Tory candidates -at the next election, it will not be from -any admiration for the present government, -rather it will be from a very natural -fear lest a worse thing befall us. I -have written this book for the same -reason; it may be taken among other -things as a word of advise to my fellow-citizens -to weigh carefully, before recording<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</span> -their verdict on their present -rulers, the respective merits of the frying -pan and the fire.</p> - -<p>The warning, I think you at least -will agree with me, is by no means -superfluous.</p> - -<p style="margin-left: 2em">Yours sincerely,</p> -<p style="margin-left: 5em; margin-top: 2em;">CECIL CHESTERTON.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="LIBERALISM_AND_THE">LIBERALISM AND THE -ZEITGEIST.</h2> -</div> - - -<p>It was the custom of Macaulay -and other representative writers of the -Dark Ages to speak of the mediæval era -in Europe as one of savage and unenlightened -barbarism. There is something -particularly amusing to the twentieth -century observer in the patronizing -tone adopted by men, who lived in what -could hardly be called a community at -all, in writing of the splendid civilization -which flourished under Frederick II. -and St. Louis. For it is becoming -obvious to us all now that the great -movement of the world from the fifteenth -to the nineteenth century was -not a movement towards civilization but -a movement away from it. Civilization -does not imply a collection of mechanical -contrivances brought to a high state<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</span> -of perfection—it may or may not possess -such contrivances. But it does imply a -<i>Civitas</i>, a commonwealth, a conscious -organization of society for certain ends. -This the age of St. Louis had, and the -age of Cobden had not. The great -movement which we roughly call “Liberalism” -may therefore be very properly -described as a reaction against civilization.</p> - -<p>I do not say it was wrong. Let -none suppose that I have any share in -the factitious dreams of the “Young -England” enthusiasts or their contemporary -imitators. I know that Feudalism -died in the fifteenth century of -its own rottenness, and that its revival -is as hopeless and undesirable as the -revival of Druidism (much favoured -I believe in some literary quarters just -now) would be. I recognise that Liberalism -in getting rid of its obsolete relics -did good and necessary work and cleared -the way for better. I merely state the -case historically because it is impossible<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</span> -to understand the present position and -prospects of Liberalism without realizing -that Liberalism is in its essence destructive -and in the strict sense of the word anti-social.</p> - -<p>Look at the track of Liberalism -across English history. It begins -practically with the Reformation and -the Great Pillage, wherein it showed -its true character very vividly in the -combination of a strictly individualistic -religion with the conversion of communal -property into private property for the -benefit of the new “Reforming” oligarchs. -Then it appears in the Civil -War, which we are beginning to understand -better than the Whig historians -of the late century understood it. On -its economic side Puritanism was the -seventeenth century counterpart of Cobdenism—a -middle-class movement striking -at once at the old aristocracy, whose -lands it confiscated and divided, and -at the proletariat, whom it robbed of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</span> -what was left of their common heritage -and to whom it denied their traditional -holidays, avowedly on religious grounds -but practically in the interests of the -employing class. One could continue -the story further if it were necessary. -But all that need be said is that in the -middle of the nineteenth century we -find Liberalism everywhere dominant -and victorious with the result that -Englishmen had practically ceased to -form a community at all.</p> - -<p>It is a common taunt in the mouths -of Tariff Reformers just now that Cobden -and Bright opposed the Factory Acts; -and Liberals, driven into a corner on -the subject, generally affect to regard -this as an unfortunate and unaccountable -lapse from grace on the part of the two -Free Trade Apostles. Of course it was -nothing of the sort: it was the only -possible line for them to take as honest -men and consistent political thinkers. -The matter of the Factory Acts does<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</span> -not stand alone: state education, when -first proposed was met with Radical -opposition of a very similar kind. If -anyone will look through the speeches -of the opponents of the early Factory -Bills he will find that they were attacked, -just as the present government’s Education -Bill was attacked, not as revolutionary -but as reactionary measures. They -were constantly compared to the Sumptuary -Laws and to the statutes regulating -the position of apprentices which -figure in mediæval legislation. And -the comparison is a perfectly fair one. -Cobden and Bright were fundamentally -<i>right</i> in their contention that Factory -Acts were contrary to the first principles -of Liberalism. Such acts were only -passed, because the application of Liberal -principles to the questions involved -had resulted in a welter of brutality, -child torture and racial deterioration, -so horrible that no decently humane -man, no reasonable enlightened citizen<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</span> -could think of Lancashire and its cotton -trade without a shudder. When the -Sovereign gave her assent to the first -effective Factory Bill she passed a prophetic -sentence of death on Liberalism -and the Liberal Party.</p> - -<p>Doubtless the execution of the -sentence has been long deferred and -may yet be deferred longer. But the -backbone had been taken out of Liberalism -as soon as that concession had been -made. It could not claim any longer -to have a coherent or intelligible political -philosophy. For the arguments used -by the Manchester School against import -duties were precisely the same as those -used against factory legislation. The -two propositions were based upon the -same axioms and postulates; if one -was wrong, why not the other? And -if the worship of “doing as one likes” -were unsound in the region of economics -what reason was there for supposing -it to be sound in the region of politics?<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</span> -If Free Contract were an untenable -foundation for society, what became -of Free Trade? And, if Free Trade were -to go, might not the demand for a Free -Church have to follow? The fortress -of Liberalism still looked imposing -enough, but the foundations were sapped -and there were ominous cracks and -fissures in the walls.</p> - -<p>Indeed the passing of the great -Factory Acts marks the turning of the -tide. It was the public confession of -the English nation that Cobden’s and -Bastiat’s Utopia of ‘economic harmonies’ -was a foolish and impossible one, based -on bad economics and worse history. -It was the beginning of the reaction in -favour of what I have called civilization, -that is of the conscious and deliberate -regulation and control of commerce -in the public interest. Everything that -has been done since in the way of industrial -reform—Housing Acts, Public -Health Acts, compulsory and free education,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</span> -municipal ownership and municipal -trading—has proceeded in this -direction. We are working towards -what Herbert Spencer called “The New -Toryism,” that is back to civilization.</p> - -<p>It is no matter for surprise that -most of the measures mentioned above -have been the work of Tory governments. -Doubtless the Tories are stupid and -ineffectual enough, doubtless they are -too much controlled by landed interests -and capitalist rings, to deal with social -evils very courageously. But at least -they have this great advantage over -their enemies, that they are not obliged -to reconcile everything they do with -the exploded economic dogmas of Benthamism, -so that the insight and progressive -instincts of their abler leaders -have been able to force them farther -along the path of progress than the sheer -pressure of political necessity has been -able to force the equally reluctant -Liberals. So long as social reform<span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</span> -remains a matter of pickings, we shall -get the best pickings from the Tories.</p> - -<p>But if, as I have suggested all -meaning has long ago gone out of -Liberalism, how does it come about that -Liberalism insists on surviving? Are we -not all expecting a big Liberal majority -at the next General Election, and would -not such a majority prove that Liberalism -was very much alive? My answer -is that it would not. Doubtless the -Liberals will win at the polls next year; -probably they will get a good majority. -But this will prove nothing as to the -spiritual vitality of the thing they -represent. It will prove that the people -of this country are annoyed with the -present government and want a change. -It will not prove that they are in any real -sense of the word Liberals; still less -that Liberalism has anything vital or -valuable to say in relation to current -problems.</p> - -<p>The fact is that a party which has<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</span> -parted with its convictions may continue -to exist for a long time by living on its -prejudices. This is the ordinary history -of movements, whether political, social -or religious, during the period of their -decadence, and it is briefly the history -of Liberalism during the last fifty years.</p> - -<p>The Factory Acts, by their obvious -necessity and their equally obvious -indefensibility from the Liberal standpoint, -knocked the bottom out of Liberalism -and made a consistent Liberal -philosophy impossible for the future. -But only new and growing movements -require a philosophy. When a movement -has been going long enough to accumulate -a fair number of catch-words -and a collection of common likes and -dislikes, it can make enormous use -of these and even win great electoral -triumphs on the strength of them long -after they have become completely -separated from the doctrines from which -they originally sprang, and indeed long<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</span> -after these doctrines have become so -obsolete as to be universally incredible.</p> - -<p>An almost exact parallel may be -drawn between the recent history of -Liberalism and the recent history of -Nonconformity. English Nonconformity -was founded on the doctrines of -Calvin as English Liberalism was on -those of Lock and Adam Smith. Where -are the doctrines of Calvin now? I -do not suppose there is one chapel in -London—perhaps in England—where -the doctrine of Reprobation is taught -in all its infamous completeness. The -ordinary London Nonconformist minister -at any rate is the mildest and vaguest -of theologians, and talks like the member -of an Ethical Society about little but -“Truth and Righteousness.” So far -from preaching Calvinism with its iron -and inflexible logic and its uncompromising -cry of “Come out and be ye -separate!” he is the first to tell you -that the age of dogma is gone by and that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</span> -modern religion must be “undenominational.” -Yet, in spite of the complete -disappearance of its intellectual basis, -Dissent remains powerful enough to -thwart the execution of great reforms -and wreck the careers of great statesmen. -And if you ask what (if not a common -theology) holds the Nonconformists together -and makes them so potent a -force, the answer will be a common -stock of prejudices—a prejudice against -Catholic ritual, a prejudice against -horse-racing, a prejudice against established -churches, a prejudice against -public houses and music halls, a prejudice -in favour of Sunday observance. All -these (except in the case of church -establishment where the prejudice is -the result of a political accident erected -into a religious dogma) are natural -consequences of the Calvinist theology, -but in that theology the modern Dissenter -does not believe. Nevertheless, the -foundation gone, the prejudice remains,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</span> -and may be found strong enough among -other things to destroy the value of one -of the most beneficent reforms which -the last thirty years have seen.</p> - -<p>Now what has happened in the -case of Nonconformity has happened -also in the case of Liberalism. The -philosophy of Bastiat has followed the -philosophy of Calvin into the shades -of incredibility. Yet the prejudices born -of that philosophy remain and can still -be played upon with considerable effect. -They may briefly be summarized as -follows:—A prejudice against peers -(though not against capitalists), a prejudice -against religious establishments, -a prejudice against state interference -with <i>foreign</i> trade (the case of home -industry having been conceded), a prejudice -against Imperialism, a prejudice -against what is vaguely called “militarism”—that -is to say against provision -for national defence. Add prejudices -borrowed from the Nonconformists<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</span> -against publicans and priests and you -have the sum total of modern Liberalism.</p> - -<p>Now I regard all these prejudices -as mere hindrances to progress. I wish -to show in the pages which are to follow -that they are not, as the enthusiastic -Radical imagines, the very latest manifestations -of “progressive thought,” -but that on the contrary they are the -refuse of a dead epoch and an exploded -theory of politics, that considered as a -message for our age they are barren -and impossible, that a party dominated -by them is unfitted for public trust, and -that, unless newer and more promising -movements can emancipate themselves -from their influence, they are likely -to share the same ultimate fate.</p> - -<p>Peel is said to have caught the -Whigs bathing and stolen their clothes. -But the present apparel of the Liberals -is not such as to tempt any self-respecting -party to theft.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="WHAT_PORTION_HAVE">“WHAT PORTION HAVE -WE IN DAVID?”</h2> -</div> - - -<p>The ordinary man conceives of a -Socialist as a kind of very extreme -Liberal or Radical, a man who pushes -Radical doctrines further than most -Radicals dare push them. Indeed many -Socialists conceive so of themselves. -Yet it is obvious that, if there is any -truth at all in what I have just written, -this must be regarded as a complete -misconception.</p> - -<p>Socialism and Collectivism are names -which we give to the extreme development -of that tendency in political -thought which has proved so fatal to -Liberalism, which is indeed a reaction -against Liberalism. Karl Marx himself, -revolutionary though he was, admitted -that the English Factory Acts were the -first political expression of Socialism;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</span> -we have already seen that they were -the death warrant of consistent and -philosophic Liberalism. Every piece of -Socialistic legislation is in its nature -anti-Liberal. There is no getting away -from the truth of Herbert Spencer’s -taunt when he called Socialism “The -New Toryism.” Epigrammatically expressed, -that is an excellent and most -complimentary description of it. Socialism -is an attempt to adapt the old Tory -conceptions of national unity, solidarity -and order to new conditions. Our case -against Toryism is that its economic -and political synthesis is no longer -possible for us. But we can have no -kind of sympathy with Liberalism which -is the negation of all synthesis, the -proclamation of universal disruption.</p> - -<p>It is therefore particularly disheartening -to find that “Liberal principles” -are apparently as sacrosanct in -the eyes of many Socialists as in those -of the Liberals themselves. That Socialists<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</span> -also denounce the idea of a State -Church, that Socialists also rail at -Imperialism and condemn “bloated -armaments,” that Socialists also proclaim -the universal holiness and perfection -of Free Trade—this is the really extraordinary -and disturbing fact.</p> - -<p>This, though none seems to see it, -is the real root of the difficulties which beset -every attempt to form an independent -Socialist or Labour Party. You cannot -have an independent party with any -real backbone in it without independent -thinking. And, omitting pious platitudes -about “the socialization of all the means -of production, distribution and exchange” -there does not seem to me any perceptible -difference between the way in which the -Independent Labour Party (for example) -thinks about current problems and the -way in which the Liberals think about -them. They may think differently about -economic abstractions, but they do not -think differently when it comes to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</span> -practical politics. Consequently whenever -a question divides the Liberals and -the Tories, the I.L.P. always dashes into -the Liberal camp at the firing of the -first shot without apparently waiting -to consider for one moment whether -perhaps Socialism may not have an answer -of its own to give which will in the -nature of things be neither the Liberal -nor the Tory answer. And then the -I.L.P. and their allies of the Labour -Representation Committee boast proudly -of their “independence” because they -are not allowed to speak on Liberal platforms. -Of what avail is that prohibition -if the platform on which they themselves -stand is in its essence a Liberal platform.</p> - -<p>A little while ago the leaders of -the I.L.P. were extremely indignant -because three L.R.C. representatives -were said to have spoken at a by-election -in support of Liberal candidates. The -defence was that the three leaders in -question spoke, not in support of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</span> -Liberal candidate, but in opposition to -the Licensing Bill and other measures -of the Conservative Government. Now -it seems to me that this puts the whole -question of Socialist and Labour independence -in a nutshell. If Socialists -and other champions of labour have -really nothing to say on the Licensing -Bill, Education, Tariff Reform, Chinese -Labour and other topics of the hour -other than what all the Liberals are -saying it seems very difficult to understand -why it is so very wicked of them -to support Liberal candidates. If on -every question which is really before -the country they agree with the said -Liberal candidates it would seem the -obvious thing to do. At any rate I feel -quite certain that they will go on doing -it, directly or indirectly, in spite of all -the waste paper pledges and resolutions -in the world, until they get a political -philosophy of their own, when they will -realize that the Socialist (or if you<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</span> -prefer it the “Labour”) view of the -licensing question, the fiscal question -and the South African labour question -is and must be fundamentally different -from the Liberal and Radical view.</p> - -<p>And indeed for want of such -realisation the rush of the Labour men -into the Liberal camp becomes more -headlong every day. It began with -Radical Trade Unionists newly converted -to the idea of independent labour representation. -But the Socialist wing -has not shown itself a whit steadier in -its allegiance to the doctrine of real -independence. If you doubt this charge, -turn to an article contributed by Mr. -J. Ramsay MacDonald to the <i>Speaker</i> -on the subject of the International -Socialist Congress at Amsterdam. The -<i>Speaker</i> if one of the ablest is one -of the most thoroughly obscurantist -of Liberal papers, holding fast and -without shame by the traditions of -Cobden and Gladstone. Mr. MacDonald<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</span> -has been in the past one of the most -uncompromising of the leaders of the -I.L.P. and is at this moment Secretary -of the Labour Representation Committee. -He seems to claim, in the -passage I am going to quote, to speak -for his party, and, as far as I am aware, -none of the leaders of that party have -ventured to repudiate him.</p> - -<p>This is what he says:—</p> - -<p>“If, for instance, in the next Liberal -Cabinet the Rosebery faction were -strongly represented, and if no satisfactory -pledges were given upon the -Government’s intentions regarding Trade -Union legislation, the Labour Party -would be perfectly justified in supporting -a vote of censure—or what would amount -to that—on the first King’s Speech; but on -the other hand, if the Cabinet were anti-Imperialist, -and were sound on Trade -Union legislation, the Labour Party would -be justified in giving it general support -and in protecting it from defeat.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</span></p> - -<p>It is hardly necessary to point out -that here Mr. MacDonald gives the whole -I.L.P. case hopelessly away. None reading -the above passage could suppose -for a moment that it was written by a -Socialist. Observe that the writer does -not ask for a single item of socialist -or semi-socialist legislation. He is -silent about Old Age Pensions, about -an Eight Hours Day or a Minimum -Wage, about a Graduated Income Tax, -about Housing or Factory legislation—in -a word about everything that could -by any possibility be called Socialistic. -For what does he ask? Firstly for -anti-Imperialism? Now is anti-Imperialism -the same as Socialism? Is -there any reason for supposing that -the anti-Imperialist wing of the Liberal -party will do more for labour than the -Imperialist wing? Is Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman -a Socialist or a Labourite? -Is Mr. John Morley, who for -years has absolutely blocked the way<span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</span> -in regard to social reform, a Socialist -or a Labourite? Why should the Labour -Party support the hopelessly outmoded -rump of Little-England Radicalism -without at any rate making a very -stringent bargain with them? As to -trade union legislation, every Socialist -would doubtless support it, but it is -not in itself a Socialist measure; it is -merely what everyone supposed that the -Unions had obtained thirty years ago with -the assent of Liberals and Tories alike. -It therefore comes to this—that Mr. MacDonald -has declared himself as regards -practical issues not a Socialist at all, but an -anti-Imperialist Radical who is in favour -of improving the legal position of trades -unions. Then why, in the name of heaven -form an independent party at all? He -and those who follow him are clearly in -their right place as an insignificant section -of the Radical “tail.” And that -is how both Tories and Radicals will in -future regard them.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</span></p> - -<p>But there is one Socialist sect in -England from which we might at least -expect freedom from Liberal tradition. -The Social Democratic Federation is -never tired of boasting of its independence, -its “class-consciousness,” its stern -Marxian inflexibility of purpose. Yet, -when it comes to practice, it is only a -trifle less enslaved by Liberal ideas -than the I.L.P. itself. During the South -African War the S.D.F. went one better -than the Liberals in its narrow pro-Boerism. -Its members rallied to the -support of the late Mr. Kruger (surely -the strangest leader that Social Democracy -ever boasted!) and backed -up the Radical Krugerites without apparently -asking any questions as to -their policy on labour matters. Later, -on the education question, they again -rallied to the Radical standard (the -standard of 1870!) and, like so many -Liberal Nonconformists, broke into -ecstatic worship of the “ad hoc”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</span> -principle, denouncing as “undemocratic” -the socialistic policy of municipalized -education which the Tory -government had borrowed from the -Fabian Society. Moreover, glancing at -the S.D.F. programme I find among -the “palliatives” disestablishment of -the church and abolition of hereditary -monarchy. How the economic condition -of the people is going to be “palliated” -by these measures I do not -profess to know; I will only remark -that the “palliation” does not seem -very visible in the United States at the -present time. But what I want to insist -upon is the utter futility of playing thus -into the hands of the champions of -capitalism by helping to impress workmen -with the idea that their misfortunes are -wholly or in part due to those purely -constitutional causes concerning which -Radicals and Conservatives are at war, -while all the time we at least know that -they are due to the economic structure of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</span> -society which Radicals and Conservatives -alike support.</p> - -<p>I agree with the S.D.F. in thinking -that a Labour party must have some sort -of doctrinal basis. An old party can -live for a long while on catchwords and -prejudices, but you cannot build a new -party up without some definite political -ideas. But these doctrines and ideas -must not be a mere re-hash of exploded -Liberal doctrines and ideas plus a theoretic -belief in “the socialization of all -the means, etc.” The new party need -not call itself Socialist,—perhaps had -better not do so,—but its attitude towards -practical matters must be effectively -socialistic. It must stand for the -rights of the community as emphatically -as the older Liberalism stood for the -rights of the individual. It must work -for the state control and regulation of -industry as Liberalism worked for its -liberation from state interference. In -a word, it must be Protectionist in a more<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</span> -far-reaching sense than that in which -the word is applicable to Mr. Chamberlain -or Mr. Chaplin. So that its political -philosophy will be emphatically anti-Liberal -and may sometimes (though -but accidentally) have to be pro-Tory.</p> - -<p>Moreover, even if a Labour party -could be a Labour party and nothing -more, there would always be a tactical -as well as a philosophic reason for -clearing our movement of all complicity -with the ideas of Liberalism. -During the first half of the nineteenth -century it was always supposed that -the working classes of this country were -generally, if not exclusively Radical. -Possibly at that time they were, but -since their enfranchisement in 1867 -they have proved themselves overwhelmingly -and unrepentantly Tory. -The history of the decades which have -intervened since then has been the history -of the gradual capture by the Tories -of all the great industrial districts where<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</span> -the working-class vote is most powerful. -Politicians of the ’forties spoke of the -“Conservative Working Man” as incredulously -as men would speak of a -white negro. Yet events have proved -not only that such a person exists, but -that he can by his vote control the politics -of nearly every great manufacturing -town in England.</p> - -<p>Now the Conservative working man -has no fundamental objection to Socialism. -The word no doubt displeases -him, partly because of its foreign origin, -partly from its vaguely revolutionary -associations, but on the practical application -of Socialism he looks with very -decided favour. In fact it is not improbable -that the conversion of the -labouring classes to Toryism was in -part at least due to the fact that during -the sixties and seventies the Tories had -for a leader Mr. Disraeli, whose quick -Hebraic imagination and insight made -him perceive the significance of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</span> -social problem, while the Liberals were -led by Mr. Gladstone, who regarded all -social reform from the first with supreme -indifference which in his later days -deepened into a hostility so intense -and deep-rooted that he was ready to -shatter his party and his own career -over Home Rule, if by so doing he could -stave off economic questions. But to -return to the Tory workman. I have -said he has no objection to applied -Socialism. It would be a comparatively -easy matter to secure his support for a -programme of advanced industrial reform, -were he not required to swallow -first a number of Liberal doctrines -which have no relation to his class -interests and to which he really has a -strong objection—anti-Imperialism, the -reduction of armaments, doctrinaire -republicanism and Irish Home Rule. -Once cut the Labour party free from -these things and the increase of its -electoral power will be enormous.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</span></p> - -<p>Before proceeding to a more detailed -examination of the Liberal attitude -towards current problems and its relation -to the genuinely progressive attitude, -let me sum up the conclusions already -reached.</p> - -<p>There is no philosophic ground for -identifying Socialism with extreme -Liberalism or Radicalism. The philosophies -of Liberalism and Socialism -are not merely different but directly -antagonistic.</p> - -<p>There is no historical ground for -regarding the Liberal party as the friend -of the working classes. The Liberal -party is historically an essentially capitalist -party; as a matter of fact the Tory -party has carried more drastic and -valuable social reforms than its rival.</p> - -<p>There is no tactical advantage to be -gained by committing the new-born -Labour party to the specific doctrines -of Liberalism. The working classes -of this country have no enthusiasm for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</span> -any of these doctrines and have a marked -dislike for some of them.</p> - -<p>Therefore the Labour party or -Socialist party or whatever the new -movement cares to call itself must if it -is to succeed fling all its Liberal lumber -overboard and start afresh. It is not -enough that it should be independent -of Liberal money and Liberal organisation. -All this matters little. What is -essential is that it should be independent -of Liberal ideas.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="NATIONAL_PENRHYNISM">NATIONAL PENRHYNISM.</h2> -</div> - - -<p>As I have already suggested the -subservience of Socialists and Labourites -to the traditions of Liberalism, so far -from showing any signs of abating gets -worse every day. It has been getting -markedly worse since the beginning -of the new century. It was the South -African War more than anything else -which captured the English Socialists -and swept them into the most reactionary -wing of the broken forces of Liberalism. -Since then the Radicals have always -been able by raising the cry of “No -Imperialism!” to bend the Socialists -to their will. Hence Mr. MacDonald’s -amazing indiscretion quoted in my last -chapter.</p> - -<p>I think it was Mr. Ben Tillet who -alluded to the owner of the Bethesda -Slate Quarries as “Kruger-Penrhyn.”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</span> -I am not sure that Mr. Tillet or indeed -anyone else realised the full accuracy -of this description. For not only was -there a very striking resemblance between -the virtues and faults of Mr. -Kruger and those of Lord Penrhyn but -there was an even more remarkable -analogy between the claims which the -two men put forward and the arguments -by which those claims were attacked -and upheld.</p> - -<p>The friends of the Welsh quarrymen -said in effect to Lord Penrhyn:—“You -are conducting your business improperly; -your narrow obstinacy is dangerous to -the community and an obstacle to -progress; your conduct towards your -employees is unfair and oppressive. -We demand that you either mend your -ways or go.” Similarly the British -government said in effect to Mr. Kruger -“You are conducting the government -of your country badly; your narrow -obstinacy is an obstacle to progress and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</span> -is creating a situation dangerous to the -peace of the world; your conduct -towards your subjects is unfair and -oppressive. We demand that you either -mend your ways or go.”</p> - -<p>And the answer is in each case the -same “Shall I not do what I will with -my own?” “Are not the quarries -<i>mine</i>?” asks Lord Penrhyn: “Is not -the Transvaal <i>ours</i>?” demanded Mr. -Kruger. “If my workmen do not like -my management they can leave,” said -Lord Penrhyn; “If the Outlanders do -not like my government they need not -come,” said Mr. Kruger.</p> - -<p>Now, granting the premises of these -two eminent men their conclusions certainly -follow. Indeed the popular case -against both was clearly untenable. -From the Liberal point of view Lord -Penrhyn was as right as Mr. Kruger; -from the Conservative point of view Mr. -Kruger was as right as Lord Penrhyn. -It is only by assailing the fundamental<span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</span> -assumptions of both that we can make -out any fair case against either. The -only possible answer to the positions -stated above is the Socialist answer:—“No; -the quarries do not really belong -to Lord Penrhyn; the Transvaal does -not really belong to Mr. Kruger or to -the Boers. Their title depends on the -use they make of them. Private property, -whether of individuals or of -nations is subject ultimately to the claims -of public necessity.”</p> - -<p>I have dwelt on this point at some -length because, as I have already said, -it was unquestionably the South African -War which more than anything else -rivetted on our Socialist and Labour -parties the chains of Liberalism. It is -perfectly natural that Liberals should -champion the “rights of nationalities,” -since they are the chosen champions -of the rights of property. But what -have Socialists to do with either except -to challenge them whenever they conflict<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</span> -with the general well-being? How -can Socialists accept the claim of a -handful of settlers to set up a ring-fence -round a certain portion of the earth’s -surface and declare it <i>their</i> property -any more than the claim of a landlord -to enclose commons?</p> - -<p>Note that I am not by any means -saying that no Socialist could consistently -oppose the South African War. There -are many plausible grounds upon which -he could oppose it. He could oppose -it for example on the ground that the -two Republics would in course of time -have been peaceably absorbed into the -Empire, and that the attempt to hurry -the process by war was in every way a -disastrous blunder. Or again he could -take the ground that the war dangerously -strengthened the already too powerful -financial interests of the Rand and -paved the way for such reactionary -measures as the introduction of Chinese -labour. I will not discuss here whether<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</span> -such arguments are sound or unsound. -I only say that the particular ground -of debate chosen, the inalienable “right” -of a people to do what it likes with its -own, is one that no Socialist can take -without self-stultification.</p> - -<p>The manner in which the leaders -of the English Labour movement with a -few exceptions flung themselves recklessly -into the most unintelligent sort -of pro-Krugerism is one example and -one very disastrous in its consequences -of the extent to which they have allowed -themselves to be saturated with the -Liberal theory of wholly irresponsible -Nationalism. But it is by no means -the only one. The parallel case of -Ireland is in many ways even more -curious.</p> - -<p>In considering the eternal Irish -question from a Socialist standpoint -there are four dominant facts to be -kept always in mind. The first is that -Nationalism in the Irish sense is not a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</span> -Socialist ideal in any sense, but is merely -a kind of very narrow parochial Jingoism. -The second that the Irish Nationalist -party is preeminently a <i>Parti bourgeois</i> -drawing its main strength from -the middle orders—small tradesmen, -tenant farmers and publicans, and that -its political and economic ideas are -those generally characteristic of that -class—rigid individualism, peasant -proprietorship and the like. The third -that it is a clericalist Party, representing -not the enlightened Catholicism of the -Continent but the narrowest kind of -political Ultramontanism.<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> The fourth -that Mr. Gladstone’s adoption of the -Home Rule cause was a deliberate move -on his part intended to stave off economic -reforms in this country.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</span></p> - -<p>Now in these circumstances it -would seem almost incredible that Socialists -should feel any kind of sympathy -with Irish Nationalism. Yet apparently -they do feel such sympathy. Mr. -Gladstone indeed builded better than he -knew. He doubtless believed that by -espousing Home Rule he could “dish” -Mr. Chamberlain and draw the attention -of young Liberals and Radicals away -from social questions in which they -were beginning to take a languid interest; -but he could hardly have expected -to effect this in the case of the Socialists -and Labour leaders themselves. Yet -to a great extent his policy has achieved -this, and we actually find Socialists -clamouring for the retention of Home -Rule in the Liberal programme, though -they must know perfectly well that its -retention means the indefinite postponement -of industrial matters.</p> - -<p>There is no kind of excuse for the -Nationalist partialities of Socialists because<span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</span> -they know or ought to know -that the theory that England oppresses -Ireland is a radically false and untenable -one. That Ireland is oppressed one need -not deny; but it is not England that -oppresses her. It is capitalism and -landlordism that oppress Ireland as -they oppress England. If the S.D.F. -means anything at all by its “recognition -of the Class War” it ought to recognise -this. And recognising it, it ought to -set its face like flint against a policy -of disunion and racial antagonism and -teach the proletarians of Ireland and -England to “unite” (that is to be Unionists) -according to the old Socialist -formula instead of encouraging the -proletarians of Ireland to regard those -of England as aliens and tyrants.</p> - -<p>To say the truth I am a little tired -of the wrongs of Ireland. I am quite -willing to admit that she is an “oppressed -nationality” with the proviso that this -phrase is equally applicable to England,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</span> -France, Germany, Italy and the United -States. But one is tempted to point -out that concessions have been made -to the Irish peasantry such as no one -dreams of making to the workers of -Great Britain. How much “fixity of -tenure” has the English labourer in the -wretched hole which his masters provide -for him? Do we sign away millions -of British money and British credit to -save <i>him</i> from the oppression of his -landlord? Not at all. But then he -does not shoot from behind hedges; -nor has he as yet had even the wisdom to -organize a strong and independent -political party whose support is to be -obtained for value received.</p> - -<p>In a word I contend that the -association of English Socialism and -Labourism with the aspirations of Irish -Chauvinists is theoretically meaningless -and practically suicidal. It is our business -to meet the old Gladstonian cry -that everything else must wait because<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</span> -“Ireland blocks the way” with a counter-cry, -“It is Ireland’s turn to wait; -Labour blocks the way.”</p> - -<p>All this does not of course mean -that no kind of devolution is practicable -or desirable. There is a sense in which -I am myself a convinced “Home Ruler.” -I believe that a number of causes (quite -independent of Irish Jingoism) are combining -to make a vast extension of -our system of local government imperative. -Mr. H. G. Wells has shown -that the administrative areas of our -local authorities are at present much -too small, and the authorities themselves -are quickly finding this out from practical -experience. Parliament is overwhelmed -with business which intelligent local -bodies could transact much better. -Imperial Federation, when it comes, -will of necessity entail a large measure -of local autonomy. Altogether some -scheme of provincial councils seems less -fantastic to-day than it did when Mr.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</span> -Chamberlain outlined it in the ’eighties. -But there is no earthly reason for conceding -to the least trustworthy and most -militantly provincial part of the United -Kingdom anything more than you give -to the rest. Ireland should get such -autonomy as we might give to the -north of England and no more. Ireland -is no more a Nation than Yorkshire, -but there is every reason why both -Ireland and Yorkshire should be taught -to manage their purely internal affairs -to the best of their ability.</p> - -<p>But, if exclusive Nationalism is -essentially unsocialistic, what are we -to say of Imperialism? The answer -is that there is nothing wrong with -Imperialism except the name which -suggests Louis Bonaparte and the dragooning -of subject peoples. With the thing, -in its British sense, Socialists have no -kind of quarrel. Indeed if Socialists -would only give up their vague invectives -against “Empire,” which lead<span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</span> -in the long run to nothing more than -the unmeaning backing of the effete -anti-imperialist, anti-socialist, anti-Church-and-State -Radicalism current -fifty years ago, and seriously face the -problems raised by British expansion -from an unswervingly Socialist standpoint, -we might get on a good deal -faster. The problem of Imperialism -(“Federationism” would be a better -word) may be briefly stated thus:—How -can we consolidate the widely -scattered and variegated dominions -which fly the British flag into one vast -Commonwealth of practically international -extent? Have Socialists any -answer to this question? Or are they -to be content with the old Radical -answer that this cannot or should not -be done?</p> - -<p>That any Socialist should return -such answer is to me I confess astounding. -To say that such a practically -international commonwealth is impossible<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</span> -is to say that <i>a fortiori</i> the international -commonwealth of which Marx -and Lassalles dreamed is impossible. -If the proletarians of England and -Ireland, Australia and South Africa, -India and Canada cannot unite, what -hope is there that those of France and -Germany, Russia and Japan will do so. -Surely it is a curious way of showing -your enthusiasm for the Federation of -the World to break up all existing federations -into smaller and smaller divisions. -The practical Socialist policy in relation -to the Empire is clearly not to destroy -it, but to socialize it—that is to prevent -its exploitation by capitalist cliques -and financial conspiracies, to organise -it in the interests of its inhabitants as -a whole, and to use its power to check -the evil force and cunning of cosmopolitan -finance.</p> - -<p>For indeed the dark of deeds such -finance can only, as we Socialists believe, -be checked by the political force of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</span> -community. And in order to check -it at all effectively the community must -be operative on a scale as large as its -own. That is why the older Socialists -were internationalists; that is why -so many of the more thoughtful of -modern Socialists are imperialists. Mr. -Wells has pointed out at what a serious -disadvantage municipalities find themselves -in dealing with private monopolies -since the latter can operate over any -area that is convenient to them, while -the operations of the former are confined -within the narrow and arbitrary frontiers -drawn by Acts of Parliament. Exactly -the same is true in international affairs. -Mr. Beit and Mr. Eckstein can safely -snap their fingers at small nationalities, -however progressive. Against a Socialistic -British Empire they would be utterly -powerless.</p> - -<p>And as the organization of the -Empire can be made the most powerful -of Socialist weapons if we can once<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</span> -get control of it, so the popular sentiment -of Imperialism can be used for the -purposes of Socialist propaganda if -we know how to turn it to account. -For we Socialists alone possess the key -to the problem—the key for which nonsocialist -Imperialists are looking. It -is to be noted that as soon as the ordinary -Imperialist gets anywhere near the -solution of an imperial question he gets -unconsciously on to the Socialist track, -as for instance in the growing demand -for the imperialisation of our great -carrying lines. Even Mr. Chamberlain’s -propaganda, though Socialists cannot -think it sufficient, is a sort of groping -after the socialist solution, an admission -of the necessity of intervention by the -united British Commonwealth to check -and regulate the disintegrating anarchy -of commercial competition. In fact -our word to the stupid and thoughtless -Imperialism of the streets is in reality -the word of St. Paul to the Athenians:—“What<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</span> -ye ignorantly worship that -declare we unto you!”</p> - -<p>The same general line of thought -has its application to the problems of -foreign policy. The old Cobdenite doctrine -of non-intervention in the affairs -of other nations had its origin in Cobden’s -general view of diplomacy as existing -only to promote the interests of trade—by -which of course he meant the interests -of the merchant, manufacturer -and capitalist. That cannot possibly -be our view. For Socialists to accept -the Liberal doctrine of non-intervention -would amount to a denial of that human -solidarity of which they have always -considered themselves the especial -champions. In point of fact Palmerston -is a much better model for Socialists -in regard to continental affairs than -Cobden or Bright or even Gladstone. -For, though Gladstone was certainly -not a non-interventionist, his anti-Turkish -monomania made him blind to the evil<span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</span> -power of Russia, whose existence is a -standing menace to liberty and progress, -and whose power and vast resources -make her a more formidable enemy of -all that we value than Turkey could -ever be if she tried. Socialists should -press not merely for the protection of -our “proletarian” fishermen against -the freaks of tipsy or panic-stricken -Russian admirals, but for a steady policy -of opposition to Russia all over the -world and the support of any or every -nation, Japs, Finns, Poles, Afghans -and even the “unspeakable” Turk -against her. During the perilous days -through which we have recently passed, -it must have occurred to many that our -position would have been much stronger -if we could have counted on the support -of Turkey, as we could have done had -we never abandoned, in deference to -Mr. Gladstone’s theological animosities, -the policy of Palmerston and Lord -Stratford de Redcliffe—the policy of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</span> -first reforming Turkish rule and then -guaranteeing it against Muscovite aggression. -The only difference between -our policy and Palmerston’s should be -this, that while Palmerston confined -himself to the encouragement of political -liberty, we ought to aim at the promotion -of economic liberty also. We should -in fact try to put England at the head -of the Labour interest throughout the -world as Cromwell put her at the head -of the Protestant interest, and Palmerston -of the Liberal interest. And in doing -this we should be prepared to make full -use of those weapons which neither -Cromwell nor Palmerston would ever -have hesitated to employ.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="MILITARISM_AND">“MILITARISM AND -AGGRESSION”</h2> -</div> - - -<p>We are continually being told by -Socialists of the hazier sort that Labour -has no concern with the question of -national defence. We have had recently -a considerable ebullition of this particular -form of imbecility provoked by the -efforts of one who has always seemed -to me quite the sanest and most far-sighted -of English Socialists, Mr. Robert -Blatchford, to draw general attention -to the importance of the subject. Mr. -Blatchford is in controversy very well -able to take care of himself, and in this -instance he has overwhelmed his critics -with such a cannonade of satire, eloquence, -indisputable logic and inspired -common-sense that it would be quite -impertinent of me to offer him my -support. But the episode is so very<span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</span> -typical of the ineffable silliness of “advanced” -persons that I cannot pass it -by without comment.</p> - -<p>As to the contention so much -favoured by those who have been -assailing Mr. Blatchford’s “militarism” -that England is not worth defending and -that a foreign invasion would be no evil -to the bulk of the people, the position -has been so thoroughly dismantled by -“Nunquam’s” heavy artillery that I -need hardly trouble about it here. As -Mr. Blatchford says, a few weeks of -Prussian or Muscovite rule would probably -be the best cure for reformers of -this type. But the whole argument is -on the face of it absurd. That your -country is badly governed is an excellent -reason for changing your present rulers. -But it is no reason at all for welcoming -(patriotism being for the moment set -on one side) a cataclysm which would -destroy good and bad alike—the good -more completely than the bad—and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</span> -would inevitably throw back all hope -of reform for at least a century. As -well might a man say that, since London -was admittedly in many ways an ugly -and horrible place, he proposed to vote -for the abolition of the fire-brigade.</p> - -<p>So also with the very popular -platitude which asserts that a peaceful -and unaggressive people need not fear -attack, and that, if we refrain from -injuring our neighbours they will refrain -from injuring us, (unless presumably -we happen to be North Sea fishermen). -The obvious controversial retort is that -the people who maintain this doctrine -are for the most part the very same who a -little while ago were never tired of -maintaining that the Boers were peaceful -and unaggressive and lamenting that -in spite of this their country was attacked, -conquered and annexed by a powerful -neighbour. Of course I do not accept -this account of the Boers, whom indeed I -respect far too much to accuse of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</span> -Tolstoian proclivities. But the point -is plainly unanswerable for those who -do accept it. In any case the whole -of the above lofty generalization is -flatly contradicted by history and experience. -Indeed, if the strong will not -wantonly attack the weak, then is our -preaching vain! Why are we Socialists? -What is the good of Trade -Unionism? The humane capitalists will -not attack us if we remain “peaceful -and unaggressive.” Perhaps not. As -Mr. Hyndman (I think) once said:—One -does not muzzle sheep! But, if -there is anything which the whole -history of human institutions proves, -it is this, that the people that does not -know how to defend its liberties will -lose them, and that it is not the strong -and aggressive nation but the weak and -defenceless nation that has cause to -dread aggression from its neighbours.</p> - -<p>In a word the doctrine of non-resistance -and its consequence, the abolition<span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</span> -of armaments, is good Anarchism and -may therefore in a sense be called good -Liberalism. But Socialism it is not and -cannot be.</p> - -<p>There is however, a position sometimes -maintained by controversialists -rather saner than those dealt with above. -It is suggested that, while it may be -admitted that an army of some sort is -necessary, there are plenty of people -already concerned with the promotion -of its efficiency, and that Socialists, -having other and more important work -to do, had much better leave the question -alone, intervening only to restrain the -militarists when their demands become -excessive.</p> - -<p>Now to this contention there are -as it seems to me three complete answers. -By far the most important objection -to such a policy is that it would make -it permanently impossible for us to -gain the confidence of the electorate. -The people of Great Britain (especially<span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</span> -the working classes) will always demand -as the first condition of supporting any -government that it shall be able and -willing to defend the country against -foreign aggression. No party which was -not thought to fulfil this condition would -find it possible to achieve or retain -administrative power. And those of -us whose desire is not to sit in arm chairs -and read Tolstoi and congratulate ourselves -on the non-conformity of our -consciences, but to get some sort of -socialism put into bricks and mortar, -must feel the urgent necessity of convincing -the voters that we are trustworthy -in this respect.</p> - -<p>Moreover if you leave the discussion -of army reform to the representatives -of the landed and capitalist classes, -such reforms as we get will be carried out -exclusively in the interests of those -classes. At present our military and naval -forces are officered and controlled by one -class; they are an appendage of that class<span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</span> -and will always, so long as this is so, be -employed successfully to protect its interests. -So long as the English people are -asked to choose between such class army -and the risk of a German invasion, -they will choose the former, but it by -no means follows that they would do so -were a practicable alternative placed -before them.</p> - -<p>And this brings me to my third -point. It so happens that for the -purpose of formulating an alternative, -Socialists are in an exceptionally favoured -position. Our army has by common -consent broken down. It is not even -effective for the purposes for which -the capitalist classes want it. It is not -only, as foolish people suppose, the War -Office that is decadent and inefficient; -the army is decadent and inefficient. -Our soldiers are perhaps the best raw -material in the world, but the whole -machinery of war and defence is eaten -up by a corruption which is all the worse<span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</span> -for being largely careless and unconscious. -The two worst enemies of the British -Army are the power of money and the -power of caste. These are our enemies -also. We Socialists alone are in a -position to see what is really wrong. -Would it not be worth our while to -bring our best brains to bear upon the -subject and see whether our Socialism -cannot provide us with a remedy.</p> - -<p>In spite of the unfortunate prevalence -of the sort of sentimentalism -referred to above, there have always -been in the socialist movement witnesses -to the common-sense view of militarism. -Here and there throughout this volume -I have been obliged to criticize the -attitude of the Social Democratic Federation; -I therefore admit the more gladly -that on this question that body has -indubitably led the way. Its views are -obtainable in the form of a remarkably -able pamphlet<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> from the pen of Mr. -Quelch, wherein the old Liberal Quakerism<span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</span> -is thrown completely overboard -and the institution of universal citizen -service on something like the Swiss -model put forward as the socialist -solution of the problem of national -defence. The Fabians followed in -“Fabianism and the Empire,”<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> adopting -a suggestion of Mr. and Mrs. Sidney -Webb’s that the half-time age in factories -and workshops should be raised to 21, -and the time thus gained devoted to -training in the use of modern weapons. -Finally there is Mr. Robert Blatchford, -whose plan is too elaborate to be detailed -here—I refer my readers to his articles -in the <i>Clarion</i> during July, August and -September last year and to his forthcoming -book on the subject—but whose -cardinal demand is for an immense<span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</span> -increase in the numbers and efficiency -of the volunteers, who are to form a -citizen force of almost national dimensions. -Of course the Fabian programme -and, I gather, Mr. Blatchford’s also -imply the existence of at any rate a -small professional army in addition.</p> - -<p>Now it seems to me that the one -defect of the S.D.F. plan is that, if I -understand Mr. Quelch’s pamphlet -rightly, it professes only to provide a -militia for the defence of these islands. -That is to say it does not provide for -the defence of our possessions in different -parts of the world nor for any aggressive -movement against the territory of the -power with which we chance to be at -war; while even for purely defensive -purposes it is open to the grave military -objections which can always be urged -against relying solely on irregular troops.</p> - -<p>I have already discussed the question -of Imperialism and I need not go into -it again. But I suppose that all but<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</span> -the most fanatical Little-Englanders, -whatever their views on expansion, -would admit that it is both our right -and our duty to assist in the protection -of our fellow-citizens in other parts -of the world against unprovoked attack. -If, for example, Germany were to make -a wanton attack on Australia, or Russia -on India, or the United States on Canada, -I suppose that every sensible Englishman -would admit that we ought to come to -the assistance of our fellow-countrymen. -But in that case we shall want an army -for foreign service as well as for home -defence.</p> - -<p>The other point needs rather more -explanation because it is constantly -misunderstood by people who will not try -to comprehend the nature of war. Such -persons are always confusing aggression -in the political sense as the cause of -war with aggression in the strategic -sense as a method of conducting it. -A war may be waged solely for defensive<span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</span> -purposes, yet it may be the right course -from a military point of view to take -the offensive. France found this in -the wars of the revolution; and Japan -fighting (as I believe) for no other -purpose than the protection of her own -independence against the lies of Russian -diplomacy and the brutalities of Russian -power, has yet been obliged to conquer -Korea, invade Manchuria, and lay siege -to Port Arthur. Similarly we might -easily find ourselves engaged in a purely -defensive war with France or Germany, -in which it might be still the only safe -policy to raid the territory and seize the -over-sea possessions and especially the -coaling-stations of our enemies.</p> - -<p>As a matter of fact the distinction -so often made between offensive and -defensive war is more theoretic than -practical. It is seldom possible to say -in the case of a modern war that either -side is unmistakably attacking or defending. -Which side was the aggressor in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</span> -the Crimean or Franco-German wars? -Are the Japs aggressors because it was -they who actually declared war or are -they only defending their country? The -real question to be asked is not which -side is the aggressor, but which nation is -so situated that its triumph will be beneficial -to mankind as a whole.</p> - -<p>Lastly there are the serious disadvantages -from a military standpoint -of trusting to a citizen force alone. -Experience seems to prove that such -a force is suitable only to a certain kind -of warfare. The example of the Boers -to which Mr. Quelch appeals so confidently -tells directly against him. The -Boers doubtless did wonders in the way -of guerrilla fighting and in the defence -of strong positions, but they never -followed up their successes effectively, -and they had to waste a great deal of -time, when time was of the utmost value -to them, in sitting down before Ladysmith, -Kimberley and Mafeking when a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</span> -professional army of the same size -would have taken all three by assault.</p> - -<p>It seems to me that we can get an -excellent military policy for Socialists -by a judicious combination of the three -suggestions to which I have referred. -Taking Mr. Webb’s plan first, let us by -all means by a modification of the -Factory Acts (much needed for its own -sake) train the whole youthful population -in the use of modern weapons—and not -in the use of modern weapons alone -but in the best physical exercises available -and above all in discipline, endurance -and the military virtues. Then, following -Mr. Quelch and the S.D.F. we might -keep them in training by periodic mobilizations -on the Swiss pattern without -subjecting them to long periods of -barrack life. From the large citizen -force so formed we ought to be able to -pick by voluntary enlistment a professional -army which need not be very -large, but which should be well-paid,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</span> -efficiently organised and prepared for -any emergency. Another and larger -professional army would be needed for -the defence of distant dependencies such -as India.</p> - -<p>These forces must, of course, be -constituted on a basis of equality of -opportunity, efficiency and reliability -and capacity to command being the only -passports to promotion and no bar -being placed between the most capable -soldier, whatever his origin and the -highest posts in the army. From the -purely military point of view this would -be an enormous improvement on the -present system. It is worth noting that -the two armies which, organised in an -incredibly short space of time out of the -rawest of materials, broke in pieces every -force which could be put into the field -against them, the army of Cromwell and -the army of the First Republic, were -alike based on the principle of the “career -open to talent.” So the policy which<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</span> -I suggest would, I sincerely believe, -convert our impossible army into one -of the best fighting machines in the -world. Not only would the officers -under such a system be more capable -than some of the fashionable commanders, -whose glorious defeats and magnificent -surrenders we were all eulogising -five years ago, but better chances and a -higher rate of pay would attract to the -ranks of the professional army the very -best type of man for the purpose, which -the present system can hardly be said -to do.</p> - -<p>Beyond this we want an effective -General Staff and an Intelligence Department -not only alert but strong enough -to enforce its demands on the government, -as well as a complete overhauling -of our war-machine both on its civil -and military side. But there is no space -for details here; Socialists could hardly -do better than leave them to Mr. Blatchford -to work out.<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</span></p> - -<p>No one who thinks seriously of the -consequences of such a policy can doubt -that, if it could be carried out, it would -effect a greater transference of real -power to the democracy than any Reform -Bill. The objection which most reformers -instinctively feel to any proposal -to increase military establishments rests, -I fancy, at bottom on their sense that -such establishments are organized by a -class to protect its narrow class interests. -So it is that British troops are found useful -to British governments not only in -Egypt and South Africa but also at -Featherstone and Bethesda. With such -a military organisation as I have suggested<span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</span> -this menace would disappear. -Nay, the weights would be transferred -to the other scale. Nothing, I conceive, -is so likely to put a little of the fear of -God into the hearts of our Liberal and -Conservative rulers as the knowledge that -they have to deal with a democratic -army and a democracy trained in arms. -This, I know, will sound shockingly -heterodox to idealistic persons who -are fond of repeating (in defiance of -universal human experience) the foolish -maxim of John Bright, the Quaker -apologist for plutocratic Anarchism, -that “force is no remedy,” and the -equally unhistorical statement that -“violence always injures the cause of -those who use it.” But practical men -pay little attention to such talk, knowing -that nothing helps a strike so much -as a little timely rioting and that the -most important reforms of the late -century were only carried when it was -known that the mob of the great towns<span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</span> -was “up.” As a matter of fact, force -is the <i>only</i> remedy. If Socialism -comes about, as I think it probably -will in this country, in the constitutional -Fabian way, this will only mean that -the Socialists will themselves have -captured the control of the army and -the police and will then use them against -the possessing classes, forcing them -to disgorge at the bayonet’s point. And, -if it does not superficially wear this -aspect, that will merely be because the -latter, seeing how invincible is the physical -force arrayed against them, may very -likely surrender position after position -at discretion until they find that they -have no longer anything to defend.<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></p> - -<p>It may be remarked incidentally -that social reform would receive a considerable -impetus from such a policy. -Not only would periodic mobilizations -take the workers for a time out of the -foetid atmosphere of their slums and -factories and perhaps make them less<span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</span> -contented to return, but the heads of the -army would themselves be compelled to -become social reformers and insist on -some decent minimum of housing and -factory conditions in order to keep up -the physical efficiency of the material of -which they would have to make soldiers. -Herr Molkenbuhr the German Social-Democrat -pointed out to the Socialist -Congress at Amsterdam this year that -this had happened in Germany even -under an undemocratic and often really -oppressive form of conscription. An -immense impetus given to housing -and factory legislation would be among<span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</span> -the by-products of Army Reform, if -carried out on the right lines.</p> - -<p>I have left myself no space here to -deal adequately with the Navy. I will -therefore pass it by here with the remark -that an invincible navy is absolutely -essential to the welfare of the workers -of this country, whose food comes almost -entirely from overseas, and that the -navy has never been like the Army a -menace to popular liberties. It is -generally thought that our navy is in a -much more efficient state than our army -is known to be in; but a thorough -overhauling would do it no harm and -might expose weaknesses which we do -not suspect. At any rate any attempt -to weaken our naval predominance -should be resolutely opposed by all -Socialists as by all sensible men.</p> - -<p>Of course an effective army and -navy will cost money. But the Socialist -will be by no means so frightened of -high estimates as the old Radical who<span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</span> -regarded all taxation as being of the -nature of a compromise with Satan. -The Socialist knows that at least -£600,000,000 a year goes at present into -the pockets of landlords and capitalists -and shareholders generally, and, until -this is absorbed, the cry of “ruinous -expenditure” cannot be expected to -appall him.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="THE_FETISH_OF_FREE">THE FETISH OF FREE -TRADE.</h2> -</div> - - -<p>Let it not be supposed that I propose -to argue the eternal Fiscal Question here. -For the last twelve-month and more we -have had quite enough flinging backward -and forward of childish platitudes, -scraps of obsolete economics, and masses -of irrelevant and ill-digested figures -by both parties to the controversy. -You are quite safe from figure-shuffling -as far as I am concerned, and you -are equally safe from bodiless <i>a priori</i> -economics. For me, indeed, the question -is not one that can ever be decided on -general principles. To ask whether -nations ought to adopt Protection is -exactly like asking whether men ought -to wear over-coats. Obviously in both -instances the answer depends on a number -of attendant facts not stated—on<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</span> -the weather, the constitution of the men, -and the thickness of the coats in the one -case, on the character of the people, -the distribution of their wealth, the state -of their commerce, and the character -of the proposed tariff in the other. Tell -me that you wish in certain specified -circumstances to impose protective duties -on certain specified imports, and I am -willing to examine the evidence and -express an opinion. But so long as -you put the issue as one of abstract -principle, I must ask to be excused -from indulging in what seems to me an -utterly barren and profitless exercise -in immaterial logic.</p> - -<p>Of course, as I have already insisted, -there is a sense in which every Socialist -is of necessity a Protectionist and -Preferentialist. As Mr. Bernard Shaw -once expressed it, (I quote from memory) -he believes that the highest wisdom -of governments is to know “what to -protect and what to prefer.” For him<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</span> -the Utopia of “economic harmonies” -is a foolish and mischievous dream. -He knows that the commercial instinct -unless subjected to energetic and unsparing -state supervision, is certain to -become a cause of ruinous social disorder. -His whole mind will be set to the task -of regulating it, directing it, curbing -its excesses, and protecting the public -interest against it. In a word the -advanced social reformer of the new -school is necessarily an emphatic Protectionist, -only differing from Mr. Chamberlain -and his supporters in that -he gives to the word “Protection” a -wider scope and a fuller meaning than -they.</p> - -<p>Now it inevitably follows that there -is not and cannot be any kind of objection -from his point of view to a protective -tariff on grounds of principle. The -theoretic objection which used to be -urged against such a tariff was founded -on the assumption that Adam Smith,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</span> -Bastiat and others had demonstrated -the futility and peril of all legislative -interference with commerce. Cobden -put the whole case as he and his party -saw it in one phrase of one of his ablest -speeches, when he declared that you -could not by legislation add anything to -the wealth of a nation. That is a doctrine -which no one (save perhaps Mr. -Auberon Herbert) now holds; which -no one who approves for instance of -any kind of factory legislation can -possibly hold. And that doctrine once -fairly out of the way, the question becomes -simply one of expediency and the -balance of utilities.</p> - -<p>But, when we come to the balancing, -another point of divergence instantly -arises. The Socialists’ conception of -utilities differs in essence from that of -Free Traders and Protectionists alike. -For Mr. Chamberlain, for Mr. Morley, -for the Tariff Reform League and for -the Cobden Club, the aim of commercial<span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</span> -statesmanship is simply and solely to -increase the aggregate commercial wealth -of the country. But this is by no means -what the Socialist is mainly concerned -about. His object is not so much to -increase the sum total of such wealth -as to secure its better distribution and -more socially profitable use. He sees -that the economic struggle between -nations is by comparison a matter of -surface fluctuations, while the economic -struggle between classes is an enduring -and essential feature of our social -system. And whether or no he likes -the old Marxian phrase “Class War,” -he is bound to recognise the existence -of a class antagonism cutting right -across society as a fact without the -understanding of which the structure -of capitalist civilisation is unintelligible.</p> - -<p>This implies that the Socialist, -whether he be a “Free Trader” or no, -has to dismiss as untenable practically -the whole of the old economic case for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</span> -Free Trade. Adam Smith did doubtless -prove that under a system of absolutely -free exchange, every country would -tend to engage in those trades which -were (for the moment at any rate) most -commercially profitable to it; but he -never proved or attempted to prove that -these would be the trades which were -most socially beneficent. It might, for -example, happen that the White Lead -trade proved the most commercially -advantageous industry in which Englishmen -could engage. But would any -modern reformer say that in that case -it would be well for us to abandon all -our other industries and take to the -manufacture of white lead—with all -its inevitable concomitants. It may be -urged that such a case is not likely to -occur. But cases differing from it -only in degree may very well occur—have -indeed occurred already. Such a case -is the decline of our agriculture and the -consequent flooding of the towns with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</span> -cheap unskilled labour; such also is -the tendency already more than faintly -visible for small trades, largely unskilled -and often sweated, to supplant our staple -industries. And these things, though -they are the inevitable consequence -of unrestricted competition and though -Cobden would have regarded them with -complete equanimity, are the very things -against which social reformers have for -years been fighting a long and apparently -a hopeless battle. No Socialist -can give them a moment’s toleration. -Whether Socialists will think Mr. -Chamberlain’s remedy adequate is another -thing. For Mr. Chamberlain’s point of -view—a purely commercial one—is at -bottom identical with that of his Cobdenite -opponents.</p> - -<p>And it is just this that makes -mere statistics of trade and comparisons -between imports and exports so barren -and misleading. What we want to -know is not how much tribute the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</span> -capitalist gets out of our foreign trade, -but what wages the labourer gets, what -are the conditions under which he -works, and what is the amount of employment -available. Thus for instance -foreign investments pay the capitalist -as well as British investments and are -accordingly highly esteemed by the -Cobdenites as “invisible exports.” But -they are not equally satisfactory to the -workman who loses his job and drifts -into the ranks of the unemployed. From -this point of view Protection if it kept -capital in the country and even attracted -foreign capital might be eminently -beneficial to the workers, even though -the aggregate of national wealth were -thereby diminished.</p> - -<p>Now we have reached two conclusions. -Firstly that Socialists will approach -the tariff question with an open -mind; secondly that they will approach -it mainly from the standpoint of its -effect upon the social condition of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</span> -people and upon the distribution of wealth.</p> - -<p>That, I say, is what one would -naturally expect Socialists to do. What -the English Socialists and the leaders -of organised labour in this country have -actually done is to fling their Socialism -and their “class-consciousness” to the -winds, to stampede once more into the -Liberal camp (as they did before over -South African affairs), to sing pious -hymns in honour of the memories of -Bright and Cobden, oblivious of the -former’s opposition to factory legislation -and the latter’s freely expressed -detestation of trade unionism, to trot -out for the confusion of Mr. Chamberlain -the very doctrines which Socialist -economists have spent the last fifty -years in riddling with destructive criticism, -and generally to devote their -energies to the hopeless task of strengthening -the ruined fortifications which -protect Liberalism from the attacks -of the time-spirit.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</span></p> - -<p>When the Fiscal Question first -began to agitate the minds of Englishmen -the new-born Labour Party was in an -unusually strong position. It was as -yet uncommitted on the subject, and -both sides would willingly have paid a -high price for its support. Nothing -strikes one more in Mr. Chamberlain’s -early speeches than his evident anxiety -to gain at all costs the sympathy of -Labour. And the Liberals were at that -time equally anxious. Had the leaders -of British Trade Unionism followed -the excellent example set them by Mr. -Redmond and the Irish Nationalists, -had they held their hands and said -frankly to both combatants “What -social reforms will you give us as the -price of our support?”—what unprecedented -pressure might they not -have been able to exert! To Mr. -Chamberlain they might quite fairly -have said “You say that ‘all is not -well with British Trade’: we agree<span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</span> -with you, we have been saying so for -years. But before we accept your -proposed remedies we want reliable -guarantees that the working classes -shall not be the sufferers. Tack on to -your programme a maximum price for -bread (or some system of municipal -bakeries which would achieve the same -object) and a minimum wage for labour, -and we will consider them.” To the -Liberals again they could have said -“You tell us that Mr. Chamberlain’s -policy will not remedy the evils to which -he rightly draws attention; granted, -but what is your remedy? If we help -you to resist these proposals what -drastic measures are you ready to propose -for dealing with the unemployed -and kindred problems?” Had they -taken this line, they might have achieved -much. But, having the game in their -hands, the labour leaders deliberately -threw all their cards away. Directly -the question of fiscal reform was mooted,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</span> -without waiting for any pledge from -either party, they began to violently -espouse one side and violently denounce -the other. By this they fruitlessly -abandoned their excellent strategic position. -Mr. Chamberlain, seeing that he -had nothing to hope from them, treated -them as enemies and organised the Tariff -Reform movement frankly as a purely -capitalist affair, leaving Labour out of -account in the formation of his celebrated -Commission as completely as -Cobden himself left it out of account in -the formation of the Anti-Corn Law -League. The Liberals on the other -hand are not so foolish as to give -pledges to those who do not ask for -them, so that the opposition to Mr. -Chamberlain is as completely capitalist-ridden -as is his own propaganda. Thus, -instead of standing to win either way, -Labour now stands to lose either way. -Should Mr. Chamberlain succeed, as he -very well may, if not at this election at<span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</span> -the one after it, his tariff will be framed -by powerful organisations representing -capital and finance, who will naturally -follow their own pecuniary interests. -Should the Opposition triumph they -will come into power quite unpledged, -save to Lord Rosebery’s programme of -“commercial repose” which is the -newest name for our old friend “laissez -faire.” And we shall be unable to make -use of the stir made by Mr. Chamberlain’s -agitation, as we might well have -done had we acted wisely, in order to -get measures which we really do want -and which are in some sense of the nature -of counter-remedies—the nationalisation -of railways, an imperial shipping fleet -with preferential rates, and the re-organisation -of our agriculture by state aid -and state supervision.</p> - -<p>But there are reasons other than -tactical ones why Labour should have -refused to adopt the Liberal attitude -of non-possumus in regard to fiscal<span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</span> -reform. Whether or no Mr. Chamberlain’s -tariff scheme would have been -favourable to the interests of labour,<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> -there are a great many proposals which -are clearly and unmistakeably in its -interests which are yet in their nature -protectionist even in the narrow sense -in which that word is ordinarily used.</p> - -<p>It is characteristic of the Liberal -party that even when it has dropped -accidentally across a right conclusion -it invariably seizes with great eagerness -upon the wrong reasons for supporting it. -The most striking example of this is to -be found in the case of Chinese Labour. -For myself, I detest Chinese Labour, -and am prepared to go, I fancy, a good -deal further than the Liberal front bench<span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</span> -in fighting it. But then I am a Protectionist; -and I believe that a plentiful -supply of cheap labour is the worst -curse with which a nation can be visited. -The Liberals and their Labour henchmen, -precluded by reason of their Free Trade -orthodoxies from taking up this sane -and tenable position, have to devote their -energies to denouncing the “slavery” -involved in the conditions of the Ordinance. -Now no Socialist can be expected -to get very excited on this point. He -hates slavery, but he recognises that in -one form or another it is an inherent -part of the capitalist system, and the -difference between telling a man that -he must work for his master or be imprisoned -and telling him that he must -work for his master or be starved, can -hardly seem to him important enough -to make all this fuss about. Moreover -“forced labour” is implicit in the -Socialist ideal, though most of us would -prefer to begin by applying it to the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</span> -Rand shareholders. As a matter of -fact the conditions of the Ordinance are -a mitigation of the evils resulting from -Chinese Labour, not an aggravation of -them. They serve to circumscribe to -some extent the limits of the damage -which the imported Chinaman can do. -My objection to them is that I do not -for one moment believe that they can -be made effective. But the danger of -denouncing the conditions of importation -instead of denouncing the importation itself, -is that one of these days our Hebrew -masters will say to us:—“Very well. You -object to conditions; you shall have none. -We will import Chinamen freely and without -restriction, and they shall supplant -white men, not in the mines only, but in -every industry throughout South Africa. -We shall reap still larger dividends, and -the danger of a white proletariat will be -still more remote. Now we hope you are -satisfied.” What will our Free Trade -Labourites say then?</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</span></p> - -<p>A less serious but more amusing -example of the shifts to which trade -union leaders are sometimes reduced -in their efforts to reconcile the obvious -interests of the workers with their holy -and sacred “Free Trade Principles” -was afforded by an episode which took -place at the Leeds Trade Union Congress -last year. It appears that in certain -mines in these islands the capitalists -have taken to employing foreign unskilled -labour. Their motives are doubtless -the same as those of the Rand -magnates, namely to bring down the -price of labour all round by the competition -of indigent Poles and Italians -with the fairly well-paid workers of -this country. It was a very natural -thing for capitalists to do; it was an -equally natural thing for workmen to -resist. They are resisting and a resolution -was proposed at the Congress -condemning the employment of foreign -unskilled labour in the mines. So far<span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</span> -so good; but now comes the comedy -of the situation. To exclude the foreigner -as a foreigner is clearly protection -of the most bare-faced kind; and the -proposal had to be recommended to a -body which had just declared in favour -of unmitigated Free Trade. Then some -genius had an almost miraculous inspiration. -It was suggested that the -foreigner ought to be excluded, not -because he was a foreigner, not even -because his labour was cheap, but -because he could not read the Home -Office regulations which are hung up in -the mines. The plea was eagerly clutched -at, and seems to have been received -with all solemnity. The correspondent -of the <i>Daily News</i> who had at first -regarded the resolution with natural -suspicion felt all his scruples vanish, -and actually hailed the declaration as -proof of the unflinching Cobdenism of -the workers. Now what I want to -know is—does anyone, does the <i>Daily<span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</span> -News</i> correspondent himself really believe -in the sincerity of this ridiculous -excuse? Would the British miners -have been satisfied if the regulations -were printed in Polish or Italian? Or, -supposing this to be impossible, would -they be satisfied if the immigrants learnt -enough English to read them? Of -course they would not. The objection -to foreign unskilled labour is a purely -protectionist objection, as inconsistent -with Free Trade as anything proposed -by Mr. Chamberlain. I may add that -it has my entire sympathy.</p> - -<p>Very soon, much sooner I think than -they suppose, the leaders of organised -labour will be forced by the sheer pressure -of events to throw “free trade principles” -over-board and find another -foundation for their economic faith. -For buying in the cheapest market -clearly implies buying labour in the -cheapest market; and the capitalists -will not be slow to grasp its consequences<span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</span> -at a time when the expansion of European -civilisation is every day throwing new -drafts of cheap labour on the market. -Less developed races with a lower standard -of life are exceedingly useful weapons -to the hand of the capitalist eager to -force down wages. Already the appearance -of the Chinaman in South Africa -is parallelled on the other side of the -Atlantic by the employment of negro -blacklegs to defeat the Colorado strikers. -What has happened in Africa and America -may happen—is indeed beginning to -happen here. Are the labour leaders -prepared to go on defending Free Trade, -if Free Trade should prove to mean the -free importation of great masses of cheap -blackleg labour from Poland, Italy and -China? And, if they so far abandon -Free Trade as to shut out such labour, -what about the goods which it produces? -Suppose the capitalist, forbidden to bring -the Chinaman here, take to exploiting -him in his own country, relying on our<span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</span> -policy of free imports to secure the -admission of his sweated goods. Will -not the champions of labour begin to -regard the question of free imports in a -different light? The slope is steep and -slippery and the end is—Protection!</p> - -<p>Yes the Labour party will have in -the end to become protectionist. Already -progressive municipalities do not buy -in the cheapest market but in the best -market, regard being had to the remote -social consequences of the purchase. -And since the home market is the only -one where they can exercise any real or -effective supervision over the conditions -of production, we have the curious -spectacle of local bodies with a big -Liberal majority forced into what is in -effect a policy of Protection by the -protests of unimpeachable Free Trade -Labourites such as Mr. Steadman. Of -course the new Protectionism will not -be that of Lord George Bentinck or -even of Mr. Chamberlain. It will “protect”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</span> -not the landlord or the capitalist -but the labourer and if to this end import -duties are found useful it will make -no more fuss about imposing them than -any other necessary piece of state intervention.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="TOWARDS_ANARCHISM">TOWARDS ANARCHISM.</h2> -</div> - - -<p>There is an entertaining story told -(I know not with exactly how much -accuracy) of a well-known Liberal -trade unionist, who has recently become -a Member of Parliament. He is a -typical labour leader of the last generation, -a Liberal in politics, a Nonconformist -in religion, a deacon (I understand) -of his native chapel, a veritable -pillar of proletarian respectability, and -an unflinching opponent of Socialism -in every shape and form. Once it was -his duty to attend an international -congress of the representatives of his -trade, where he found, I should suppose, -the revolutionary trade unionism of the -Continent little to his taste. However, -that may have been, a resolution was -proposed at the congress in question -demanding a statutary eight hours day.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</span> -This reputable and independent Briton -rose to oppose it, and in so doing made -a characteristic Liberal speech, recommending -the workmen to rely on themselves, -not to appeal to governments, -to win what they desired by their own -efforts, and so on. Somewhat to his own -surprise, the speech on being translated -was greeted with no inconsiderable -applause—applause which at the conclusion -of his fine peroration became -thunderous, and was mingled with -enthusiastic shouts of “Vive J—— -et l’Anarchie!” He had unfortunately -succeeded in conveying the impression -that by such phrases as “rely upon your -own efforts” he meant to indicate the -throwing of bombs!</p> - -<p>This story gains considerably in -point by the events of the last two years. -For, during that period, the kinship -(always innate) between Liberalism and -Anarchism has been made apparent -to the whole world in a most startling<span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</span> -manner; and we have seen the Nonconformist -section of the Liberal party, -a section which above all others has -always claimed an almost hypochondriac -tenderness of conscience, trying to affect -the repeal of a measure to which it -takes exception, by means of a campaign -which involves nothing less than a -cynical repudiation of the duties of -citizenship and an anarchic war against -human society.</p> - -<p>Anyone who possesses a temperament -sardonic enough to enable him to -take pleasure in tracing the moral -<i>débacle</i> of what was once a great -party can hardly amuse himself better -than by following the history of the -campaign against the Education Acts -both before and after they became law. -No one burdened with much moral or -social enthusiasm will be able to do so -with sufficient calm, for I venture to -assert that a more disgraceful debauch -of cant, hypocrisy, flagrant misrepresentation<span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</span> -amounting sometimes to flat lying, -sectarian venom, the prostitution of -religious excitement to base ends, all -exploited with an utterly shameless disregard -of the public interest, cannot be -found in the records of English politics -for the last century or more.</p> - -<p>That is a strong statement; to -support it let me recall the facts of the -case. First I would ask a fair-minded -man to glance through some of the innumerable -letters and articles which -have flooded the Nonconformist and -Radical press from the first introduction -of the Education Bill down to the present -time, and I would ask such a man to -say what, taking his impressions from -this source alone, he would have supposed -the purport of that Bill to be. -I think I may say without the slightest -exaggeration that he would imagine -that its effect must be (1) to hand over -<i>all</i> elementary schools to the Church -of England to be disposed of at her<span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</span> -pleasure, (2) to impose on all teachers -in such schools a new and stringent -religious test, whose effect would be to -prevent any but Anglican (and perhaps -Roman Catholic) teachers from obtaining -employment. I do not think there -is any exaggeration in the above plain -summary. On every side one still -hears phrases like “handing over the -schools of the nation to the Church,” -“imposing a religious test on teachers,” -“giving the People’s property to the -Priest,” “establishing clericalism in -the public schools,” etc., which can -have no other rational meaning than -that stated above. Now it is not a -matter of argument but one of simple -fact that the Education Act did nothing -of the kind,—that nothing of the kind -has ever been proposed in the whole -course of the controversy. What the -Act did do was (1) to give effect in -denominational schools (already mainly -supported out of public funds) to an<span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</span> -enormously increased measure of public -control, where before clerical control -had been unbridled (2) to mitigate -largely the effect of such religious -“tests” as can in any sense be said -to have existed in such schools. No -new “test” of any sort or kind was -imposed, and the Provided or Board -Schools remain of course entirely unaffected -except as to their transference -from one publicly elected and unsectarian -body to another and far more -efficient one.</p> - -<p>Consider for one moment the state -of affairs which prevailed before the -passing of the Act. There were then -two kinds of public elementary school -recognised by the State—the Board -School and the Voluntary School. -Schools of the former type were under -the control of School Boards, bodies -of irregular distribution and greatly -varying importance. It must always -be remembered that throughout more<span class="pagenum" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</span> -than half of England there were no -School Boards at all. In the big towns -you had doubtless often enough large -and efficient Boards administering -elementary education over the areas of -great cities like London, Glasgow and -Birmingham. In the country districts -when they existed at all, the Boards -were often elected to govern ridiculously -small areas (sometimes with only one -school in a whole district) and were most -commonly inefficient and reactionary.</p> - -<p>Such was the situation of the -Board Schools: that of the Voluntary -Schools was still more impossible. These -schools, founded originally on denominational -lines, were controlled despotically -by a private board of clerical or clerically-minded -managers. No effective public -control was insisted upon. Even where -a voluntary school was situated within -a school board area, the School Board -had no shadow of authority over it. -And, as I have already mentioned,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</span> -rather less than half of England possessed -School Boards at all. The only pretence -of public supervision then existing in -the case of voluntary schools was to -be found in the infrequent visits of -notoriously complacent inspectors from -Whitehall. Indeed the inspectors had -to be complacent, for few voluntary -schools had the means to make themselves -educationally efficient even though -they might wish to do so. Though -more than two thirds of the money -spent on their upkeep came out of -the public exchequer in the form of -government grants, the remaining third -had to be raised by private subscription, -that is to say had to be begged vigorously -from the most incongruous people, -from Churchmen anxious to preserve -definite theological teaching and from -rich ratepayers and even Railway Companies -anxious to avoid the incidence -of a School Board rate. As a natural -consequence the schools which, be it<span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</span> -remembered, were reckoned as part -of the national machinery for education, -were counted in the statistics of school -accommodation, and were indeed the -only schools available for a considerable -part of the child population, were in a -state of chronic and hopeless beggary, -and dragged on a miserable existence,—starved, -irresponsible, notoriously inefficient, -yet practically safe from public -intervention.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile technical education, unnaturally -divorced from elementary, was -confided to the care of the County and -Borough Councils. Secondary education -was nobody’s business. It would have -been entirely neglected had not some -progressive School Boards stretched the -term “elementary” to cover as much -as they could until sharply pulled up by -the Cockerton judgment, while some -of the more progressive Councils -stretched the term “technical” in much -the same way, and would probably, but<span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</span> -for the intervention of the Act, have -met with the same fate.</p> - -<p>Now what did the Education Acts -do? The first and by far the most -important change which they made was -to transfer all education to the County -and Borough Councils.<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> The effect -of this was to provide that in future -there should be everywhere throughout -England one popularly elected local -authority responsible for every kind -and grade of education within its administrative -area, and that this body -should be that responsible for local -government as a whole. Thus they -made possible for the first time the co-ordination -of all forms of education -and the co-ordination of education with -other municipal and local services.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</span></p> - -<p>This change had of course the effect -of sweeping away the old system of -electing educational authorities <i>ad hoc</i>. -This seems to have struck many people -as a flagrant piece of injustice, an -impudent repudiation of democracy, and -a shameless invasion of popular rights. -It is difficult to understand why. A -County or Borough Council is fully -as democratic a body as a School Board, -if democratic be taken to mean elected -by popular suffrages. And if it is -seriously contended that a body ought -to be specially elected to deal with -education alone, because the issues at a -general municipal election may be confused, -why not carry the principle further -and have <i>ad hoc</i> bodies for each -branch of local activity? Indeed why -should the principle be applied only to -local affairs? Why not elect a separate -Parliament to deal with foreign affairs, -another to deal with Colonial matters, -another to deal with social reform and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</span> -so on? The fact is that the much -vaunted <i>ad hoc</i> principle never had -any real existence. It is not contained, -as Nonconformists and Radicals seem -to imagine either in the Bible or in -Magna Charta; it is no part of the Natural -Rights of Man or the Social Contract -or even of the British Constitution. It -is nothing but the last relic of a thoroughly -discredited system of local government. -The framers of the Education -Act of 1870 themselves knew of no such -principle. They created <i>ad hoc</i> bodies -to deal with education, simply because -government was then so undeveloped -in this country that there was no other -body to which it could be entrusted. -County Councils did not then exist; -the Local Government Act of 1889, which -like the Education Act of 1902 we owe -to a Tory government, had not yet been -passed. Over the greater part of England -there was no democratic local -government at all. Therefore it was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</span> -necessary to create a stop-gap authority -to deal with education. Similarly there -were in the earlier part of the century -innumerable other <i>ad hoc</i> bodies, -entrusted with the duties of lighting -the streets, making public improvements, -etc., but they have all been swept away -and their powers absorbed by county, -borough, town, district or parish council. -In course of time it was inevitable that -the obsolete School Boards should follow -them into the limbo of rejected experiments. -It now only remains for -Parliament to complete its work by -abolishing our hopeless and discredited -Boards of Guardians.</p> - -<p>I suppose I ought in passing to -refer to the contention that the administrative -machinery of the Acts is -undemocratic because the Councils are -to govern through Committees. The -absurdity of such a view will be obvious -to anyone acquainted with the machinery -of local government. All local bodies<span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</span> -act through committees in educational -and other matters. The Committee is -a purely executive body, absolutely -subject to the authority which creates -it; and in this respect there is no essential -difference between the Education -Committee and that which controls the -trams, the parks or the music halls.</p> - -<p>To return to the other provisions -of the Acts of 1902-3. The second -effect which they have is to give to -the local authority complete control -over the “Voluntary” Schools—now -called Non-Provided Schools—in all -matters relating to secular education. -This, I know well, will sound an audacious -statement in the ears of those who have -taken their views from the declarations -of the Liberal press. I can only recommend -such people to buy a copy of -the Act and read it for themselves. They -will find that the managers of the non-provided -schools are expressly compelled -to carry out any instructions of the local<span class="pagenum" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</span> -education authority in regard to secular -education, that in the event of failure -to do so they can by a single stroke be -deprived of all the benefits of the Act, -and that the authority has two nominated -representatives on the board of managers -who are responsible to the public alone -and can at once appeal to the public -authority should their denominational -colleagues show symptoms of recalcitrance.</p> - -<p>Lastly all the cost of maintaining -these schools (except for the upkeep of -the buildings) is to come from public -funds, the balance once borne by private -subscriptions now coming out of the rates -(bear in mind that already two thirds of -their income was derived from taxes) so -that a great nation is no longer placed in -the humiliating position of having to rely -on private charity in order to meet its -educational needs, while denominational -schools will no longer be able to plead -beggary as an excuse for inefficiency.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</span></p> - -<p>That in plain English is what the -Education Act of 1902 and the London -Education Act of 1903 have effected. -I defy any Liberal or Nonconformist -opponent of the measure to show that -I have misrepresented their purport -in any particular.</p> - -<p>But no sooner was the first draft -of the Bill before the country than the -campaign of unscrupulous mis-statement -began. The loudest and most popular -cry was that the Bill “imposed” a -religious test on teachers. I remember -once at a public debate asking a gentleman -who urged this with great rhetorical -effect to point out to me the -Clause of the Bill which imposed such -a test. There upon I experienced the -keen pleasure of watching my antagonists -struggle through a copy of the -Bill in the hopeless endeavour to find -such a clause. Of course he did not -find it for the same reason which prevented -Tilburina from seeing the Spanish<span class="pagenum" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</span> -Fleet. There is no religious test imposed -by the Act. Its sole effect in this respect -is firstly to introduce an elective and nonsectarian -element into the body which -appoints the teacher and secondly to allow -that body to over-ride any religious test -imposed upon assistant teachers by the -Trust-deeds of the school.</p> - -<p>Then came the cry that the -“People’s Schools” were being “handed -over to the Priest.” What this meant I -cannot conceive. The reference could -hardly be to the denominational schools -which before the passing of the Act -were absolutely under the control of -the “Priest” while under the Act his -control is to say the least of a very -shadowy and much mitigated character. -I am therefore forced to the conclusion -that those who used the phrase really -supposed—or at any rate wished others -to suppose—that the Board Schools -were handed over to the Church, which -is of course so monstrously untrue,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</span> -so devoid of even the faintest shadow -of foundation in fact, that it is difficult -to put it on paper without laughing.</p> - -<p>There is, so far as I can see, no -escape from one of these conclusions. -Either the Nonconformists who made -use of these catch-words and of many -others like them had never read the -Education Acts, or they were incapable -of understanding the plainest English, -or, having read the Acts and knowing -their purport they deliberately misrepresented -them. Take which ever explanation -you choose:—are they men -whom we can safely trust with political -power?</p> - -<p>Later the agitation passed through -another phase. After flagrant misrepresentation -came nauseous cant and -fantastic casuistry. I believe that the -English Nonconformists profess a great -horror of Jesuits. But nothing attributed -to the latter in the fiercest of -Pascal’s satires can equal the extraordinary<span class="pagenum" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</span> -casuistical <i>tour de force</i> whereby -the former tried to find a distinction -between the payment of rates -and the payment of taxes. With one -voice the Nonconformists declared that -it would sear their consciences as with a -hot iron if they had to pay a penny -towards the support of schools where -“Romanising” teaching was given. -Whereto sensible men replied by pointing -out that for years the Nonconformists -had been paying for the cost of such -schools out of the taxes. Then it was -that the new ethical principle was -discovered. It appears to be as follows:—<i>It -is not wrong to pay money to a national -body to meet the cost of supporting Denominational -Schools but it is wrong to pay -money to a local body for the same purpose.</i> I -will not attempt to follow the various lines -of argument by which this remarkable -conclusion is reached. I merely set down -the conclusion itself for the amusement -of my readers.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</span></p> - -<p>It should be remembered moreover -that all the time that they were ranting -about “Rome on the Rates” and the -wickedness of compelling Dissenters to -pay for teaching in which they did not -believe the Nonconformists were themselves -forcing on the provided schools -and endeavouring to force on all schools -a form of religious instruction notoriously -abhorrent to Anglicans (at any -rate of the Catholic type), Romanists, -Agnostics and Jews. Could sanctified -hypocrisy go further?</p> - -<p>Yes, it could and did! No sooner -was the Education Bill law than the -leaders of Nonconformity with Dr. -Clifford at their head entered upon -the <i>Opera Bouffe</i> rebellion (mischievous -enough despite its silliness) known as -“Passive Resistance.” That is to say -that, fortified by the magnificent ethical -principle italicised above, they considered -themselves justified in repudiating their -plain duties as citizens in the hope that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</span> -by so doing they might injure the educational -machinery of the country. -The form which their very prudent -insurrection took was that of refusing -to pay their rates and compelling the -community to distrain on their goods.</p> - -<p>With the manifold humours of -the movement, with the sale of Dr. -Clifford’s trowels and the sad fate of -his bust of Cromwell, with the evident -eagerness of our Nonconformist martyrs -to part with their Bibles at the earliest -possible moment, with the diurnal letters -of Dr. Clifford to the <i>Daily News</i>, with -his just anger against the brutal authorities -who let a “resister” out of prison, -with the even more delicious letters of -minor lights of Dissent, with the fear -expressed by one of these lest his heroic -action should be supposed by the cold -world to be merely an economic distraint -for rent,<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> with the olympian wrath of -those aspirants for the martyr’s crown -who found their hopes blighted by the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</span> -baseness of some unknown person who -had cruelly paid their rates for them—with -none of these do I propose to -deal. Doubtless the proceedings of -these brave martyr-rebels, whose motto, -like that of the conspirators in one of -Mr. Gilbert’s operas, “is Revenge without -Anxiety—that is without unnecessary -Risk,” are delightful, if regarded from -the standpoint of humour. It is to be -regretted that we cannot altogether -afford so to regard them. No Christian -can free himself from a sense of shame -at seeing Christian bodies sink so low, -nor can any patriotic Englishman, -whatever his creed, watch the signs of -the times without anxiety when he sees -what was once a great English party<span class="pagenum" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</span> -flatter such men and condone such a -policy.</p> - -<p>Seriously considered the “Passive -Resistance” campaign proved two -things. The immense impetus which -it has gained among the Nonconformists -is a symptom of that utter disregard -of the public interest which has in all -ages been characteristic of political -sectaries. The toleration, if not encouragement, -of it by the bulk of the -Liberal party shows how superficial -is the conversion of Liberals from their -former anarchic view of civic duty. -For “Passive Resistance” cannot be -justified except the philosophic doctrines -and assumptions of Anarchism be first -accepted. Mr. Auberon Herbert might -be a passive resister without inconsistency, -for he regards taxation as a mere -subscription sent by the subscriber to -an organisation of his own choice and -to be used only for such purposes as he -may approve. He therefore maintains<span class="pagenum" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</span> -that all taxes should be voluntary and, -were he to “resist” at all, would doubtless -resist in the case of all state -expenditure which he may think undesirable,—armaments, -wars, state ceremonial, -and even municipal enterprise. -Now this theory, if once accepted, will -tell much more against the progressive -side than against the reactionaries. The -Nonconformists are as likely as not, -I imagine, to “resist” the payment of -money required to start a municipal -public house; taking example from -them, other persons may resist payment -of taxes needed to furnish old age -pensions on the ground that their consciences -forbid them to allow their -money to be used for the discouragement -of the virtue of thrift. In a word the -only logical conclusion of the “passive -resistance” policy is complete Anarchism—Anarchism -from which the Liberal -ideal sprang and in which it will end.</p> - -<p>For us Collectivists, of course, the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</span> -problem does not arise at all. From -our point of view it is not Dr. Clifford’s -money that is going to support Roman -Catholic schools, but some of the money -which the community allows Dr. Clifford -to handle subject to certain conditions, -one of which is that he should pay his -contribution towards the general expenses -of government. If he does not -like the use made of it, he has his vote -as a citizen and such influence as his -abilities may command, and that is all -he is entitled to. That is the case -against Passive Resistance, and I can -only say that, if it is invalid, the whole -case for taxation is invalid also.</p> - -<p>Finally what strikes one most -about this propaganda is its utterly -cruel and cynical carelessness of the -interests of the children. At a time, -when education is so necessary to our -national existence, it is no light thing -when a deliberate attempt is made by -responsible citizens to wreck our educational<span class="pagenum" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</span> -machinery in the interest of a -group of sects. This is no exaggeration. -We are told explicitly that the object -of the agitation is to make the Education -Act unworkable, that is to say -to make it impossible to educate the -children properly. How far in this -direction the leaders of the movement -are prepared to go may be seen from -the case of Wales, where they are dominant -and can act as they please. There -they have formulated a policy whereby -the deliberate ruin of Welsh education -will be brought about by Welsh “patriots,” -the object being to defeat what -they are pleased to call the “Welsh -Coercion Act,” which of course is not a -Coercion Act at all, but merely an Act -making provision for the upkeep of the -children’s schools in cases where local -authorities neglect their duties and leave -the unfortunate children fireless and -bookless. I could wish that the Nonconformist -leaders, who are so fond of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</span> -the “Open Bible” would devote a little -attention to Matthew XVIII 6.</p> - -<p>Where it will all end no-one can -say. Given favourable circumstances -and a fair and firm administration of -the law, I believe “Passive Resistance” -in all its forms would soon die of its -own inanity. The Dissenting Anarchists -failed to capture the L.C.C. thanks -to the patriotism and good sense of the -Progressives at whom they have been -snarling ever since; and it hardly seems -as if, outside Wales, they would achieve -much in the arena of municipal politics. -In Wales, where they have perhaps a -slightly stronger case, some compromise -might be effective,—the proposals of -the Bishop of St. Asaphs might form a -basis for discussion. But, of course, -the whole situation would be profoundly -changed, were a Parliament dominated -by Dissent to be returned at the General -Election. In that case the settlement -of 1902 would be upset, whole question<span class="pagenum" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</span> -would be flung once more into the -melting pot, and our educational system -would be fought for by Churchmen and -Dissenters, as two ill-tempered dogs -fight for a bone. That is what is quite -likely to happen if we are not very careful, -and serious educationalists can only -look to the future with anxiety and disquiet. -Though perhaps in the last -resort we can rely on the House of -Lords!</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="OUR_BRITISH_MOSLEMS">OUR BRITISH MOSLEMS.</h2> -</div> - - -<p>I have no wish to say anything -disrespectful of the religion of Islam. -In many respects it is a very good religion; -without doubt it is a great one -and one of the most vigorous in the -world. It is said still to make more -converts annually than any other. It -reigns unchallenged from Morocco to -Persia, it is dominant throughout a -large part of India, and is spreading -more and more every year amongst the -wild tribes of Central Africa and the -islanders of the Malay Peninsular. In -this country the orthodox Mohammedan -creed has made but little headway; -nevertheless a number of more or less -heretical Moslem sects, among which -the Wesleyans, the Baptists, and the -Congregationalists are perhaps the most -important, flourish there exceedingly and,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</span> -if not on the increase, are at least fairly -holding their ground.</p> - -<p>One of the basic moral tenets of -the Moslem faith is, as everyone knows, -the prohibition of alcohol, and this tenet, -despite doctrinal variations, is held with -equal firmness by the English sects above -mentioned. The analogy is not a fanciful -one; I express it in this way because -I wish to emphasize the fact that the -objection of the <i>Daily News</i> and of those -whose views it represents to beer and -spirit drinking is an objection not to the -social evils inseparable from alcoholic -excess, nor to the many corruptions -connected with the private drink trade, -but simply and emphatically to the thing, -itself. It is, in fact, a religious tapu. -I can respect it as such, and I can -respect the Samoan <i>tapus</i> described -by Stevenson, but it is necessary to -recognise its nature, if we wish to understand -its relation to what plain men -mean by the temperance problem.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</span></p> - -<p>It may reasonably be deduced that -the demand so constantly made that -temperance reformers of all schools -should unite on a common programme -is utterly impracticable. They cannot -unite, because they do not want the -same things. There is no point of -contact possible between those who -think beer so bad a thing that they are -angry that anyone should be supplied -with it and those that think it so good -a thing that they are angry that it should -not be supplied in a pure state and -under decent conditions; between those -who object to the modern public house -because they think it at once evil and -seductive and those who object to it -because they think it demoralisingly -ugly and uncomfortable. In short there -is no possible community of interest -between those for whom the liquour -problem is how to <i>supply</i> alcoholic -liquors with the greatest social profit -and the least social damage and those<span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</span> -for whom the problem is how to prevent -such liquours from being supplied at all.</p> - -<p>“The average man” says Mr. -Edward R. Pease “wants beer.” This -remarkable discovery is alone sufficient -to place Mr. Pease at the head of all -our temperance reformers, for he is -the only one of them who seems to have -realised its incontestable truth and -importance. His admirable book “The -Case for Municipal Drink,”<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> which I -strongly advise all my readers interested -in the question to obtain and study, -is the most perfect presentation I know -of the position of those who wish to -know how best to supply drink, not -how best not to supply it. Contrast it -with the views constantly set forth in -the <i>Daily News</i>—views which may be -taken to represent those espoused by at -least a large section of the Liberal Party—and -you have something like a clear issue.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</span></p> - -<p>Now if we could only get these two -contradictory conceptions of temperance -reform clearly defined and separated, -the drink question would be a much -easier thing to discuss than it is. Unfortunately -they have got almost indissolubly -tangled by reason of the fact -that so many who secretly hold the -dogmatic teetotal view will not avow -it frankly, while many others (practically -the whole Liberal and Progressive parties -for example) hastily adopt measures -which have no <i>raison d’etre</i> save in -this view without thinking seriously -about their nature. If the teetotal -enthusiasts would say frankly (as some -but by no means all of them do) that -they want absolute and unqualified -Prohibition and only support Local -Veto and the much-vaunted Temperance -Policy of the London County Council -as steps towards Prohibition—then at -least we should know where we were. -But when the <i>Daily News</i> itself was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</span> -plainly and publicly challenged by -the Rev. Stewart Headlam to say whether -it meant that or not, it pointedly evaded -the question. The fact is, of course that -if this policy were frankly explained -its supporters would be snowed under -at the next election even more finally -than the supporters of Local Veto were -in 1895. So they do not avow it, but -try to get essentially prohibitionist legislation -through under cover of vague -phrases like “temperance reform” to -which we are all urged to rally.</p> - -<p>Take Local Veto for example. What -was the main proposal involved in Sir -William Harcourt’s famous measure. -It proposed that every ward (the smallest -area known to English local government) -should have the right by a two-thirds -majority to veto all licenses within its -area or by a bare majority to reduce -them by one fourth. Now was this -measure intended to lead to Prohibition -or was it not? If it was, then the English<span class="pagenum" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</span> -people who did not want Prohibition -did well to reject it; but if it was not, -and its supporters generally insist that -it was not, whither was it intended to -lead. Its obvious effect in practice, -as Mr. Pease has justly pointed out, -would be that the rich districts, where -public houses are few and cannot in -any sense be regarded as a social evil, -would probably expel them as derogatory -to the interests of property and the -“character of the neighbourhood,” -while all the drinking would be concentrated -in the worst slum areas, -where public houses, not of the best -type, are already dangerously numerous -and crowded, and where prohibition -would have no chance whatever. This -is clearly not a temperance reform in -any sense of the word. It could have -been framed only in the interests of -men who regard alcohol as so positively -a devilish thing that they rejoice at the -destruction of any place defiled by its<span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</span> -presence regardless of the ulterior consequences -to temperance itself.</p> - -<p>The Temperance Policy of the London -County Council is at least as strong -a case in point. What is this much-trumpetted -policy? It is this; that -when the County Council has to acquire -the license of a public house in the -course of making some street improvement, -it first pays huge compensation -to the publican and then abandons -the license, thus practically throwing -the ratepayer’s money into the sea. -That is all. In the course of its distinguished -career the L.C.C. has spent -more than £300,000 in this wise and -beneficent manner.</p> - -<p>Now what does the County Council -suppose that it is doing? For a systematic -reduction of drink licenses in certain -districts there is doubtless much to be -said, though I am inclined to think that -the importance of this as a factor in -the temperance problem is grossly exaggerated.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</span> -But, if that is to be effected, -the whole licensing system must be -brought under review and houses suppressed -according to a well-considered -plan. Care would for example be taken -that the worse kind of houses were -suppressed and the better retained. The -Council suppresses them on no plan -whatever—simply where it happens to -be making a street improvement. The -result is, of course, that the gain to -temperance is absolutely nil. A street -is to be widened; the public houses on -one side of the street are pulled down, -their licenses purchased and abandoned; -those on the other side remain. The -people who used to drink on the one -side go over and drink on the other. -The suppressed publican (or the brewer -he represents) gets ample compensation; -the unsuppressed publican gets his neighbour’s -trade in addition to his own -without paying one farthing for it. And -the public? What does the public<span class="pagenum" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</span> -get? The satisfaction of knowing that -the workman may have to cross the road -in order to refresh himself.</p> - -<p>The fact is that the Progressive -party, dangerously subject to intimidation -by the Nonconformist chapels, has -adopted a policy entirely meaningless -from the standpoint of enlightened -temperance, in obedience to the irrational -demands of those who think that the -destruction of any public house must -be a righteous act.</p> - -<p>Now the same spirit which revealed -in the Local Veto Bill and still shows -itself in the County Council policy has -been to a great extent responsible for -the opposition encountered by the government’s -Licensing Act. I do not -say that this Act could not be fairly -criticised upon other grounds. The terms -accorded to the Trade are certainly -high—in my view too high—and of -the compensation granted too much -seems likely (in the case of a tied house)<span class="pagenum" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</span> -to go to the brewer and too little to the -publican. But that is not the ground -chosen by the most vehement enemies -of the measure. The ground explicitly -chosen by them is that the publican -is an enemy, a wicked man, whom we -ought to punish for his misdeeds. If -it were the case of any other trade, -would anybody venture to deny that a -man whose livelihood is taken away by -the arbitrary act of the governing powers -through no fault of his own is entitled, -whatever be his strict legal position, -to some measure of relief. To which -the only answer vouchsafed by the -teetotal faction consists in windy abuse -of the publican as a “vampire.” I -think that private monopoly in the -Drink Trade is a great evil; so is private -monopoly everywhere else. But to abuse -the man who merely sells what the -public demands and the community -instructs him to supply is fanaticism -and not statesmanship.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</span></p> - -<p>Now if, leaving this foolish cult, -whose voting power is by no means -in proportion to the noise it makes, -we ask ourselves what kind of temperance -reform sensible reformers really -want, we shall not find it difficult to -answer.</p> - -<p>First and foremost then we want good -liquour and especially good beer. Everyone -who frequents public houses knows -how hard this often is to obtain. Yet beer -is our national drink, of which we ought to -be proud. Properly manufactured it does -no one any harm, though when made of -chemical “substitutes” instead of sound -malt and hops it is as noxious as any other -adulterated concoction. Beer-drinking, -within reasonable limits, and provided the -beer be sound liquour, is a national habit -which no wise ruler would attempt to -suppress. For it is the best prophylactic -against the inordinate consumption of -cheap and bad spirits which really is a -national curse in Scotland and elsewhere.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</span></p> - -<p>Secondly we want decent surroundings. -It is a most unfortunate thing -that few temperance reformers have -any personal acquaintance with public -houses or with alcoholic drinking. For -if they had they would know that a -man is much more likely to brutalise -himself if he is compelled to drink -“perpendicularly” in a dirty, ugly, and -gloomy bar than if he can sit down -comfortably, talk to his friends, play -cards and listen, perhaps, to a little -music. That is why another phase of -the L.C.C. “temperance” policy, the -refusal of drink licenses to music halls, -is so manifestly absurd. A man who -drinks at a music hall, where he is being -amused in other ways, is much less -likely to get drunk than one who drinks -in a public house bar (as such bars are -now conducted) where there is nothing -to do but to go on drinking. As Mr. -Headlam has excellently expressed it, -it would be a great deal better policy to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</span> -turn every public house into a music -hall than to turn every music hall into a -teetotal institution. The second thing -we want then is a humanised public -house.</p> - -<p>Thirdly we want to get rid of the -private commercial monopoly which -exploits the drink trade, whereby vast -fortunes are made at the expense of -the community. These immense profits -are the direct result of the monopoly -granted by the community to private -traders in return for a nominal fee. -To grant away what is practically public -money in this way is monstrous. It -is satisfactory to find that something -like High License is foreshadowed in -this year’s Licensing Act. But High -License is not enough.</p> - -<p>The sensible remedy is the municipalization -of the liquour traffic which -would fulfil all the above conditions. -The municipal public house would refuse -to sell any but the best liquors, and it<span class="pagenum" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</span> -would supply these with humanising -instead of demoralising surroundings. -The profits which the public are entitled -to the public would receive. And let me -say here that there is no reason whatever -why we should wait for a municipal -monopoly—which means waiting till -Doomsday. The idea that municipal -houses must not compete with privately -owned ones rests ultimately upon the -mischievous notion already examined -that the drinking of alcohol is in itself -an evil thing upon which the state ought -to frown if it cannot actually suppress -it. The typical British workman (whatever -“democratic” politicians may say) -does not go into the public house in -order to get drunk but in order to refresh -himself. If the municipality gives him -better drink under more pleasant conditions -than the publican he will frequent -its houses without demanding that -drunkenness shall be either encouraged -or connived at. And the competition of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</span> -the municipal house will infallibly raise -the standard of those houses that -remain in private hands.</p> - -<p>Why does not the London County -Council abandon its “Settled Temperance -Policy” and go as straight for -municipal public houses as it has gone -for municipal trams? The common -answer is that the Council has no power -to run public houses; but this is no -answer at all. Till this year it had no -power to run steamers on the Thames. -But it wanted the power, it agitated for -it, embodied it in its Bills and eventually -forced a Tory House of Commons to -concede it. Has it ever asked for power to -run public houses? Not once. Moreover, -even as things stand, it could if it pleased -get to work on the right lines instead of on -the wrong ones. Instead of abandoning -licenses it could retain them and lease the -new houses to publicans at pretty high -ground rents and on stringent conditions -such as would insure that the house should<span class="pagenum" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</span> -be of the best type possible under private -management. Besides there is Earl Grey’s -Trust, an organisation founded expressly -to anticipate most of the results of municipalism. -They could easily have let the -Trust take over the licenses, but they have -persistently refused to do so. The fact is -that the London Progressives do not want -to municipalise the retail liquour trade. -They do not want to do it, because they -dread the power of the Nonconformist -chapel and the forces which find their political -rallying ground in the local P.S.A., -forces of which the guiding principle is not -temperance, but a hatred of alcohol <i>per -se</i>. But surely it is possible to make a -last appeal to the Progressive leaders. -After all they have pricked that bubble -once. To their eternal credit they have defied -and bitterly offended the chapels over -the education question, and no very dire -consequences have followed. Will they -not take their courage in their hands and -defy them on the drink question also?</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="RETRENCHMENT_AND">“RETRENCHMENT AND -REFORM.”</h2> -</div> - - -<p>Who could have believed five years -ago that we should ever have heard -again, from any quarter more deserving -of notice than the foolish and impotent -Cobden Club, the almost forgotten cry -of “Peace, Retrenchment and Reform.” -That it has become once more the rallying -cry of the whole Liberal party is -significant, as nothing else could be, -of the extent to which that party has -moved backwards during the last decade -or so. So far from the Liberal party -having been “permeated” with Socialism -since 1885, everything that has -happened since then has tended to -weaken the progressive collectivist element -in its ranks and to strengthen the -reactionary individualist element. We -hear nothing now of the well-meant if<span class="pagenum" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</span> -somewhat amateurish attempts at social -reform which were popular with the -followers of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain -twenty years ago,—nothing of “ransom” -or of “three acres and a cow.” -As little do we hear or see of the Collectivist-Radical -ideals of the early nineties, -of which the <i>Star</i> and the old <i>Daily -Chronicle</i> were once such vigorous -exponents. Not only do the leaders of -Liberalism care for none of these things, -but those who professed such enthusiasm -for them speak of them less and less. -Mr. Massingham now-a-days appears -to have eyes and ears for nothing -but the diabolical wickedness of Imperialism. -Dr. Clifford, once the rising hope -of collectivist Dissent, is now too busy -promoting sectarian anarchism to pay -any perceptible attention to the “condition-of-the-people” -question. It used -at one time to be said that Mr. -Gladstone’s stupendous authority made -it difficult for the party to become<span class="pagenum" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</span> -definitely Collectivist while he led it; -but when he retired the new era was -to begin. Well, Mr. Gladstone is dead; -but where is the new era? Mr. Gladstone’s -place has been taken by men -who have inherited all his obsolete -prejudices—only lacking his abilities; -the “left wing” of the Liberal party -on which so many hopes were built -is weaker and less disposed to a forward -movement than ever. The consequence -is that since 1895 we have seen -nothing but Ghosts—ghosts of dead -things which everyone thought to have -been nicely nailed down and buried long -ago. The South African War raised -the ghost of Gladstone with his anti-imperial -bias and his narrow nationalist -philosophy. Then the Education controversy -brought up the ghost of Miall -with all the Dissidence of Dissent and -all the Protestantism of the Protestant -Religion. Lastly with the Fiscal Question -has come to light the yet older<span class="pagenum" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</span> -and mouldier ghost of Cobden from whose -shadowy lips issue the once famous -formula—“Peace, Retrenchment and -Reform.”</p> - -<p>Since this dilapidated Manchester -sign-post has now become the meeting -point of all sections of the Liberal party, -Radical and Whig, Imperialist and Little -Englander, and since some of the leaders -of Labour and even (strange to say) -some of the Socialists are taking up their -places in the shadow, it becomes imperative -to ask what meaning exactly -the words are intended to convey. With -“Peace” I have dealt fully already, -and have endeavoured to define the -Socialist attitude towards it. But “Retrenchment -and Reform” demand further -examination.</p> - -<p>No surer proof of the utter emptiness -of what is called “Liberal Imperialism” -can be advanced than the manner in -which its leaders have joined in the -demand for retrenchment. I can understand<span class="pagenum" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</span> -the position of those who manfully -opposed the South African War; I can -understand the position of those who -manfully supported it. Both are honest -and consistent and worthy of all respect. -But surely there never was a meaner -spectacle than this of eminent and -influential politicians shouting vigorously -with the Mafficking crowd while war -is popular, and then, when the brief -season of ultra-patriotic excitement is -over, grumbling and whining when -presented with the inevitable bill of -costs. It is equally absurd and unworthy. -If we want an Empire, if we want a -strong foreign policy, if we want vigour -and efficiency—we must be prepared -to pay for it. If we think the price too -high, then, in heaven’s name, let us be -honest and admit that the Little Englanders -were in the right all along. -Do not let us court an easy but most -contemptible popularity by swaggering -as Imperialists, when what we really<span class="pagenum" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</span> -want is all the sweets of Empire but none -of the burdens. That is what “Liberal -Imperialism” seems to mean. Indeed -Liberal Imperialism has proved nothing -better than a fizzle. Three years ago -we thought that there might be something -in it. So far-sighted a reformer as Mr. -Sidney Webb celebrated in a memorable -magazine article “Lord Rosebery’s -Exodus from Houndsditch,” expressing -the hope then widely entertained that -the Liberal Imperialist movement meant -the final laying of Gladstonian Ghosts -and the creation of a Progressive party -alive to the needs of the new time. -That hope is at an end. Lord Rosebery -and his retainers have re-entered Hounds -ditch with triumphal pomp and ceremony, -and are now distinguishable from -their frankly Gladstonian colleagues -only by the greater fluidity of their -convictions.</p> - -<p>But expenditure on offensive and -defensive armaments, though a most<span class="pagenum" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</span> -necessary item, is by no means the only -item in our national accounts. We -spend a great deal of money on education; -we ought to spend more. We -spend a great deal of money on Home -Office matters—factory inspectors and -the like; again we ought to spend more. -We want to spend money in a variety -of other ways upon the improvement -of the condition of the people. We want -Old Age Pensions, we want free meals -for school-children, we want some sort -of provision for the unemployed, we -want grants in aid of housing and other -forms of local activity. How are we -to get these things and yet retrench. -Will not better education cost money? -Will not more efficient factory inspection -cost money? Will not Free Feeding -cost money? Does not almost every -kind of social reform mean increased -expenditure? It is significant that the -demand for “retrenchment,” which is -the Liberal cry in national affairs, is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</span> -in local affairs the cry of the “Moderates,” -that is of the magnates and monopolists -who wish to exploit the public. -But Liberal or Moderate it is always a -reactionary cry. If we are to do our -duty by the people, we cannot retrench.</p> - -<p>And indeed why should we want to -retrench—we I mean who profess ourselves -Socialists? Our complaint is not -that too much of the national revenue -goes into the coffers of the state, but -that too little finds its way thither. Too -much of it goes to swell the incomes -and maintain the status of a wealthy -class of idle parasites. The more we -can get hold of and use for public purposes -the better. And the more we pile -on taxation (always supposing we pile -it on in the right place) the nearer we -approach to the Socialist ideal. Retrenchment -of public expenditure and -the reduction of taxation to a minimum -is essentially an individualist policy. -The socialist policy is to pool the rents<span class="pagenum" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</span> -and profits of industry and devote the -revenue so obtained to useful public -work.</p> - -<p>But, if retrenchment is an inadmissible -policy for Socialists, what -about reform? I can only say that I -wish all such words as “reform,” -“progress,” “advanced” etc. were at -the bottom of the sea. They are -mischievous because they lend colour -to the vague idea which exists in the -minds of so many “moderns” that if -we keep on moving fast enough we are -sure to be all right. It never seems -to occur to people that something depends -on the direction. What I want -to know about a man is not whether he -is “progressive” or “advanced” or -“modern” or “a reformer,” but whether -he wants to do the same things that -I want to do. If he wants to do the -exact opposite the less “advanced” -and “progressive” he is the better. -When therefore amiably muddy-minded<span class="pagenum" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</span> -people talk about “Reform” all we -have to ask them is, “What reform?” -What did Cobden and Gladstone mean -by “reform?” What do the present-day -Liberals and Radicals mean by it? -One thing is certain; neither has ever -meant social reform—the only kind -that seems to me to matter; or, if the -thought of social questions ever crossed -their minds at all, at least neither has -ever meant collectivist social reform—the -only kind that in my view can ever -be effective. What the Liberals meant -and mean, so far as they now mean -anything at all, was and is political -reform and political reform along certain -defined lines.</p> - -<p>The old Radical programme of -political change is worn so threadbare -that it is hardly worth discussing at -this time of day. As however, in the -general resurrection of Gladstonian -Ghosts, which we are now witnessing, -a very attenuated spectre of the Old<span class="pagenum" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</span> -Radical-Republican propaganda of the -’sixties seems disposed to put in an -appearance, it may be worth while to -say a word or two about it.</p> - -<p>As to Republicanism itself it hardly -demands attention in the twentieth -century. No-one except Mr. John M. -Robertson even professes to think it -important. The S.D.F., it is true, still -puts the abolition of monarchy in its -programme of palliatives, but that I -imagine is merely a comparatively -harmless concession to revolutionary -tradition. Doubtless hereditary monarchy -is theoretically illogical; but the -time has gone by when men deduced -perfect theories of government <i>a priori</i> -from the Social Contract or the Natural -Rights of Man. What we now ask -concerning an institution is—does it -obstruct the execution of necessary -reforms? Now no one can seriously -maintain that the British Monarchy -obstructs anything. The power of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</span> -Crown, such as it is, has, since the -accession of the present Sovereign at -any rate, been used almost entirely -in the interests of genuine progress. -Hereditary monarchy supplies us on the -whole with a very convenient method of -obtaining a representative of the nation -who shall not, like a President, be the -nominee of a political party. A great -deal of national veneration and sentiment -has grown up round the Throne, -and it would be foolish to waste time -in attacking an immensely popular institution -which does no harm and has -its decided advantages.</p> - -<p>The old outcry against Royal Grants -so dear to the heart of Mr. Henry -Labouchere may be similarly dismissed. -It was never likely to be popular with a -people averse above all things to the -suspicion of meanness; and it has -now become hopelessly obsolete, partly -because of the general collapse of republican -sentiment, and partly because<span class="pagenum" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</span> -people have begun to realise that it is a -little ridiculous to get violently excited -because the King is given a few thousands -in return for certain services, some -of which are decidedly important and -all of which the nation really desires -him to perform, while we allow landlords, -capitalists and financiers to pocket -many hundred times as much in return -for no services whatsoever.</p> - -<p>The question of the House of Lords -appears at first sight a more serious -one. But, when examined closely its -importance is seen to be much exaggerated. -In order to make out a case strong -enough to induce us to turn aside from -our more urgent tasks and spend weary -years in agitating for the disestablishment -of the Upper House, Radicals must -show that the Lords are in the habit -of rejecting measures of great intrinsic -importance to the people at large and -really demanded by them. Can they -show this? I think not. The only<span class="pagenum" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</span> -measure of importance which the Lords -have rejected during the last thirty -years has been the Home Rule Bill, and a -subsequent appeal to the people proved -conclusively that the Lords were right -in so rejecting it—that the people of -Great Britain were not as a whole -really in favour of it, in fact that there -was no such effective demand as there -ought clearly to be before so great a -change is made in the constitution -of the realm. Even if the Radicals had -the solid democracy at their back (as -they certainly have not and are not in -the least likely to have) it would still -take some ten years to disestablish the -Lords. On the other hand, if we have -the democracy at our back in support -of any particular reform that we want, -it will not take much more than ten -weeks to intimidate or circumvent them. -The Lords are too acute and too careful -of their own interests to resist for any -length of time measures upon which<span class="pagenum" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</span> -Englishmen have once made up their -minds firmly. As a matter of fact -the objection to the House of Lords -is not a reformer’s objection but a Liberal -partizan’s objection. The existence of -the Second Chamber, as at present -constituted, undoubtedly hampers the -Liberal party in its competition with -the Tories, because the Tories can get -more drastic measures of reform through -the Upper House than they can. But -with us to whom it is a matter of supreme -indifference by which party reforms are -carried this consideration need not weigh.</p> - -<p>It cannot of course be denied that -the present constitution of the Upper -House is a flagrant anachronism. The -structure of our society is no longer -feudal, and government by a hereditary -territorial aristocracy is therefore out -of date. Moreover there are practical -disadvantages in the present system, -since, though the Lords do not reject -anything which the people really want,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</span> -they do sometimes mutilate valuable -measures in the interest of property -owners. If therefore it be found possible -without wasting too much valuable -energy to introduce new elements into -the composition of the Second Chamber, -one would not refuse to consider the -idea. This is in fact almost certain, -to be done some day—probably by the -Tories anxious to strengthen the Upper -House. The inclusion of elected representatives -from the Colonies might -be a very good way to begin.</p> - -<p>With the Disestablishment of the -Church the case is rather different. -The abolition of hereditary aristocracy, -though difficult and not particularly -urgent, might be a good thing in itself. -Church Disestablishment on the other -hand would, I am convinced, be not only -a waste of time and energy, but a most -undesirable and retrograde step. Surely -it is not for us Socialists to agitate for -the desocialisation of national religion<span class="pagenum" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</span> -and for the transfer of what is now in -effect national property to private and -irresponsible hands. Moreover the denationalisation -of the Church would -be from a tactical point of view a most -fatal step. I say this without reference -to the question (upon which Socialists -will hold all sorts of divergent opinions) -of the truth of the doctrines of the Church -of England or indeed of any form of -Christianity or Theism. It has been -often pointed out that the Church has -shown itself more easily permeable by -the Socialist movement than have any -of the Dissenting bodies. Many reasons -have been suggested to account for this, -and no doubt there is an element of -truth in all of them. Without doubt -the Catholic and Sacramental system -of theology blends more easily with -Socialism than the Evangelical theology -does. It is also unquestionably true -that the feudal traditions which still -linger in the English Church are more<span class="pagenum" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</span> -akin to the ideas of Socialism than are -the Liberal and Individualist traditions -of Dissent. But one of the most important -causes of the more sympathetic -attitude of the clergy of the Established -Church is surely this, that the Church, -being established and endowed, is responsible -to the people and to the people -alone, while the “Free” Churches -are bound hand and foot to the wealthy -deacons and elders on whose subscription -they are forced to rely. Disestablish -the Church and the rich subscriber -will rule her with a rod of iron. Democratic -priests will be hampered and -harassed as democratic ministers are -now. This, it seems to me, is not a -result to which (whatever our religious -views) we can look forward without -anxiety. Whether “priestcraft” be a -good or a bad force, it is without doubt -an extremely powerful one; and it is -clearly the business of Socialists, whether -Christian or Secularist, to see that, so<span class="pagenum" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</span> -far as is possible, it shall be exercised -on their side. The sound Socialist -policy is not to disestablish the Church -of England, but to establish concurrently -all religious bodies of sufficient magnitude -and importance to count. Had -this been done in Ireland thirty years -ago, as Matthew Arnold recommended, -had we, instead of disestablishing the -Anglican Church there, established and -endowed the Roman Catholic Church -along side of her, how much less serious -might our difficulties in that country -have been!</p> - -<p>As to the elective franchise and -kindred questions they can hardly be -regarded as any longer pressing. It -would be a good thing, I do not deny, -if our conditions of registration were -simplified, but that is not a question -upon which the people feel or can be -expected to feel very keenly. No class -is now intentionally disfranchised,—it -is only a matter of individuals. In<span class="pagenum" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</span> -other words, though there are anomalies -and inconveniences in our electoral -system, there is no longer any specific -grievance. Women might perhaps have -a grievance if any large number of them -demanded the right to vote, but until -this is so politicians cannot be expected -to pay much attention to the matter. -There is a stronger case for redistribution, -but this (owing to the gross over-representation -of Ireland) is generally regarded -as a Conservative rather than a -Liberal measure.</p> - -<p>The only political reform that seems -at all worth fighting for is the payment -of members. This is really desirable and -important, and should be pushed to -the front when political questions are -under discussion. For not only would -it open Parliament more freely to the -representatives of the workers, but it -would also make the position of an M.P., -a more responsible one. A paid representative, -it may reasonably be supposed,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</span> -would take his profession more -seriously, and would at the same time -be looked after more sharply by his -constituents. We have on the whole -quite enough gentlemanly and well-meaning -amateurs in politics to whom -legislation is a harmless hobby, and who -are readily enough outwitted and captured -by the keen and energetic representatives -of finance who do take -their business seriously and mean to -win. Therefore if we are to have any -political changes at all let us go straight -for payment of members.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="SOCIAL_RECONSTRUCTION">SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION.</h2> -</div> - - -<p>In previous chapters I have generally -begun by criticising the Liberal policy -in relation to the matter to be discussed. -It would seem natural in this chapter -to deal with the Liberal policy in relation -to social reform. But in that case the -essay would be an exceedingly short -one. There is no Liberal policy in -relation to social reform.</p> - -<p>The nearest thing to a least common -denominator which I can find after -searching diligently the speeches of -the Liberal leaders and their backers is -that most of them are in favour of doing -something to the “land monopoly.” -Exactly what they propose to do to -it I cannot quite discover. “Overthrowing -the land monopoly” may -mean Leasehold Enfranchisement; it -may mean the Taxation of Land Values;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</span> -it may mean Small Holdings, Free Sale -or the Nationalisation of Land. The -last suggestion may be dismissed; we -are certainly no more likely to get that -from the Liberals than from the Tories. -Small Holdings are excellent things, -but the principle has been conceded, and -we are as likely to get a further extension -of it from the Tories as from the Liberals, -in any case this policy does not touch the -essence of the social question. Leasehold -Enfranchisement, Free Sale, etc., are -sham reforms of middle-class origin of -which we now hear little. There remains -the Taxation of Land Values.</p> - -<p>The Taxation of Land Values is very -popular with the Liberals just now. -Whether it would be equally popular -with them were they in office is perhaps -a matter for legitimate speculation. It -will be remembered that it was part of -their programme in 1892, and is to this -day faintly discernable on the newly -cleaned slate of the party. As however it<span class="pagenum" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</span> -is re-emerging into prominence it maybe -well to say something in reference -to it.</p> - -<p>A good deal of confusion is inevitable -concerning this particular proposal, -arising from the fact that it may be -regarded in two entirely different lights. -It may be considered simply as one way -among many others of raising revenue -to meet necessary public expenditure, -or it may be regarded as a practical -application of the economic doctrines -associated with the name of Henry -George, who taught that all revenue -should be raised by a single tax (or more -properly rent) on the site value of land. -Now Georgian economics have made -practically no headway in this country; -their <i>a priori</i> logic, their reliance on -abstract assumptions rather than on -history and practical experiment, their -rigidity and inflexibility of application, -are exasperating to a people naturally -impatient of metaphysics but keenly<span class="pagenum" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</span> -alive to immediate social needs. People -who begin their economic speculations, -as the Georgites generally do, by discussing -what are the natural rights of -man and deducing from this an ideally -perfect system of taxation and government -put themselves out of court with -practical men. There are no natural -rights of man; there is no abstractly -perfect economic or political system; -we are painfully struggling by means of -many experiments and many failures -towards something like a decently workable -one.</p> - -<p>But, though Georgism is a horse so -dead that to flog it would be profitless -malignity, the taxation of land values, -conceived not as the <i>only</i> means of -raising revenue, but as an <i>additional</i> -means of doing so, is very much in -favour both with some of the leaders -and with the whole rank and file of -the Opposition. Nor is the reason -far to seek. The misery and waste<span class="pagenum" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</span> -produced by our present social system -are so patent and terrible that a vague -feeling that “something must be done” -has been spreading rapidly through all -classes, and even Liberals have caught -the infection. Most drastic reforms however -are impossible for them because -such reforms would clash with the -interests of the capitalists and traders -who form the backbone of the party. -To them therefore the proposal to tax -land values comes as a special interposition -of Providence to succour them -in their need. It professes to do something -for the poor,—exactly what they -might find some difficulty in saying. -But a certain amount of ill-digested -Georgism can be exploited in support -of their case, while at the same time a -loud and definite appeal can be made -to the Liberal capitalists and the Liberal -bourgeoise to share in the plunder of the -land-owners. Unfortunately the cock -will not fight. The working classes,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</span> -not believing in Georgian economics, -are, because of the hardness of their -hearts, supremely indifferent to the -taxation of land values. Neither the -ingenuity of eccentric economists nor -the eloquence of Liberal capitalists can -induce them to take the slightest interest -in the subject. No Trades Union -Congress can be persuaded to take it -up; no Labour candidate will make it -a prominent plank in his platform. -The workers may not be expert economists, -but they are not quite so easily deluded -as the Liberals suppose. They have -a very shrewd eye to their own interests, -and are quite acute enough to know that it -is the capitalist and not the landlord who -is the most active and dangerous enemy of -the labourer, and to perceive that the talk -about “the land monopoly” is merely a -clever if somewhat transparent dodge on -the part of the former to divert public -indignation from himself to his sleeping -partner in exploitation.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</span></p> - -<p>I am for getting the last farthing -of unearned increment wherever it -can be got. But I can see no earthly -reason for taxing unearned increment -from land more than any other kind. -What we really want is a heavily graduated -income tax with a discrimination -against unearned incomes. This would -hit the landlord and the capitalist equally -hard, and is therefore not likely to find -favour with the Liberal party.</p> - -<p>But even if the taxation of land -values were as perfect a method of -raising revenue for public purposes as -its advocates assert, it would still be -necessary to insist that no alteration -in the incidence of taxation will ever -solve the problem of poverty. Suppose -that you have got every penny of unearned -increment into the public treasury, -the question then arises—What -are you going to do with it? If you -keep it locked up in a box, the last state -of the people will be worse than the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</span> -first. If it is to be of benefit to anybody -this revenue must be used by the State -as industrial capital. That is to say -the socialisation of industry must go -hand in hand with the reform of taxation.</p> - -<p>Now what the Labour party really -wants just now is two or three genuine -installments of Socialism on which to -concentrate its energies. A party without -a programme is always an absurdity; -a labour party without a programme -is an absurdity passing the just limits -of farce. It is futile to think that you -can keep a party together much less -build up a new one, with no common -basis save the desire to amend trade -union law, which appears to be the only -demand on which the L.R.C. is united -at present.</p> - -<p>And the programme of the Labour -party must, for reasons already cited, -be a Socialist and not a Liberal programme. -I do not mean that the whole -party should call itself Socialist or should<span class="pagenum" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</span> -be committed to Socialism as that term -is understood by the S.D.F. We have -been surfeited in the past with abstract -resolutions in favour of “the socialisation -of all the means of production, -distribution and exchange.” But I do -maintain that the programme must be -collectivist in tendency and must have -the organisation of industry by the -state and the abolition of industrial -parasitism as its ultimate goal. Also it -must as far as possible appeal directly -to the interests of the people for with all -his great qualities the British workman -is constitutionary defective in the capacity -for seeing far before his nose, and will -not readily grow enthusiastic about the -soundest economic measure which does -not obviously improve the position of -his class. At the same time the labour -party would do well to avoid too much -narrowness of outlook, since there are, -as we shall see, some measures which -do not appear at first sight to benefit<span class="pagenum" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</span> -the worker directly, but which are -indispensable conditions of his ultimate -emancipation. Such measures should -therefore be put along side of the more -patently beneficial one and their connection -with these as far as possible -made plain to the electorate.</p> - -<p>The greatest strides which applied -Socialism has made during the last -twenty years have been made in connection -with the municipalities. The -best proof that can be given of the -immense and salutary growth of municipal -activity in recent years is to be -found in the angry panic which this -growth has produced among the financial -exploiters of public needs. The -latter, having at their back boundless -wealth and influence, a powerful and -lavishly endowed organisation, a vast -army of lecturers and pamphleteers, -and the greatest and most weighty -of British newspapers, opened a year -or so ago a fierce campaign against<span class="pagenum" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</span> -what they called “Municipal Socialism.” -Never did so potent an army suffer so -humiliating a reverse. On the progress -of municipal trading the attack made no -impression whatsoever. The public at -large saw through the game and -gave the public-spirited authorities their -generous and energetic support. The -municipal movement has received no -check; it has gone on more triumphantly -than ever. Energetic local bodies -have pushed their activities further and -taken the satisfaction of public needs -more and more out of the hands of -private speculators, vesting it in those -of responsible public officials. But the -opponents of municipalism are still -active, clever and unscrupulous; and -we cannot afford to leave the public -interest at any disadvantage in dealing -with them. It is unquestionably at such -a disadvantage at present, partly on -account of the inconveniently restricted -boundaries of local areas, partly because<span class="pagenum" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</span> -of the anti-progressive bias of the Local -Government Board, and partly because -of the state of the law in regard to the -powers of local authorities. The first -point has been discussed so excellently -by Mr. H. G. Wells and others that I -need do no more than allude to it here; -with the second I shall deal later. But -the third is of special importance.</p> - -<p>In the present state of the law a -private individual or a collection of -private individuals may do anything -which the law does not expressly forbid; -but a municipality or local body of -any kind may only do what the law -expressly permits. Thus for instance -the London County Council has by law -the power to run trams, but when it -attempted to run an omnibus line to -and from its tram terminus, the private -omnibus companies successfully invoked -the law against it. This is absurd; -it is intolerable that a public authority -should not be permitted to supply what<span class="pagenum" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</span> -its constituents definitely demand without -going to a largely indifferent and -largely hostile parliament for permission -to do so. Broadly speaking County -and Borough Councils at any rate should -have power to do anything that the -nation through the national legislature -does not definitely prohibit. It would -be well for the Labour party in Parliament -to demand a free hand for progressive -municipalities such as can only -be secured by legislation on these lines.</p> - -<p>The Housing Question connects -itself closely with this matter, for its -only possible solution will be found to -be along the lines of municipal activity. -But, in addition to a free hand for -municipalities to build houses when and -where they like, it would be well to -consider whether in the face of the -present house famine it is wise to raise -our local revenues by what is in effect -a heavy tax on houses. The payment -of say half the rates on well-built and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</span> -sanitary working-class dwellings out -of the proceeds of government grants -would give a much needed impetus to -both municipal and private enterprise -in this direction.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile the Labour men on -municipal bodies should make the fullest -use of such powers as they already -possess and push forward vigorously -with their campaign of municipal socialism -in such a manner that the workman -may perceive its direct benefits. His -Housing should be visibly cheaper and -better, his trams visibly quicker, less -expensive and more comfortable, his -gas and water supply visibly improved -on account of their transfer to a public -body. At the same time of course -the labour employed by the municipality -in conducting these industries should -receive what we may call (to borrow -a phrase from diplomacy) “most favoured -employé” treatment. It may be -remarked that it is not desirable that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</span> -municipal undertakings should aim at -large profits. Theoretically this is indefensible -for it means that the consumer -pays more than his fair share of the -rates; practically it is undesirable, -since it tends to obscure the real benefits -of municipal enterprise.</p> - -<p>In national affairs the progress of -definite socialism cannot perhaps be -so rapid. But the Labour party might -well press for the nationalisation of -mines, especially of coal fields (already -demanded by the Trade Union Congress), -the state regulation and ultimate nationalisation -of railways, canals and other -means of transit, and should insist on -government departments doing their -own work wherever possible and paying -not less than the standard rate of wages.<a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></p> - -<p>But legislation of this kind has only<span class="pagenum" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</span> -an indirect effect upon the real problem -that confronts the people of this country,—the -people of all countries which have -developed along the lines of industrial -civilisation. With the appalling evidences -of physical degeneration confronting us, -we cannot, whether we are Socialists or -Labourites or only decently humane -and patriotic Englishmen, do without a -social policy. In the last resort, all -progress, all empire, all efficiency depends -upon the kind of race we breed. If -we are breeding the people badly neither -the most perfect constitution nor the -most skilful diplomacy will save us from -shipwreck.</p> - -<p>What are we to do with the great -masses of unskilled, unorganised labour -in our big towns? That is the question -which intelligent thinkers are now asking -themselves; and, as Carlyle said “England -will answer it, or on the whole -England will perish.” We have drained -our country side and destroyed our<span class="pagenum" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</span> -agriculture to a great extent deliberately -in order to obtain this vast city proletariat. -Its condition is appalling; -it is starved at school, over-worked -when it is just growing into manhood, -and afterwards drifts into the ghastly -back-waters of our towns, now sweated, -now unemployed, always an open sore, -a contamination, a menace to our -national life. That is what fifty years -of applied Liberalism have made of -about a third of the English people.</p> - -<p>Well, the first thing we must do is -to try to save the next generation if we -cannot save this one. The child at -any rate must be protected. One of the -first and most urgent of the social reforms -needed is the feeding of children -in public elementary schools. To teach -unfed or underfed children is a sheer -piece of profitless brutality. Compulsory -and free feeding is as necessary -to us as compulsory and free teaching—more -necessary in fact for more could<span class="pagenum" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</span> -in the long run be made of an ignorant -people that was fit and healthy physically -than of a race of white-faced cripples, -whom society had crammed with book-learning -to satisfy its theories as barbarously -as it crams geese with food to -satisfy its palate. We are entitled therefore -to demand the free feeding of all -children attending Public Elementary -Schools. Of course all sorts of less drastic -proposals will be made—proposals for -feeding destitute children only, or for -making a charge, or for recovering the -cost of the meals from the parents. Some -of these proposals will be better than -others, and we must take the best we can -get. But none of them will solve the problem. -Nor will the problem be solved by -any merely permissive legislation, giving -local authorities the <i>power</i> to feed children -without compelling them to use it. -A local authority has no more right to -underfeed its children than a parent has. -All local authorities must be held responsible<span class="pagenum" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</span> -for the proper feeding of school -children with their areas of administration, -as they are already held responsible -for their proper instruction.</p> - -<p>At the same time another policy -might be adopted the results of which -would indirectly be of perhaps still -greater value. I suggest that while -these experiments are proceeding there -should be a periodical physical examination -of all the children in the elementary -schools by duly authorised medical -officers. This would be a good test -of the success of the new feeding policy -and might form the basis for an extension -of the principle of grants in aid to encourage -those municipalities which were -most zealous in looking after the physical -well-being of the children. But its -usefulness would not end there; it -would provide us with what we most -want a really reliable collection of sociological -data upon which future reforms -could be based.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</span></p> - -<p>But when the child leaves school -the need of protection by no means -ceases. Our factory code already recognises -that the setting of children to -hard commercial work before their -minds and bodies have had time to -develop is as wasteful (from a national -point of view) as it is inhuman. But -the application of the principle is still -half-hearted. Children over eleven can in -some parts of the Kingdom be employed -in factories provided that they put in one -school attendance per day; the age at -which even this provision ceases to operate -is fourteen, after which the children -are held to become “young persons,” and -may work sixty hours or more per week. -This is clearly very little security for the -physical and moral development of the -race. No child should, under any circumstances -whatever, be allowed to work for -wages until he or she is—say fourteen. -From fourteen to twenty the “half-time” -arrangement might be made to apply, and,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</span> -as has already been suggested, we could -use the time so gained in order to give -the young people effective technical, and, -in their latter years, also military training, -thereby immensely improving their physique -and at the same time forming a -national reserve of almost invincible -strength.</p> - -<p>But after all most social problems -come back in the end to the wages -problem. If the workers received better -wages many of the questions which -now perplex us would solve themselves. -And here we are brought directly to -what Mr. Sidney Webb has called “the -policy of the National Minimum.” The -principle of the national minimum has -been long ago embodied in legislation, -and is in reality the root idea of factory -acts, public health acts, restrictions on -over-crowding and most other social -reforms of the last century. But its -possibilities are by no means exhausted. -We must develop it further along the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</span> -same lines until it gives us what we most -want, a statutary minimum wage for -labour. This has been partially established -in a few of the most prosperous of our -staple industries by the development -of Trade Unionism. Its much needed -application to the unskilled trades where -the rankest sweating abounds can only -be made possible by the exertion of -state authority. To those who are -soaked in the Liberal tradition of “free -contract” of course the legal minimum -wage will seem a piece of odious tyranny, -but there is, as it seems to me, no essential -difference between the fixing of -maximum hours by law and the fixing of -minimum wages. It is at least as important -to the community that its citizens -should not be underpaid as that they -should not be overworked.</p> - -<p>The Trade Unions to which we owe -nearly all that betterment of the condition -of the workers which Liberals absurdly -attribute to Free Trade, cannot possibly<span class="pagenum" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</span> -be allowed to remain in the impossible -position in which recent legal decisions -have placed them. But that is no reason -for agitating for what is called the <i>status -quo ante</i>, which is neither practicable nor -desirable. The sound demand is that the -law should be made clear; that it should -put single employés and combinations of -workmen on an equal footing; that legal -disabilities of Trade Unions should be -removed; and that the liability of Trade -Unions should be definitely confined to -those authorised acts of its servants or -agents for which a corporate body may -fairly be held responsible. This on the -face of it is reasonable, and should be -applicable to employers’ associations also, -so that when the time comes for the enactment -of a Compulsory Arbitration Law -(as in Australia)—that is when the trade -unionists themselves recognise the desirability -of such a measure, the machinery -for its execution will be available.</p> - -<p>Then there is the perennial and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</span> -apparently impenetrable problem of the -Unemployed. This is one of the problems -which in all probability cannot -be finally solved except by a complete -reorganization of society. But, wisely -handled, it can be palliated and reduced -to more manageable proportions. In -discussing this question a distinction -must always be made between the -temporary unemployment to which all -workmen are liable, and the permanent -or chronic unemployment of the great -masses of the unfit which our social -system is always throwing off. These -poor wretches are no more to be blamed -for their idleness and worthlessness -(from the social standpoint) than the -rich shareholder is to be blamed for his. -But their presence unquestionably complicates -the problem and their treatment -must inevitably be different. The first -thing to do is to get at the facts. For -this purpose there should be a Labour -Bureau in connection with every considerable<span class="pagenum" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</span> -local authority which should -keep a record of the state of the labour -market from time to time. These bureaus -should be in constant communication -with a Department of Labour -at Westminster, which is one of the -most pressing needs of the hour. As to -relief works, Mr. Long’s farm colonies -are good so far as they go; schemes -for re-afforestation and the reclamation -of fore-shores are perhaps even better. -But it is well to keep in mind that the -great aim of all social reformers should -be to eliminate the “unemployable” -class altogether. Mr. Webb’s “national -minimum” policy if carried out in all -its branches would practically do this.</p> - -<p>The question of employment is -closely connected with the whole question -of our Poor Law, which badly wants -re-modelling. Such a process should -include the abolition of the Poor Law -Guardians (the last relic of the <i>ad hoc</i> -principle and a far more indefensible<span class="pagenum" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</span> -one than the School Boards) and the -transfer of their powers to the local -authority best fitted to deal with them,—probably -the County and Borough -Councils. It should also of course -include the establishment of universal -Old Age Pensions, a measure whose -popularity is as manifest as its justice, -as was proved in 1895, when it contributed -enormously to swell the Tory -majority. The fact is that our present -Poor Law was the first product of middle -class Liberalism, flushed with its stupendous -victory of 1832. It is founded -unmistakeably on the principles of that -creed, which, believing in the eternal -justice of “economic harmonies,” regarded -the fact of a poor man being out -of work as convincing proof of his -worthlessness and criminality. It is as -impossible for us, as the old Poor Law -was for them.</p> - -<p>Less obvious but not less certain -is the connection between all these<span class="pagenum" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</span> -problems and the decline of our agriculture. -It is the decline of agriculture -which has driven into the towns the -masses of unskilled labour with which -we have to deal. Indeed the Liberals -foresaw and deliberately planned this, -when, first by the Poor Law and afterwards -by the Repeal of the Corn Laws, -they drove labour off the land in order -to obtain it cheaply in the great industrial -centres. And that is how the situation -has worked out, so that it is important, -no less in the interest of the -town proletariat than in that of the -country, that we should re-organise the -first and most necessary of our staple -industries. The idea apparently entertained -in some Liberal circles that this -can be done by the taxation of land values -is, as Mr. Brougham Villiers has pointed -out in “The Opportunity of Liberalism” -(not altogether I should suppose to the -gratification of his Liberal friends), -on the face of it absurd. The end at<span class="pagenum" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</span> -which we are aiming is not that the -state should own the ground rents but -that it should own the land and the -capital used to develop it, and it is towards -this end that our policy should -be directed. To this end we want an -energetic system of state aid to farmers -such as that already inaugurated by -Sir Horace Plunkett and others in Ireland. -We want loans to farmers on -state security and experiments in cooperative -farming under state supervision -and with state encouragement; -we want increased powers for local -authorities in rural districts to buy and -develop land; above all we want light -railways, cheap and rapid transit, an -agricultural parcels post (as proposed by -Mr. Rider Haggard); and finally we want -an end put to the monstrous system -whereby Railway Companies charge -higher rates to British than to foreign -producers. When this policy has been -fairly tried we shall see whether we also<span class="pagenum" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</span> -want a protective tariff. We do not -want a tariff which will merely raise -the landlord’s rent, but, as I have already -pointed out, Socialists have no theoretic -bias against such a tariff if it can be -shown to be necessary to the public -interest.</p> - -<p>But there is one question to which -Socialists ought to devote a great deal -more attention than they show any -signs of devoting at present. Lord -Randolph Churchill, the ablest and most -far-sighted of modern party leaders, -saw its importance twenty years ago, -and put it in the fore-front of his programme. -That question is the reform -of government departments. Until this -is honestly faced and dealt with, the -Individualist will always have a powerful -controversial weapon against Socialist -propaganda. When the Socialist demands -that the state shall undertake -more duties, his opponent has only -to point to the duties it has already<span class="pagenum" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</span> -undertaken and ask if he wants any -more duties performed like that! A -national system of transit run as the -War Office is run would hardly be an -unqualified blessing and would probably -produce a reaction of the most damaging -kind. The only answer is to reform -the government departments and make -them workmanlike and efficient bodies. -Until this is done we shall be checked -at every point every time we want -a measure involving state ownership -carried. Moreover we shall find it -impossible to give effect to our policy -of state regulation. The War Office -has on the whole been most unfairly -treated in being gibbetted as the supreme -type of red tape and inefficiency. In -neither respect is it really worse than -most other branches of our administration—not -so bad for example as -the Local Government Board, which is -so hopelessly understaffed and so miserably -ineffective that it is obliged from<span class="pagenum" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</span> -mere instinct of self-preservation to -oppose every forward movement in -municipal politics lest it should be overburdened -still further. It matters little -who is its representative in the Cabinet. -It is the Board itself and not its President -for the time being that obstructs progress. -Yet an efficient Local Government -Board, encouraging progressive -local bodies and harrying up backward -ones, is an essential part of the “national -minimum” policy. From every point -of view therefore it is essential that our -departments of state should be put on a -new and better footing. A businesslike -Home Office and a businesslike Local -Government Board would do more for -social reform than many acts of Parliament.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="SOME_MATERIALS_AND_A">SOME MATERIALS AND A -POSSIBILITY.</h2> -</div> - - -<p>Successive Reform Acts have so -widened the basis of the franchise in this -country that the working man has now -the issue of the great majority of elections -in his hands. By the working man I -here mean the manual labourer who -earns weekly wages; the definition is -not scientific, but it is I think effectively -descriptive. It is difficult to define a -working man, but people know him -when they see him, as Mr. Morley said -of a Jingo. The manual labourer then -is master of the situation; and it becomes -a matter of primary importance -for any party which wishes for a parliamentary -majority to consider what -manner of man he is, and what kind -of policy is likely to receive his favour.</p> - -<p>Now I have no sympathy at all<span class="pagenum" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</span> -with the contemptuous tone adopted -by most Socialists towards the working -man. This scorn of the average artisan -or labourer may be regarded as the connecting -bond between all schools of -modern Socialism in this country, the -one sentiment common to Mr. Hyndman -and to Mr. Bernard Shaw. Were that -scorn just, its expression would be imprudent; -for John Smith of Oldham, -however stupid he may be, is, as Mr. -Blatchford has remarked “very numerous,” -and in a country ruled by the -counting of heads it would be good -policy to treat him with respect and good -humour. But it is not just. As a matter -of fact, the working man is by no means -the slavish imbecile that some Socialists -seem to think him. The fact that he -has built up with iron resolution, in -the face of stupendous difficulties, and -at the cost of terrible sacrifices, the -Trade Union system of this country—perhaps -the noblest monument of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</span> -great qualities of the British character -that the century has seen—might well -protect him from the sarcasms of wealthy -idealists. If he is not a Socialist, is -that altogether his fault? Or is it by -any chance partly ours?</p> - -<p>The British workman is not, as I -have said, by any means a fool. He -does not enjoy being sweated; he is not -in love with long hours and low wages; -he does not clamour for bad housing -or dear transit. On the contrary, when -sufficiently skilled and educated to be -capable of effective organisation, he -is a keen trade unionist, ready to stand -up promptly and with conspicuous success -for the rights and interests of his -class; and he has shown himself able -and willing to support legislation for -his own benefit and that of his fellows. -The Socialists have in him excellent -raw material of which a most effective -fighting force could be made. How -do they use him?</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</span></p> - -<p>The first thing that a Socialist of -the old school does, when brought face -to face with a working class audience, -is deliberately to insult it. I heard of -one Socialist orator who began his -address to an East End meeting -with the sentence—“What are you? -Dogs!” I suggest that this is not the -way to placate the unbeliever or to -allay the suspicion with which his conservative -instincts lead him to regard -a new idea. Moreover it is not true. -The working man knows perfectly well -that he and his class are not “dogs”; -and he rightly concludes that a man so -profoundly ignorant of his condition is -not the man to improve it. However, -having collectively and individually insulted -those whom he seeks to convert, -the preacher launches joyously into the -abysses and whirlpools of German philosophy -and economics, calls his hearers -“proletarians” (to their intense astonishment), -tells them that they are<span class="pagenum" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</span> -being robbed of “surplus value,” discusses -abstruse matters concerning the -relations between “exchange value” -and “labour power,” and generally -leads them through mazes of foreign -scientific jargon from which they eventually -emerge gasping for breath. Now -I submit that this is an absurd way of -going to work. Not so did Cobden -and his allies act, when they set out to -convert the middle classes to the dogmas -of Adam Smith. They had a systematic -theory of economics as elaborate as that -of the Marxian, but they did not pelt -miscellaneous popular gatherings with -its technicalities. They crystallised it -into one simple, effective and intelligible -phrase,—“To buy in the cheapest market -and to sell in the dearest.” I will not -disguise my personal conviction that -this maxim is of and from the Devil. -But (perhaps for that reason) it is lucid -and unmistakeable and makes a definite -and persuasive appeal to the instincts<span class="pagenum" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</span> -and prejudices of the commercial classes. -I fear I cannot say as much for the -crystallizations favoured by Socialist -propagandists. “The Abolition of the -Wages System” and “Production for -Use and not for Profit” convey to the -workman, I imagine, no clearer meaning -than they convey to me.</p> - -<p>I am aware that there has been of -late in Socialist circles something of a -reaction against this sort of thing, as -also against the futile Marxian prophecies -to the effect that “economic -forces” would produce a “Crisis” -which would have the effect of abolishing -the capitalist system whether anyone -wanted it abolished or no. But the -reaction has taken an entirely wrong -turn. It has resulted so far in nothing -better than an outburst of sheer sentimentalism -as unacceptable to the -hard conservative common-sense of the -workers as the doctrinaire revolutionism -that preceded it. The chief expression<span class="pagenum" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</span> -of this sentimentalism may be found -in the repudiation of the Class War by -the leaders of the I.L.P. and the substitution -of vague talk about Universal -Love and the Brotherhood of Man. -Now here the I.L.P. leaders have got -hold of quite the wrong end of the stick. -The existence of the class war is a fact -of common observation. A short walk -down any street with your eyes open -will show it to you. Indeed it is obvious -that there is and must be a permanent -antagonism between the buyers and -sellers of labour—or if our hyper-economic -critics prefer it of “labour-power.” -And moreover this fact of the class -war is a fact, which every workman -(as also every capitalist) recognises in -practice, if not in theory. All trade -unionism is built upon his recognition -of it; so is the demand for a labour -party. The error of the S.D.F. did not -lie here.</p> - -<p>The Marxians were not wrong in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</span> -saying that there was a class war; -there is a class war. They were not -wrong in saying that the worker ought -to be educated in class-consciousness; -they ought to be so educated for their -class-consciousness is the best foundation -for our propaganda. Where the Marxians -were wrong in regard to the class -war was in their tacit assumption that -“class-consciousness” was identical -with Socialism. It is not. Socialists -and Trade Unionists are alike in their -<i>recognition</i> of the class war, but they -differ widely in their attitude towards -it. The Socialist wishes so to organise -society as to bring the Class War -to an end; the Trade Unionist wants -the war to go on, but he wants his -own class to get better chances in it -than they get at present. As regards -practical matters the path of the two -is for the present largely identical. -Extended factory legislation, old age -pensions, housing, the municipalisation<span class="pagenum" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</span> -of monopolies are desired by Socialists -and Trade Unionists alike, though not -entirely for the same reasons. Here -and there, on Trade Union Law, on Compulsory -Arbitration in industrial disputes, -in some instances on Child Labour, -the attitude of the two may appear -different, but it only requires the better -economic education of the unions to -bring them into line with the Socialists -on these points. Nevertheless, the distinction -as well as the relation between -the two must be kept constantly in mind, -if the attitude of the typical manual -worker towards Socialism is to be understood.</p> - -<p>I confess that it strikes me as a -little absurd that the very wing of the -Socialist army which most enthusiastically -defends the obviously sensible -policy of forming an alliance with the -Unions without asking its allies to swallow -imposing Socialist formulae, should be -the one to throw over the one effective<span class="pagenum" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</span> -link between Socialism and Trade Unionism,—the -recognition of the Class War. -The result of this repudiation and of -the high-sounding humanitarian rhetoric -with which it is accompanied has been -to hopelessly estrange the I.L.P. from -the Trade Union movement, so that it is -now hardly more influential in that -direction than the S.D.F. itself. The -I.L.P. does indeed to some degree enlarge -its boundaries, but the type of man it -now principally attracts is not the trade -unionist or the labourer. The sort of -person who finds the I.L.P. creed as -mirrored in the utterance of Messrs. -Keir Hardie and Bruce Glasier exactly -to his taste is the wavering Nonconformist -in process of ceasing to believe in -God who is looking about for something -“undenominational” to believe in. -Universal Love, Brotherhood, Righteousness—all -that sort of thing suits -him down to the ground. The phenomenon -is no new one in history.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_221">[Pg 221]</span> -Just the same kind of sentiment underlays -the political propaganda of Isaac Butt, -of Vergniaud, of Sir Harry Vane. Its -track is across history; its name is -Girondism, and its end has always been -futility and disaster. The pious Girondins -were shocked at Danton’s declaration -“terror is the order of the -day,” just as the I.L.P. rhetoricians -are shocked at the recognition of the -Class War, because it contradicted their -sentimental assumptions. But Terror -was the order of the day, and it was -only because Terror was the order of the -day that France was saved from foreign -conquerors and the Revolution became -an accomplished fact.</p> - -<p>But, if the worker really does recognise -the class war and if the path -of Socialism is for the present along the -lines of the class war, why does the -worker distrust the Socialist? I have -hinted at my answer in a previous -chapter, but I will take the present<span class="pagenum" id="Page_222">[Pg 222]</span> -opportunity of elaborating it a little. -When Socialists of either of the above -types leave German dialect and Girondin -declamation, which he does not -understand and come to practical business -which he does, they give the working -man very little that he values and much -that is profoundly distasteful to him. -When for example they touch on war -and foreign politics they give him, under -a veil of specious rhetoric which does -not convince him, the general impression -that they want to see England -“licked.” He does not like this, and -he expresses his dislike vehemently and -not always very peaceably. Doubtless -he often vents his anger on people whose -patriotism is as real as his own, and -who merely differ from him as to the -merits of some particular war or expedition. -But on the whole the astonishingly -shrewd instincts of the workers -do not mislead them. They are right -in feeling that there is in the Socialist<span class="pagenum" id="Page_223">[Pg 223]</span> -movement a strong under-current of -unmistakeable anti-patriotism, a genuine -hatred and contempt for England and -her honour. If anyone doubts this, I -do not think he has spent so much time -in Socialist clubs as I have.</p> - -<p>If all this anti-patriotic sentiment, -which disgusts and repels the workers -so much, were an essential part of -Socialism we might have to accept our -unpopularity as the inevitable penalty -of our convictions and make the best -of it. But, if I have not proved that it -is nothing of the sort, this book has been -written in vain. Anti-patriotism, anti-imperialism, -anti-militarism, these are -not Socialist doctrines but the faded -relics of a particularly debased form of -Liberalism. There is nothing in Socialism -to prevent us from appealing to the -passionate patriotism of the masses; -there is much in it to give point to such -an appeal.</p> - -<p>The workman is a Tory by instinct<span class="pagenum" id="Page_224">[Pg 224]</span> -and tradition. He is a Jingo—a much -healthier and more reputable Jingo -than his brother of the stock-exchange,—but -still a Jingo in the most emphatic -sense. I am moreover convinced that -he is at heart a protectionist. He -dislikes the idea of a tax on bread, -especially as Mr. Chamberlain gives -him no really convincing guarantee of -better industrial conditions to follow; -but I believe, and I note that I have -the support of so irreproachable a -Liberal and Free Trader as Mr. -Brougham Villiers in this belief, that, -if at any time during the last quarter -of a century the protection of manufactures -alone had been offered to the -working classes, they would have accepted -it with the utmost eagerness. It is -noticeable that as soon as the workman -goes to the Colonies he becomes an -out and out Protectionist. This would -hardly happen if he had imbibed the -pure milk of Cobdenism with as much<span class="pagenum" id="Page_225">[Pg 225]</span> -relish as the Liberals would have us -believe.</p> - -<p>Here then is your Tory Jingo Protectionist -working man. What are you -going to do with him? It is easy enough -to abuse him, but he is your only possible -electoral material, he is the man by -whose vote you have got to establish -Socialism if it is to be established at all. -There are much fewer Liberals than -Tories among the workers and such as -there are will much less readily join you, -for they represent generally the uncompromising -individualist Radicalism -which spread from the middle orders -down through the upper ranks of the -artisans during the dark days of Manchester -ascendancy. It is from the -Tory much more than from the Liberal -worker that the Labour party gets its -votes,<a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> even now, while its still burdened<span class="pagenum" id="Page_227">[Pg 227]</span> -with a dead weight of senseless Liberal -traditions. How much greater would -its expansive force become if once this -burden was removed.</p> - -<p>What deduction must we draw from -these things? Surely this; that we must -appeal to the working classes on a double -programme of practical and immediate -industrial reform at home and at the -same time of imperial federation, a -spirited foreign policy and adequate -provision for national defence. I believe -this experiment would succeed, at any -rate it has never yet been effectively -tried. When Mr. Bernard Shaw taunts -the workers with their steady Tory -voting, one feels disposed to ask him -what he expects. Surely he would not -have them vote Liberal? And if he -replies that they should vote Socialist,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_228">[Pg 228]</span> -one may throw down this direct challenge—Would -Mr. Shaw himself (the -most brilliant, the most acute and the -most sincere of English Socialists) vote -for a good many of the Socialist and -“Labour” candidates who have from -time to time presented themselves before -the British electorate? Would he not -himself often prefer a Tory? But is -there any reason to suppose that if a -leader came to us with the specific talent -and temperament of the demagogue -(the value of which to a politician Mr. -Shaw knows as well and regards as highly -as I do) and made his appeal on the -Fabian programme plus a vigorous and -intelligent Imperialism, the people of -England would refuse to return him? -I think not.</p> - -<p>If the Labour party could only be -persuaded to make such an appeal it -might yet redeem its mistakes and become -a dominant force in politics. If -not, if we go on as we have been going<span class="pagenum" id="Page_229">[Pg 229]</span> -on in the past,—if the S.D.F. goes on -pelting the “class-conscious proletariat” -with multi-syllabled German metaphysics, -if the I.L.P. continues to -give altruistic and humanitarian commonplaces -to those who ask for bread, -if some of the brilliant <i>intellectuels</i> -of middle class Socialism continue to -treat the working classes as if they -did not matter and could be trapped -into Socialism against their will,—if in -a word we go on insulting and bewildering -those whom we wish to convert, -addressing them in all the unintelligible -tongues of Babel and forcing down their -throats doctrines which they detest, -then we shall never lead the workers. -And if we do not lead them someone else -will. Yes someday we shall be faced -in this country by the appearance of a -man who understands the working -classes and can make them follow him. -All parties will look at him askance -the Labour party most of all. He<span class="pagenum" id="Page_230">[Pg 230]</span> -will be called “Jingo,” “Reactionist,” -“Taker of Tory Gold.” But he will -have the people of England behind him, -because he will comprehend them and -believe in them, desire what they desire, -feel as they feel. And if he does what -such a man did once in this country, -when the “Girondin” Vanes and Sydneys -were babbling about “democratic ideals” -as we are babbling now, if he drives our -talkative and incompetent Commons -from their House and establishes a popular -Caesarism on the ruins of our polity,—the -blame will not be his. The blame -will be ours. It will be ours because we, -whose mission it was to lead the people -could only find time to despise the -people,—because we could not and would -not understand!</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter footnotes"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="FOOTNOTES">FOOTNOTES:</h2> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="label">[1]</a> Note for example the action of the Irish -Members in securing the exclusion of Convent -Laundries from the operation of the Factory -Acts—action of which every enlightened Roman -Catholic, to whom I have spoken of it, has -expressed strong disapproval.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="label">[2]</a> Social Democracy and the Armed Nation, -Twentieth Century Press, 37a Clerkenwell Green, -E.C. 1d.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="label">[3]</a> Fabianism and the Empire, edited by Bernard -Shaw, the Fabian Society, 3, Clements Inn, -W.C. 3d.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="label">[4]</a> There is one of Mr. Blatchford’s proposals to -which I feel the strongest possible objection; that -is the suggestion that those who do not volunteer -for his citizen force should pay extra taxation. -This sounds fair enough, no doubt, but its effect -would clearly be that the rich could escape service -and the poor could not—which is hardly a Socialist -ideal. Surely it is sounder policy to make such -citizen training as you give compulsory for all -able-bodied citizens.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="label">[5]</a> Since these pages were sent to the press a -striking confirmation of my view has been -furnished by recent occurrences in Russia. There, -it will be remembered, the populace (acting on -strictly Tolstoian principles) marched <i>unarmed</i> to -lay their grievances before their Sovereign. We -all know what happened. They were shot down -and cut to pieces by Cossacks. One hopes that the -survivors will be less faithful to Count Tolstoi’s -gospel in the future, and will perhaps realise that -“moral force” is an exceedingly poor protection -against bullets and bayonets.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="label">[6]</a> Lest I should be accused of “sitting on the -fence” (a phrase much beloved by those who -always want to have judgment first and evidence -afterwards) I may as well state definitely that -in my opinion a protective tariff, if framed by -genuine reformers solely in the public interest, -would be decidedly advantageous to Labour.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="label">[7]</a> I omit mention of the proviso whereby -certain Non-County Boroughs and Urban District -Councils have authority over Elementary but not -over Higher Education. The concession was a -most unfortunate one, but it does not affect the -general drift of my argument.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="label">[8]</a> The gentleman in question announced, if I -remember rightly that he proposed to avoid this -misunderstanding by showing in his front garden -a placard with the inscription—</p> - -<p>“MY GOODS ARE BEING SOLD TO PROMOTE -RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.”</p> - -<p>—a remarkably candid confession!</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="label">[9]</a> <i>The Case for Municipal Drink</i> by E. R. -Pease (King & Son).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="label">[10]</a> The Labour Party might also take up the -question of the development of Crown Lands -(especially those containing minerals), to which -Mr. Sheridan Jones has lately been drawing public -attention.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="label">[11]</a> A good illustration of this may be obtained -by comparing the two by-elections which have -taken place since the present parliament was -elected, in North-East Lanarkshire. In both cases -a typical orthodox Unionist and a typical orthodox -Labourite were in the field. But the Liberal candidates -were of a very different type in the two -cases. In September 1901 (while the South African -War was still in progress) the Liberal candidate -was Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, of the “Daily Mail,” -an Imperialist of so pronounced a kind that all the -organs of the Anti-Imperialist press and many of -the Leaders of Anti-Imperialist Liberalism advised -the electors to vote for the Labour candidate. -This year on the other hand the Liberal candidate -was a strictly orthodox Liberal who succeeded in -uniting all sections of the party. I give the figures -for both elections.</p> - -<p> -By-election 26/9/01.<br /> -<br /> -Sir W. Rattigan (U) 5673<br /> -Mr. C. Harmsworth (L) 4769<br /> -Mr. R. Smillie (Lab) 2900<br /> -<br /> -By-election 10/5/04.<br /> -<br /> -Mr. Finlay (L) 5619<br /> -Mr. Touch (U) 4677<br /> -Mr. Robertson (Lab) 3984<br /> -</p> - -<p>The noticeable thing about these figures is the -enormous increase in the Labour poll. It may -reasonably be supposed that the fulminations of a -large section of representative Liberal opinion -against Mr. Harmsworth produced some effect -on the voting, and one may therefore take it -that a fair number of electors, who voted for -Mr. Smillie in 1901, voted for Mr. Finlay in 1904. -Yet Mr. Robertson’s gain is far greater than Mr. -Finlay’s. This can only mean that a large -number of working men, who, in time of war -voted for the Tory Imperialist candidate, voted -for the Labour candidate in time of peace.</p> - -</div> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter transnote"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="TRANSCRIBERS_NOTE">TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE</h2> -<p class="left">This eBook makes the following corrections to the original text:</p> -<ul> -<li>Pg 23 “pratically” changed to “practically”</li> -<li>Pg 47 comma added after “origin”</li> -<li>Pg 53 comma added after “leave”</li> -<li>Pg 57 “Ultramonanism” changed to “Ultramontanism”</li> -<li>Pg 63 “inpossible” changed to “impossible”</li> -<li>Pg 64 period added after “divisions”</li> -<li>Pg 70 “ebulition” changed to “ebullition”</li> -<li>Pg 72 comma added after “attacked”</li> -<li>Pg 77 period added after “unconscious”</li> -<li>Pg 84 comma changed to period after “system”</li> -<li>Pg 95 period added to “Mr Chamberlain”</li> -<li>Pg 107 period removed before colon</li> -<li>Pg 116 “repudition” changed to “repudiation”</li> -<li>Pg 119 period added after “Voluntary School”</li> -<li>Pg 124 period added after “ad hoc”</li> -<li>Pg 124 comma added after “foreign affairs”</li> -<li>Pg 131 “nausious” changed to “nauseous”</li> -<li>Pg 144 “shold” changed to “should”</li> -<li>Pg 147 “couse” changed to “course”</li> -<li>Pg 149 “abandon the the” changed to “abandons the”</li> -<li>Pg 150 period added after “for it”</li> -<li>Pg 152 period added after “statesmanship”</li> -<li>Pg 156 period added after “surroundings”</li> -<li>Pg 167 “inadmissable” changed to “inadmissible”</li> -<li>Pg 168 “attentuated” changed to “attenuated”</li> -<li>Pg 182 comma added after “<i>a priori</i> logic”</li> -<li>Pg 183 “economic of political” changed to “economic or political”</li> -<li>Pg 198 “socialogical” changed to “sociological”</li> -<li>Pg 199 “develope” changed to “develop”</li> -<li>Pg 209 period added after “kind”</li> -<li>Pg 218 “to-wards” changed to “towards”</li> -<li>Pg 202 “employées” changed to “employés”</li> -<li>Pg 225 “artizans” changed to “artisans”</li> -<li>Pg 230 comma changed to period after “Gold”</li> -</ul> -</div> -<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GLADSTONIAN GHOSTS ***</div> -<div style='text-align:left'> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will -be renamed. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. -</div> - -<div style='margin:0.83em 0; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE<br /> -<span style='font-size:smaller'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE<br /> -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</span> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person -or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: -</div> - -<blockquote> - <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most - other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions - whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms - of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online - at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this eBook. - </div> -</blockquote> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: -</div> - -<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'> - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - </div> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread -public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state -visit <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. -</div> - -</div> -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/65915-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/65915-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index e991d5a..0000000 --- a/old/65915-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/65915-h/images/icon.png b/old/65915-h/images/icon.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 19494eb..0000000 --- a/old/65915-h/images/icon.png +++ /dev/null |
