2 10 25 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/64948264688ba2b0d7e751f52e7d586c.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=RLM58tOWl2kRxbK7Nu4BvbHnUfiT-Dr6K3rfEoCkg99ENJTp4wY9XKtJvABbk1XybxphfW2bF6sNQDKrhiICPI2m4PAkKtOfo3lWmCVXtrIgcgBAu3rNAX%7EYD8F8lmPcxWYZDCnk%7EWMb2KATEgRt4ncUTS4Nu89cnXIire2RWL5C1WUHYiVhX4CEUFJTk1Pnruyg39n2f6F40UCEr4fXgchOUtGX2kPom-gqZpgXYvzweKQn40Q76D32fxLQp3S7GYZeDlkIJCl4b6jw6Qb0D4QGwhBxvofNK48jYkHxZSx4M4LpnhZoBVO0LMxtV35q%7E%7EV-BNdl8SEyzuTwYTbf0g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM cd4896b96ce0d732ab4866d4d942ace4 PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY SALADIN THE LITTLE AN EXPOSURE. BY T. EVAN JACOB, B.A. PBICE TWOPSKCE. / äkmbxrn : ROBERT FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER 1887. STREET, E. C. �LONDON : PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY R. EORDER, AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �6 303© ^57| SALADIN THE LITTLE. SALADIN’S MOTIVES EXPOSED. UNION concentrates force and thus becomes strength. As in physical matters so in social and political struggles, he who promotes union paves the way of victory. Down yonder mountain slope those dozen babbling rills skipped and danced for ages : they tripped their way to the sea with sweet music, but without much practical benefit to man. The great engineer perceives in them a source of power ; he unites them ; factories are built on the spot; families obtain food ; the strag­ gling village grows into a town. The music of the rills has lost none of its sweetness, because it is accom­ panied by the merry prattle of childhood ■ their inde­ pendence is gone, but on their grave bloom the lovliest of flowers, domestic peace, domestic plenty, domestic happiness. Union is useful in all things. All parties in Church and State recognise its value. To those who advocate unpopular opinions, who endeavor to expel error and restore truth, who struggle to disperse the mists of pre­ judice and the clouds of bigotry, union is the very breath of life. With it we may do something, without it we are like one of those independent rills, wasting on rocky ears “ the majesty of our prose and the thunder of our poetry,” as we tread our weary way to our long home. We worked hard, early and late ; and is this our reward? Ah! laurels wreathe the victor’s brow. There is no prize for unsuccessful merit. Wouldst thou be useful in thy day and generation ? Sink thy petty independence, fall in like a loyal soldier, and fight to the bitter end. �4 SALADIN THE LITTLE. A. great responsibility attaches to those who would, destroy any union that has been formed for good pur­ poses. They disable others without adding to their own strength ; they clog my carriage wheel, but increase not the velocity of their own waggon. Some there are in our day who think they can redress the grievances of their country by destroying the implements, and mutilating the cattle of their neighbors, as there are those. who endeavor to spread secular principles by pointing out to the enemy some imagined weakness in secular armor. The dastardly crime of the former is great, but insignificant as compared with the dastardly devilry of the latter, just as one weed less in the field of thought is more than ample compensation for a county run wild, and one flower more in the garden of truth outweighs a million times the decrease of exports and fall of revenue. Secularism is unpopular enough. Secularists are the Ishmaels of the age. Our hands are against all pre­ judices and all prejudices are against us. The force of prejudice is. strong; the hosts of prejudice are many. If our little band is to make any headway at all against the foe, it is our bounden duty to unite. The union is ready. It is the work of brave men and women who have devoted themselves to the cause. It is known by the title “ The National Secular Society.” Whatever this society may have left undone, it has, at least, erected a platform from which to attack bigotry, built halls dedicated to the cause of Freethought, and enlisted under its banner many gallant soldiers, who might otherwise be wasting their energies and exhaust­ ing their strength in hopeless struggle against over­ whelming odds. This society it is that has made active and public Freethought propaganda possible in England —a very gratifying and satisfactory result, mainly due, as no honorable man would deny, to the eloquence and, above all, to the indomitable energy of its Presi­ dent. All Secularists and Freethinkers ought to support this society, if only to show their Christian opponents that it is possible to unite in brotherly love without being hammered into shape by blind faith on the anvil of terror. �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 5 But this is not to be. The Freethought party must, it seems, go through the ordeal of schisms and heresies The heretic, in this instance, is one Mr. W. Stewart Ross, an enterprising publisher and bookseller of i arringdon Street, but better known, perhaps, as editor of the Secular Review under the nom de plume of i( Saladin." This gentleman has during the last two years written against this society. His opposition is not that of a philosopher combating error ; that oppo­ sition would have been welcome. There is malice in his every word, resentment and petty pique. Such, criticism can do no good, can be acceptable to none but the enemies of Secular progress. He who plays into, the hands of the enemy, but weakens the cause he pretends to champion. I am not objecting to criticism. As a Freethinker I freely grant to others what I claim for myself. Freedom to think presupposes freedom to speak : without the latter the former would be sheer mockery. Saladin has given himself, plenty of rem. I do not propose to copy his diction or imitate his style. There is no need in the nineteenth century to don the controversial armor of the dark ages. Vitriolic epithets, do not strengthen a proposition ; all they do is to act as a label to the intellectual contents of the individual who uses them. Between Saladin and me there will, be no occasion to use them, as the facts are emphatic ^■What then, are the motives of Saladin’s opposition to the National Secular Society? What the raison d'etre of the heresy which he is at so much pains to christen with his name? I must remind the reader that Saladin professes to be a Secularist, a Freethinker, an Agnostic, etc. His motives should be exceptionally pure In attacking us, a Christian would be allowed more latitude than an Agnostic. To the former every­ thing is fair, for we are his sworn enemies, lhe latter should kindly point out our errors and suggest correc­ tions for he is our friend. Enemies indulge in lies and slander, whereas it is a friend’s holy office to tell thNowJSaladin calls all the members of the National Secular Society Dirtites, Cat-and-ladleites, Know!- �6 SALADIN THE LITTLE. tonites, Malthusians, and other complimentary expres­ sions of similar odor, in the coining of which he enjoys an unenviable notoriety. Whenever I read abusive insulting expressions, I generally conclude that the writer has no case and no confidence. These puerile word-toys are unworthy of a grown-up man. Dirtites indeed ! It were idle to expect sober criticism from such an unbridled tongue. But to go on. The National Secular Society teaches Materialism, Socialism and Malthusianism. These doctrines Saladin hates and detests: they are worse than the Incarnation, the Resurrection and the Atonement. Nay, suppress these horrid opinions, and Saladin would consent to let the Cross stand add the fire of hell burn for ever. This is the odious trinity of his abomination—Materialism, Socialism and Malthusianism ; and the National Secular Society promulgates these vile doctrines—vile Society ! •Does it ? Let us see. In this Society’s Almanac for .lbo7, p. 34, I think that the Principles and Objects of the Society are : Secularism teaches that conduct should be based on reason and knowledge. It knows nothing of divine guidance or intei lei ence : it excludes supernatural hopes and fears; it regards happiness as man’s proper aim, and utility as his moral guide. “ Secularism affirms that Progress is only possible through Liberty, which is at once a right and a duty; and therefore seeks to remove every barrier to the fullest equal freedom of thought, action, and speech. Secularism declares that theology is condemned by reason as superstitious and by experience as mischievous, and assails it as the historic enemy of progress. “ Secularism accordingly seeks to dispel superstition; to spread education; to disestablish religion; to rationalise morality; to promote peace; to dignify labor; to extend material well-being; and to realise the self-government of the people.” Not a word do we find here about Malthusianism, Socialism, or Materialism, but rather a platform on which every honest Freethinker could stand, a flag under which all unselfish Secularists could fight. If Saladin has no reason more valid to offer for his oppo­ sition, he stands condemned out of his own month, �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 7 Saladin has other reasons. The President of the National Secular Society is a Malthusian ; but he is also editor of a Freethought paper, and in that capacity he reviewed a book entitled Elements of Social Science, and expressed his opinion that the book was honest and useful. It should also be stated that this review was written nearly thirty years ago. Why may not the President be a Malthusian, or anything else if he likes, so long as he is a loyal and sincere Secularist ? It is only as a Freethinker that his opinions must not clash with the published principles of the Society over which he presides. On other ques­ tions, more or less intimately connected with Secu­ larism, he, like every other member, has a right to use his private judgment. Indeed, I always thought that the right of private judgment, on all matters whatso­ ever, was the essence of Freethought—that it recognised the government of reason, and not the impostures of faith or the despotism of any individual. But another School of Freethought has arisen in our midst: the fundamental article of its creed has been stolen from the putrefying rags of the Galilean. “ Believe or be damned,” was the old watchword. “ You are free to think but, as I do,” is the badge of this heresy, the chief priest of which is Saladin, who discards the mantle of freedom, for the Nessus-robe of intolerance. Oh 1 Saladin, fie, fie, fie, for shame! A tiger loves his tribe and protects his kind ; but you, a Freethinker, strike your brother Freethinkers and, on the stage of life, for the sake of a little rascal gold, play a traitor’s part. Freethought has come to this. What a deplorable falling off! So with regard to the recommendation of the Ele­ ments of Social Science, the President has a perfect right to recommend the book, if he thinks it a book worthy of being read. Verily it is a memorable book. Its contents cannot be the rubbish that Saladin and his school pretend they are. It has already in England reached its twenty-fifth edition. It is translated into ten modern languages, practically all the languages of the Continent. The French translation has reached its third edition, the Italian its fourth edition, the �8 SALADIN THE LITTLE. German its sixth edition—a proof that this book finds most readers where education is most spread and cul­ ture most general. Scholarly Germany rises up in judgment against Saladin. Mr. G. J. Holyoake recom­ mended the book. It is called “ a blessing to the human race ” by Ernest Jones, a name that will, I ven­ ture to predict, be fondly remembered in England, even when that of Saladin is forgotten. Some of the most eminent organs of the medical profession, both in this country and abroad, are lavish in praise of the treatise. Surely in the face of this cloud of witnesses it behoves Saladin, I will not say, to reconsider his opinion, but to be more tolerant towards those who form a different estimate of that remarkable book to his own. I make this suggestion for Saladin’s good, not to purchase his vote and favor for the Elements. That book has found a place in the literature of Europe, whence Saladin’s sordid criticism and blatant incom­ petence will no more dislodge it, than will a barking cur snatch from the sky the pale autumn moon. An index expurgatorius drawn up by a Freethinker! Nettles on rose bushes ; poison from the grape ; the night of error from the sun of light. The Farringdon School of Freethought usurps the functions of the Holy Office. No Freethinker of that school must read a book that bears not the imprimatur of Saladin. Retro­ gression not progress is the order of the day. The legitimate corallary of suppressing books is to destroy men. When a man’s right to think, read, and write is taken away, the next step is the deprivation of his right to live. The next role for Saladin is that of Torquemada or Bonner. Luckily for him Smithfield is near. I blush for Freethought when I see it draped in the bloody robes of the Inquisition. I am seeking the motives of Saladin’s opposition to the organised Freethought of our day. I have examined those which he publishes with commendable regularity in his journal week after week. But they are pretences, shams—all gas. The views of the President of the National Secular Society on certain questions outside the platform of that society cannot be the cause of Saladin’s inextinguish­ able hatred. There are hundreds and thousands of �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 9 members of this society who are not Malthusians. I am a member of this society, but I am not a Malthusian, not yet, at all events. When, on the other hand, he calls, in sweeping condemnation, all the members of this society Dirtites, because they advocate socialistic and Malthusian principles, he knows that he is telling an untruth and playing the hypocrite. Even if they did, and if Malthusian principles were dirty, it does not lie with Saladin to call them by that name. Sala­ din knows that, none better, in his heart of hearts. I must refresh his memory, for he seems to be burdened with unaccountable forgetfulness. To call the National Secular Society Socialistic and Malthusian is an unpar­ donable misrepresentation, to put it in the mildest possible way. In the Secular Review for 1884, Saladin offers “ to proclaim himself a liar,” if certain charges were proved against him. I shall give him an oppor­ tunity of displaying his honor and love of truth before I have done with him. In an ancient historian, I find that individuals have two sets of motives—one for the public, which is a pre­ tence, the other for themselves, which is real and genuine. The publicly stated motives of Saladin’s opposition I have demonstrated to be untrue, and un­ worthy a Freethinker, even if they were true : these evidently, are the pretended set. Would a man who deals in pretences, who puts forward reasons, for his conduct, which he knows to be false, would that man be called truthful ? I must seek for Saladin’s motives elsewhere. In prosecuting my search, I shall have to lift many a veil which I would fain leave untouched. But Saladin’s cant, hypocrisy, and misrepresentation compel me to do my duty, and I will do it with care, but without malice ; with truth, but without vindic­ tiveness. In the year 1884, Saladin became sole proprietor of the Secular Reviezv, having bought it of Mr. Charles Watts, whom he previously assisted in editing that journal. Then he had an opportunity to examine the financial condition of his investment. That examina­ tion was not one to make him jubilant. The paper was running into debt. A large percentage of the sub­ �10 SALADIN THE LITTLE. scribers were bogus subscribers. This state of things was very distasteful to Saladin’s Scottish shrewdness. If it were possible for him to worship a god, that God would be money. An admirer of Saladin’s goes so far as to say that the editor of the Secular Review cares nothing for Freethought, except in so far as it brings grist to the mill. The written statement of this gen­ tleman is quoted in extenso in the Secular Revieiv without a shadow of an editorial note to repudiate such base, sordid motives. Weary and disheartening must those weeks and months of deficit have been to Saladin. There he was laboring like a giant without being able to earn literary salt. Week after week, he was turning out of his intellectual workshop, leaders and essays and rhyme that shook the great white throne, carried dis­ may throughout the length and breadth of heaven, and made the hierarchies of earth totter to their base, but the inhabitants of England, thankless crew, would not buy the Secular Revieiv, would not support and encourage the greatest writer of the nineteenth century. His efforts were Titanic, his remuneration considerably less than zero. Were it not for the honor of his name, and the glory of his dear Scotland, he would have washed his hands of English Freethinkers and locked up the Agnostic Restaurant in which he figured as caterer, carver, and customer, without a rival or companion. The game was not worth a rushlight and the Free­ thinkers of England were unworthy of him. If the Secular Revieiv was to pay, it must seek buyers outside English Freethought. Saladin’s shrewdness soon saw this. How to extend the market of the Secular Review became henceforth the subject which engrossed Sala­ din’s thoughts. An accident helped him, as unexpected as it was gratifying. Within a hundred miles of the Cotswolds lives (and long may he live !) a venerable and munificent gentleman, who is nothing . if. not original. He conceived the bold scheme of building a Secular school, and has had the courage to carry it out. Now, under the roof of this noble-minded man lives a noble-minded lady, whom to see is to esteem, who has devoted herself absolutely to the cause of Freethought. �SALADIN THE LITTLE, 11 This lady was commissioned by the daring reformer to put herself in communication with some of the leaders of the party, with a view to start the school, he him­ self not wishing to figure publicly or prominently in the administration of the institution, for he is a benefactor of the unobtrusive, unassuming kind, whose delight it is to do good, and who find their great reward in the happiness of others, not in the nauseous eulogy of flatterers. The lady obeyed. She had been for years a reader of the Secular Review. She entertained, and still entertains, a high opinion of Mr. Charles Watts, while she regards with special esteem that gentleman’s gifted wife. Mr. Watts’s connection with the Secular Review had, she was at the time aware, been severed, but she was loyal to the organ which she had been so long in the habit of reading. She went to hunt up the present editor of that journal. She paid him a visit. That visit changed the course of Saladin’s boat, and explains the otherwise unaccountable metamorphosis of the man. After the first intoxication of success was over, he reviewed his position and prospects in the light of the great honor he had received. The first Secular School in England had been made over to him by deed of gift. Was not that something to be proud of ? Who said that Saladin’s services to Freethought were not recognised ? Behold a proof to the contrary —a very tangible proof too in the shape of a substantial building and a respectable plot of ground, together with many other delights and enjoyments that the world wots not of. Modesty is not a foible of Saladin’s. The world ought to know how nobly he has been paid for his “ pencraft.” The world shall know it. A golden image is set up in Farringdon Street to com­ memorate the event, while Saladin and his/satellites in the Secular Revieiv crow the song of triumph, the strutting pæan of petty pride, cock-a-doodle-doo ! cocka-doodle-doo ! cock-a-doodle doo ! That visit did it for Saladin—fed his vanity. He could now claim recognition at the hands of English Freethinkers. Was it not he who was selected to be the proud trustee of this splendid bequest, an Agnostic school whence all gods were banished except �12 SaLADIN the little. Saladin ? But alas lie has never made it known that his co-trustee was a Christian. Did this trouble him ? Not in the least. And what has been the result to Freethought of the possession of this school ? How many boys has it educated into Agnosticism ? Has it ever been full ? Never, notwithstanding assertions to the contrary. In the current issue of the Secular Review is an advertisement “that there are a few vacancies for Young Gentlemen as boarders. And what has been the cost ? In the course of the. lunacy inquiry, the other day, on poor Mr. Bullock, it came out that he paid into the London and Westminster Bank, on June 28, 1884, the sum of £900 to the account of Saladin and his Christian co-trustee. This was for three years expenses ; but in September, 1885, another £300 was applied for and eventually obtained. For the manner in which Saladin obtained two other sums of ¿£600 each as loans, and two cheques for ¿£8,000 and and £5,000 as gifts, from Mr. Bullock, see Gloucester Chronicle of Dec. 11, 1886. It was time to assert this claim. The object of his fond dreams was within his reach. But there was a leader in the field whom the party did not at all desire to abandon. What of that? Would not Christian England rejoice at any attacks made on this man, whom she hated for his ability, and detested for his influence ? She would not too nicely examine the source of the attacks, or the motives of the aggressor, so but the attacks be violent. Saladin will oblige Christian England. He launches on the unnatural crusade against the veteran Freethinker, he a raw recruit of thirty-five weeks’ standing, against him a trained warrior, grey with the burden of thirtyfive years of meritorious service. Ye gods, what a spectacle for the world ! One Lilliput shooting needle arrows at Captain Gulliver! That visit spoiled Saladin —puffed him with presumption * And the Secular Review, can it not be made to pay now ? Is there no means of converting the deficit into * Even the alleged insult of the Building Society is now admitted to be deserved. There was some foundation for it after all, as is admitted, in self-righteous indignation, by Saladin in the ¡Secular Review foi Nov. 7, 188G. Why did not Saladin admit this before? �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 13 a surplus ? What is the good of prestige, of renown and unrivalled genius if, in this free England of the nineteenth century, all these advantages and gifts cannot make a paper pay ? Saladin will make a good bid for success by smashing gods, if smashing gods will yield a revenue ; if not, by smashing anything. God-breaking, after Saladin’s fashion, was not profit­ able : the people of England were too obtuse to grasp the meaning of this celestial genius, whose writings carried terror to Paradise but created no sensation on this planet. He will attack the National Secular Society, which has never wronged him ; he will throw as much mud as he can on thè President of that Society, in the fond hope that some of’ it may stick ? Not at all, that for his mud-throwing he may earn a penny and keep the mud-mill going. Of course, in attacking the Pre­ sident of the National Secular Society, Saladin is still attacking a god. In the National Reformer, Nov. 21, 1875, p. 327, Saladin writes thus : “ And Theists, if you’ll have a god, Hail one where Bradlaugh stands.” And “ Assail us as we rank around The hero of our choice.”* His success in attacking this god is measured by the good old golden standard, far more decisive than the thunder of his declamation and the light­ ning flashes of his wit, against the gods of Sinai and Calvary. The Secular Review is floated ; Christian purses contribute to repair its timbers and patch its storm-rent sails. The Christian Evidence Society is one of its largest purchasers, and its lecturers and emissaries take good care that it is well advertised. Without breaking entirely with his Agnosticism he must, however, humor and indulge this generous Society. The articles which they so freely circulate are vile personalities, contemptible slanders, blatant vitu* It is only fair to state that this Saladinesque rhodomontade was inserted in the National Reformer by Saladin’s then friend Mr. C Watts, during Mr. Bradlaugh’s absence in America. �14 SALADIN THE LITTLE. peration and splendid indignation. Just the field in n • Saladin has no rival, and long may the field be all his own ! So, in order to keep his customers, Saladin has to attend the literary market as a sandwichman, hawking his wares. He carries two boards ; on the front one is written : “ ‘ A Terrible Attack on the irtites . ‘The Death Agony of the National Secular Society ! All by Saladin. Price twopence. Only twopence for a work of art.” On the other board this legend is inscribed : “ ‘ Sarai’s Petticoat on Sale !’ ‘ A k °J-JeSU-n *n Vomit!’ Two withering satires by Saladin. Price twopence ; only twopence. Worth a guinea each.” He has to wear a reversible coat, the one side Calvary cloth, the other Agnostic tweed. A disgrace, this, that to an honorable man is worse than literary death ; but Saladin recks it not. Has he not increased the circulation of the Secular Review ? The journal, which two or three years ago was all but dead, now circulates “ from the rosy cradle of the dawn to the western chambers of the sun.” That visit wrecked Saladin : it made him a lover of filthy lucre. Such is the. Farringdon school of Freethought of which Saladin is the apostle and hierophant in chief. It was founded by Envy and Jealousy ; it is supported by Slander and Personalities ; it is administered by sordid meanness and unblushing Hypocrisy. Sham, Pretence, Humbug and Cant are the leading professors. The secretary is crass Ignorance. SALADIN’S QUALIFICATIONS TO LEAD EXAMINED. What are Saladin s qualifications to lead ? I have asked a most impious question. Who can be igno­ rant of Saladin’s claims ? Are they not much better known than Paul’s and more universally acknowledged than Churchill’s ? Are they not printed every week in the Secular Review, a journal that circulates “ from the rosy,cradle of the dawn to the western chambers of the sun ” ? Are they not vouched for by independent ad­ mirers, whose number is legion, and whose testimony �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 15 may be represented by X, or better still by 0 ? too, true, alas! Yet I would fain catalogue his titles for the sake of any stray ignoramus to whom the Secular Revieiv may be a sealed book. Saladin is a man of imposing birth, the greatest writer since the death of Homer, a profound metaphy­ sician, a stirring poet, a consummate scholar. Saladin is a gentleman sans peur et sans reproche; a man who lives for a cause, not self ; truthful and truth-loving as Epaminondas ; a man of spotless honor, the preacher of a lofty morality. Such is Saladin as painted by his friends and admirers. Beautiful picture ! I must ex­ amine it more closely. txt-j-k •+ Oh! fame is a soothing balm for all sores, with it for a blanket one could lie easy and contented on a bed of thorns. How happy must Saladin be with this com­ panion ! Biographies of him have issued from the press ; then came reviews of the life story, followed in turn by correspondence on the reviews, so that Prince Bismarck is not “in it” with him. No wonder, for the chancellor of “ blood and iron ” is only the son of a poor German nobleman, while Saladin, through the yielding virtue of two of his female ancestors, claims descent from the most royal of Scotland s kings and the most gifted of Scotland’s bards. I do not blame or * reproach these dear old souls. Their blacksliding is a proof that they were daughters of Eve. The tempta­ tion was terrible, but, (rest the turf lightly on their immortal breasts!) great was their reward, for out of their weakness sprung Saladin, in whom there is no guile, who knows not sin. Saladin wields a powerful pen. His prose is racy and vigorous, but with a tendency to be prolix. In some of his verses there is the verve and go of genuine poetry, though he writes too often in blood. His judg­ ment is sadly at fault, as his idea of literary art is very confused. Insult is not wit; farcical vulgarity is not humor ; vituperation is not satire ; personalities are not the essence of sarcasm. In Saladin’s writings these terms are considered synonymous. See Life of Saladin, by Hithersay and Ernest. �16 SALADIN THE LITTLE. He may be a great metaphysician, but I do not re­ member having read many of his writings in that line. Since I have been a reader of the Secular Review, Saladin has confined himself, for the most part, to theology and historical criticism. One thing, however, strikes me as being remarkable. Saladin professes to be an Agnostic. Agnostics maintain that there are certain questions to which the only legitimate answer man can give is, “I do not know.” The origin of the world is such a question, and yet Saladin affirms that * the base of the universe is psychic not somatic. This may be a profound ontological fact, but it is not Agnosticism. At all events, metaphysicians, dealing as they do with general propositions, are not dis­ tinguished for accuracy in details. Miniature is their abhorrence : hence they are, generally speaking, failures as scholars. This metaphysical turn of mind may ex­ plain the villainous state of Saladin’s scholarship. I am aware that to question his scholarship will, in some quarters, be deemed as absurd as to deny the rotundity of the earth, or as blasphemous as to rob Jesus of his divinity. What is scholarship ? Precision, elegance, accuracy. Saladin lacks these qualities and is accordingly, not entitled to the name of scholar. He is very strong on one point—spelling: so are the pupils in our Board Schools. An error in spelling he detects at once, and makes no allowance for slips of pen, hasty writing or anything whatever. Now to spell correctly is good, and desirable, but it is sheer memory. A bad speller might write excellent sentiments. Correct spelling is not, necessarily, a mark of scholarship. But even here Saladin fails. Even in Orthography he is at sea. In recent numbers of the Secular Review, under the head­ ings “At Random” and “Editorial Notes” I have seen these gross blunders—freizes for friezes ; Belgiae for Belgae ; Germanies for G-ermani; scaribaeus for scarabiBus, Sephor for Sepher ; Tishreden for Tischreden. But enough of this. It is below criticism, but as it is the height of Saladin’s scholarship, I am compelled to descend to his level and learn the art of sinking. See Secular Review, June 28, 1884. �SALADIN THE LITTLE. J7 The editor of the Secular Review professes to bevery strong on languages- Has he not had an Academic education ? French, German, Latin, Greek and Hebrew, he has them on his finger’s ends. As specimens of his knowledge of French we have savans.. But unfortunately there is no such word in that language. Chacun a son gout, is a favorite quotation of Saladin’s ; a scholar would write gout. He speaks of the possibility of Jesus standing to Joseph in the re­ lation of filles héritières. I have read a little about Jesus, and have had him presented to me in different lights, but to Saladin belongs the credit of making him a girl. He wishes a correspondent to hold his tongue, he conveys the polite hint in French, tachez vous which means, “ to defile.” Saladin would be a guide in French of questionable value. In the limited portion of the Secular Review which I have examined for the purpose of this paper, Saladin has, as far as I am aware, only once shown his acquaint­ ance with German. He refers to Luther’s Table Talk? * under its German title of course, and calls it Tishreden for Tischreden. His first German coin is a counter­ feit. In Greek, his scholarship is likewise of the super­ ficial and slovenly kind, crude as a child’s first pic­ torial attempts. He writes mra gpofirj instead of -n-âcra ypa^g. Quoting the famous oracle in Herodotus, he makes it untranslateable by introducing the word Sia^as, which is not only nonsense but not Greek even.f His Latin quotations are more numerous and, natu­ rally, the crop of blunders is in this field more luxuriant.. * The reader will please observe that I have only read the itali­ cised quotations in the Secular Review. Had I made a more thorough investigation of it, I could fill a large pamphlet with the editor’s mis­ takes and blunders. In fact I have never read an article of Saladin’s without detecting in it gross errors, if he dares to push out, ever so little, from the shallows of declamation. Even Saladin is safe on that plank—the refuge of sciolism. f He talks in one number of his journal thus: “The positive ovTos of no law of nature is known.” What is orros ? This sen­ tence is philosophy, or rather was intended to be such, but ovtoç' knocked it into nonsense. �18 SALADIN THE LITTLE. He has discovered a new plural for Calebs, which he spells Coelebses instead of Coelebes. He quotes from Augustine this sentence: “ Quid est enim pejor, mors animae quam libertas erroris.” Now, elegant classical Latinity is not a strong point of this saint; but assuredly he knew the elementary laws of the Latin language—how, for instance, and to what extent the adjective agrees with the noun. He could not but be aware that words are used to convey to others his mean­ ing.. In the same quotation the great Augustine is made to violate the rules of accidence, syntax and sense. But Augustine could never write such arrant nonsense. It is to the pen of the scholarly Saladin that the world is indebted for this linguistic puzzle, and the world will estimate the Latinity of the editor of the Secular Review at its market value—considerably less than nothing. The man who palms such impostures on the people, and complacently regards them as the offspring of a ripe and mature scholarship, ought to sail to Anticyra. He, more than once, in his journal puts to the * discredit of Wetstein the following barbarism—“tota haec oratio ex formulis Habraeorum consinnata est.” In Latin is no word consinnata. Wetstein was a scholar, and it is a cause of pain to see his works thus defiled. Saladin more than once quotes from a certain “ Henricus Seynensis.” There is no such name in the catalogues of the British Museum. There is no word in the Atlases I have consulted from which could be formed the appellative Seynensis. There was a Hen­ ricus de Senesis, and he might be called SenensisA * See Secular Review, March 22, 1884, and Oct. 23, 1886. Saladin’s scholarship has not improved during this period. Apparently he does not cut new ground in his reading, the bulk of many “ At Randoms” which, as they issue in 1886, held Civilisation spell­ bound, having appeared a couple of years before. The Book of God, which threatens to exceed the Bible in length and depth, may be patched together from the Secular Review of 1884. Saladin moves like a planet in a certain orbit, save when he quotes foreign or dead languages: then he is most erratic. t Mrs. A. R. Wilkie “ shares,” we are told, “ with the editor of the Secular Review much of the perferidwm Scotorum.” Whatever is perferidum ? What does it mean ? What can be the meaning of this conundrum ? I should like to know what it is that Mrs, A. R. Wilkie shares with Saladin. Not scholarship, I hope. �SALADIN THE LITTLE. In Hebrew he commits wild vagaries. 19 Inspiration is said to be the work of ro . I don’t think there is in the Hebrew language a word HO- What Saladin intended to write was J . Q * I am able to correct his blunder here because he has been kind enough to state to his readers in intelligible English what he managed to conceal in his, but nobody else’s, Hebrew. In the same number of the journal he transcribes two speci­ mens of Semitic printing : one he calls Chaldean, the letters being curved and rounded ; the other is named real Hebrew, in which the characters are rectangular. He wants his readers “ to form some idea of the wide difference ” between the two specimens. * There is no real difference : the letters are the same, the manner of writing being different. He wants his readers to believe that the second specimen is later than the first. This is absurd. It requires more skill to make round and curved strokes than to make straight lines. The shape of the characters or the manner of writing, is the chief criterion in deciding the age of manuscripts. Saladin is ignorant of this fact, having spent too much of his time in spelling. At the foot of the same page he gives a word-for-word translation of Gen. i., 1, from the Hebrew. This translation shows that Saladin has no knowledge whatever of the language. The word eth he renders by them, as though it was a demonstra­ tive pronoun, qualifying gods. It is nothing of the kind. In itself eth has no meaning. It only shows that the word to which it is attached is not in the nominative case. Therefore the word here cannot be taken with gods, because gods is the nominative case. No scholar before Saladin took it in that way. This is the man that poses before the world as the scholar par excellence of English Freethought. I may be told that the knowledge of languages is not essential to a public teacher. I quite agree. I am of opinion that no good or useful purpose is served by lugging * Why did not Saladin print the same passage in the two styles ? Why select Deut. iv., 1,2, to represent Specimen No. 1, but Gen. i., 1, to represent No. 2? See Secular Review, March 6, 1886. �20 SALADIN THE LITTLE. quotations from foreign and dead languages into jour­ nals which are to be read by the people, of whom ninety-nine per cent, know nothing about those lan­ guages. If, however, they are made, then, for the honor of Freethought, let them be accurate. Saladin’s quotations do not reflect much credit on his readers or himself. The intelligence of the former must be very low to be satisfied with such rubbish, and Saladin must know this, otherwise he would never have dared to insult them with words that never were used, and sen­ tences without a meaning. Of the languages he so often quotes, Saladin knows nothing or next to nothing. He cannot translate easy passages from them into Eng­ lish, not even with the aid of a grammar and a dic­ tionary. As to .Hebrew he cannot read it. But he was taught these things at a celebrated university. Then he is no credit to his teachers. Education seems to have had on Saladin the same effect as inspiration had on the writers of Israel: it leads him from, not to, truth. Let us leave language and try other fields. He does not know the names of the two sects of Islam ; at least he calls, one of them Shites. I have already pointed out his ignorance on the evolution of writing. It was Saladin that wrote the following gem:—“ The two angles at the base of an isosceles triangle are equal to two right angles.” This language is very unscientific, as the geometry is outrageous. A boy in the sixth standard at a Board School would smart for this blunder. So it matters not into what fields of knowledge Saladin may go, one companion always follows, never deserts, his great patron—that faithful attendant of Saladin is ig­ * norance. .A ludicrous instance of Saladin’s literary knowledge and historical attainments, or want of them, is furnished by him in the A R. of Jan. 15, 1887. In answer to a correspondent and with a view to adver­ tise his patch-work book he speaks of only four copies of the Bordeaux New Testament being known to exist in England. After stating where three of these are he says “ the fourth is in the possession of the Duke of Sussex. It is to the latter copy that God and his Book is indebted.” Is it a fact then that Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, is still in the flesh, and is it a fiction that he was buried at Kensal Green in 1843 at the age of 70? Or is the matter explainable on the ground that �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 21 I admire the scholar and his impersonal existence, ■who hates error as he hates poison, to whom truth is the very bread of life, who carries his honors meekly ’ and unostentatiously, who entertains a special affection for two classes of men, those who excel.him m know­ ledge, and those who detect errors in his works. Oh. how I admire the scholar. But Saladin is not a scholar. He decks him in tawdry tinsel to catch the ears of the mob ; he has not the gold of scholarship, but the dross of pedantry ; he wears arms which he cannot use ; He never was in the temple of knowledge—what he.knows of the service he picked up from the conversations ot the wise. He dons the plumes of the bird of knowledge, but under them are the feathers of the crow. Let him return to his rookery. In the name of all that is sacred, let him prostitute no longer the scholar s holy name, no longer degrade the holy cause of breeSaladin lives for the cause not self. Does he ?. This would cover a multitude of sins. In my opinion, it would sponge away every blemish. He has been re­ solving plans of great pith, to be carried out m the West of England, when a certain auspicious event hap­ pened. There was a house to buy, lands to cultivate, and money to be made. Are commerce and convey­ ancing, Freethought? Is this the cause for . which Saladin lives ? He would have nothing to do with the Secular School unless he had absolute control of the money. If there was any objection on this point, at head-quarters, he would require a salary for doing secretarial work. If the salary offered were satisfactory, he would accept it, if not, he would sever his con­ nection with the institution. What about the cause for which he lives ? It is to be hoped that, he will re­ consider his decision, for if Saladin leaves, it, the school will soon die out, and this would be a serious blow to Freethought, the cause for which he lives. The generous founder of the School will, I have no doubt, humor Saladin’s seeming selfishness, and secure his ' Saladin stole the whole of the paragraph from a controversial journal of fifty years ago when the Radical Duke was living ? O Saladin, Saladin �22 SALADIN THE LITTLE. powerful aid, to carry on the school, by Hiving him absolute control of the endowment fund. Some of the money will, of course, be spent in buying- a mansion, close to the school which will be very will be° VvST Wiih c Seaside ^pensel will be avoided and Saladin rendered stronger and stronger to battle for the cause-stronger aid stronger m pocket. Some of the money will be required grapes t0 send t0 “arket Is this Freethought ? Perhaps not. But it will be the means of securing Saladin’s co-operation. Is this then the cause for which Saladin lives? Aye, and the only cause he has ever lived for. Does not living for thevX ,he/ois^ ? dt does- And heroes, are they not few and far between ? They are. But there are millions of heroes who live for their cause after S^Limanner KSaladin- This is the measure of ' He UVeS &r the °aU8e’ and Saladin zs a gentleman, a man of truth. He calls his opponents, some of whom are as good as he, irtites and Squirtites. All clergymen and mini­ sters, many of whom are men of culture and in­ tegrity, he names Beetles and Holy Wastrels The manners of a gentleman are not these. Saladin must ave picked up his ideas of a gentleman from a social Yahoo the head master of which was a Thug or a In his journal for July 3, 1886, Saladin says that Peter Agate is not a Christian, while in October 31, lobb, weare told that the same gentleman had found Jesus Which is true ? The founder of the Secular School handed it over to Saladin by a deed of gift because, it is written, he was an admirer of “At . andom. That is not true. A correspondent is informed that the school is full. At the time of writing that statement was not true, never has been . he fact is, the school will not fill—the cause of which is obvious ; and many are the dodges to which anS Zf1S P+lagrn?£«AAS written before the bubble burst on Dec. 7th, stand £13’°00 WaS °rdered t0 be Siven UP- Bnt I let it �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 23 Saladin resorts in order to have a large number of boys on the books—the motive for which is manifest. In various numbers of his journal he declares that he attacks a certain society because of its principles. In­ engaging a gentleman, once upon a time to fill a post of which he is the patron, Saladin informed that gentleman what salary was paid to his predecessor. But he didn’t tell the truth, committing that sin tor which Ananias suffered death. And yet Saladin is.a man of truth and he can permit himself to write of his own “ sterling sincerity and inviolable honesty. It is easy to write oneself a saint. . Saladin is a man of honor. One of his contributors thanks him for a suggestive word. Saladin accepts the compliment, though the credit, whatever it is, of com­ ing that word was not his. All that comes into Sala­ din’s net is fish. He wanted a translation of some Latin extracts that appeared in his journal. Unable to do it himself, he applied to a friend who had the trouble of doing the work, while Saladin pocketed the money, for he sold the translation for a guinea, nor offered a penny of it to the translator. Saladin falls fo.u o nearly every one whom he comes in contact with, if that person dare differ from the editor of the Secular Review. Mr. Charles Watts, Dr. Lewins, and Lara have all been scourged by him. Lara is, at one time, his second self, and highly honored. Lara deserved the honor, for he was, without doubt, by far the ablest writer on the journal. But in Oct. 1885 Saladin throws him overboard, and, coward-like, stabs him as. he falls. In a recent issue, Lara is again praised to the skies. Men of honor are consistent. But Saladin s honor is a very Proteus. Mr. Bradlaugh is generally regarded as a man of ability. Opponents recognise his intellectual power. The Lord Chief Justice of England—no mean judge— has paid many a tribute to his eloquence .and know­ ledge. Saladin himself some years ago hailed him as a hero and a God. But now he goes back on his formei convictions and, out of malice ■which, he has been long and tenderly nursing, he vilifies this gentleman in * * Saladin did not quarrel with Mr. Bradlaugh as he states, because the latter had insulted him. I have often heard Saladin declare that �24 SALADIN THE LITTLE. language that would have discredited a bargee and been considered improper in the purlieus of Seven Dials. And yet Saladin is an honorable man. It dishonor mteresting to know . Saladin’s definition of ?.es^ sPe°imen °f his honor is this. He attacks e National Secular Society week after week, in that beautiful language of elegant filth of which he is a b.e<^use that Society is Malthusian, Socialis­ tic and Materialistic ? I have proved that it is not so. Because the President of that Society is Mr. C. Brad­ laugh, his god and hero in 1875 ? That’s it. To remove refer t0 Aug. M, 1886, where you will find the real reason of Saladin s animosity and rancor stated by himself in a moment of impetuous forgetfulness. After stating that he fancied he had been insulted by Mr. Bradlaugh ; that if he were wrong he would be glad to have his error pointed out to him ; that he is a man of forgiving disposition; that he had been for a long time expecting an apology ; Saladin ruefully declares that no apologv was made, and then adds, sighing from the bottom of his wounded heart: “ Am I too insignificant a person to apologise to, however much my feelings may be wounded. That long-expected apology never came. Saladin was thought an insignificant person. Hine ' illce lacrimce. This man, the soul of honor, and essence of truth, attacks a certain Society, not because he has any quarrel with that Society, but because the President of the same considers him an insignificant person. He grossly slanders thousands of honest people who never wronged him, because the President of the National Secular Society answers his buffoonery with sueuce He calumniates a whole party to feed fat the grudge he bears to the leader of that party, because that leader holds him to be insignificant, who can “ with his pen and ever-increasing influence of his journal make the strongest man in Europe wince.” And Saladin is a man of honor, a gentleman sans peur et sans reproche. . , he had been long-watching for an opportunity to attack the “ god ” of his earlier years. Such people do not watch in vain. �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 25 Then, in that number of his journal from which I quoted above, he holds out a promise that if an apology (of course, Saladin calls it amende honorable) be made to him, he will sheathe his sword and help to build up the breaches in the ramparts of Freethought, breaches that are entirely due to his rancorous spleen and in­ ordinate vanity. Impudent cynicism never penned a more audacious proposal. Week after week, month by month, and year after year, Saladin has been most shamefully attacking a certain society which, on his own showing, never wronged him, and which, to my knowledge, is morally and intellectually his superior. Now he promises that, if the President of this Society will be kind enough to notice him, and gracious enough to remove the stigma of insignificance from him, he will bury the hatchet. Mr. Bradlaugh is perfectly at liberty, and is certain, to act as he thinks fit. But what amends does Saladin propose to make to the innocent Society he has so foully calumniated ? There are words and deeds which an apology cannot blot from the memory. For Saladin’s insults there is no amende. Take a plebiscite of the National Secular Society : the verdict would be—“ Leave Saladin alone in his insult­ ing insignificance. Let us have no commerce with the man. His insolence is colossal, exceeded only by his ignorance.” This is the code of honor which is •observed by Saladin, the apostle of a pure cult, the priest of a spotless Freethought. May English Freethought never adopt this horrid code, written by the pen of malice, with the ink of petulance, on the paper of dirty insignificance. Saladin is the preacher of lofty morality. Is he ? And does he act up to the height of his doctrine ? That is the test of moral excellence. It is possible to have three kinds of moral teachers. There are those who tell others to do what they themselves neither practise nor believe—the loaf-disciples and hypocrites and blood-sucking parasites of creeds and creedless societies ; their name is legion. Next we have those splendid souls, who by word and deed do all they can to lift humanity from the misery of its environment, without for a moment forgetting that they are frail; �26 SALADIN THE LITTLE. that they fall far short of the high standard they haveintroduced into the world ; that it is easier “ to show twenty what were good to be done than be one of the twenty to follow their own instruction that, in a word, they are men. In this class are to be placed the greatest reformers of the world, humanity’s very gods,, from Jean Jacques Rousseau to Sakya Muni. The pen of the former trembled, his heart rebelled, as he reflected on the vast distance between the ideal and the actual. Honor him for an honest man—a very rose-plant indeed. Buddha, “ the best friend of man,” requested his apostles, the “ army of beggars,” to per­ form one miracle and one only—to confess their sins before the people. A miracle ! aye, a million times more stupendous than the raising of the dead to life. To tell the truth is a trite advice, but oh ! how few take it and carry it out in life! The third class of moral teachers is made up of those who practise what they preach. This class had never a representativeuntil these latter days. Even now there is in it but one man—Saladin. Hail him, Freethinkers of the universe. He is purer than Francis of Assizi, holier than Gautama, more sinless than Jesus. There never has been such a champion of conjugal' purity as Saladin. To him marriage is an inviolable contract. The keeping of this contract often entails unhappiness, begets troubles and quarrels, sometimes ends in suicide or murder, or both. “ Never mind,” says Saladin, “ nothing can justify a breach of this con­ tract.” Admirable this. Glendower can call spirits from the vasty deep. Will they come ? is Hotspur’s pertinent query. Does Saladin honorably perform his part of this inviolable contract ? Does not his pen, like Rousseau’s, tremble when he preaches his ideal evangel ? Rebels not his heart now and then ? Rises not his memory against him, to point out the places and fix the dates of his backsliding ? Oh! Saladin, oh ! Saladin, you are shod with hypocrisy and mantled in catchpenny cant. It pains me to expose your faults —for you are a Freethinker. I waited long to see if you would descend from your lip morality, and appear as a man among your fellow men. In vain. You con­ �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 27 tinue to shoot your envenomed arrows from your castle of humbug. You spare nobody to gratify your spleen and rancor : in the interests of truth I must refresh you memory. I know how you propagate the cause of Freethought— by attacking your comrades. I should like to know how you observe the marriage contract. Have you the courage of Buddha, as you have more than his holi­ ness ? Dare you tell the world how you keep the inviolable contract ? I care not to enter more fully into this matter, nor would I now touch on it, but for your inexplicable hypocrisy. I am not given to pick out the faults and slips of any man or woman. Scandal-mongering is not in my line. I kpow that you are a man and must have your weaknesses. Pray remember this fact. Do not throw the mantle of dissimulation over your humanity. Do not say that you are above hawking your genius for filthy lucre while, at the same time, you write elegies over the death of your child and trade on a father’s sacred grief at a penny per copy. Confess that you are a man. If you cannot rise to this heroic level, at least cease to throw dirt on people who are as pure and sinful as yourself. Such is the real Saladin that aspires to lead the Free­ thinkers of England. He has immortalised himself as the founder of a heresy on original foundations. The heretics of the past revolted, from love of truth, he rebels from vanity. He proclaims the purity of his motives, because nobody else would or could. He claims to be a scholar, much in the same way as an inflated bladder claims to be full of matter. He parades his tastes and gentlemanly manners : if he speak true, there is only one gentleman in the world, and that makes one too many. He is a man of honor and calumniates a party from jealousy of the President of that party. He is a man of truth, and tells lies because people will persist in considering him small. He lives for a cause, and that cause is self. He is the one sinless progeny of eternity, but his holiness resides in his tongue and pen, not in his life and conduct. He prostitutes a great historic name. Saladin was a syno­ �28 SALADIN THE LITTLE. nym of heroic valor and loyal chivalry, until Mr. Stewart Ross assumed it. Whosoever will raise such a man to the place of leader, let him by all means. If there be anybody desirous of rallying round such an intellectual and moral composite, let him by all means. But English Freethinkers, ye who criticise principles and not per­ sons, shun him like poison. His teaching will spoil you. Ye who seek truth and are not ashamed of your humanity, avoid this man, before he contaminates your better nature and converts you into automatic com pounds of vanity and hypocrisy like unto himself. Any party, save English Freethought, is welcome to such a leader. �CATALOGUE of WORKS SOLD BY ROBERT FORDER, 28 Stonecutter Street, Farringdon Road, London, E.C. ALLBUTT, H. A., M.R.G.P.E., L.8.A. The Wife’s Handbook : How a Woman should order herself during Pregnancy, in the Lying-in Room, and after Delivery. With Hints on Important Matters necessary to be known by Married Women. In paper covers ... In cloth ... - 0 0 6 0 AVELING, E. B., D.Sc. Theoretical and Praotical General Biology. Cloth - - The Student’s Darwin. Cloth - - -20 -50 ANONYMOUS The Gospel History and Doctrinal Teachings Critically Examined. By the Author of “ Mankind, their Origin and Destiny.” Published at 10s. 6d. Reduced to-20 An invaluable work to the Freethinker, showing how, when and where the Canon of the Testament was formed. A Voice from the Ganges ; or the True Source of Christianity. Paper covers, Is. Cloth - 1 (> �‘ t ) BESANT, ANNIE Autobiographical Sketches, with Cabinet Photo­ . _ . 4 o A Vade Mecum for Liberationists. Cloth . _ -10 Marriage as it Was, as it Is, and as it Should Be. Cloth _ . _ -10 My Path to Atheism. Cloth .40 Boots of Christianity ; or, The Christian Religion Before Christ . „ -06 The Law of Population . *-06 God’s Views on Marriage ---02 Is the Bible Indictable ? _ 0 2 What is the Use of Prayer ? 0 1 The Myth of the Besurrection 0 1 Fruits of Christianity 0 2 Free Trade v. Fair Trade -06 graph. Cloth - . Disestablish the Church. BRADLAUGH, CHARLES Genesis : Its Authorship and Authenticity. Cloth - . . _ . -50 Impeachment of House of Brunswick Perpetual Pensions Jesus, Shelley and Malthus. An Essay on the - Population Question - 1 - 1 0 0 2 0 2 Plea for Atheism 0 3 Is There a God ? . 0 1 Who was Jesus Christ? 0 1 What did Jesus Teach? -01 A Few Words about the Devil ? o i. Were Adam and Eve our First Parents? 0 1 Lives of Jacob, Jonah, Moses and Abraham. - _ . _ _ - - - . . . . . . . 0 1 0 2 o 1 0 1 Mind Considered as a Bodily Function - 0 Each Life of David The Atonement Twelve Apostles - BRADLAUGH, MISS 1 �( 3 ) BUCHNER, PROFESSOR LUDWIG, M.D. TWind in Animals. Cloth - Translated by Annie Besant. -50 The Influence of Heredity on Free Will 0 2 - COOPER, ROBERT The Holy Scriptures Analysed - - -06 - - DRYSDALE, C. R., M.D. The Population Question - - 1 0 DEBATES Christianity or Secularism : Which is True ? Four Nights, between Mr. G. W. Foote and the Rev. Dr. McCann. Paper covers, Is. Cloth -16 The Jesus of the Gospels. Two Nights, between Mrs. A. Besant and the Rev. A. Hatchard 1 0 0. Bradlaugh and Rev. Dr. Baylee, Mr. Thomas Cooper and Rev. A. G. Harrison, 6d. each ; and with the Rev. W. M. Westerby, on “ Has Man a Soul ?” Is. FOOTE, G. W. Prisoner for Blasphemy. Being a Full History of the Author’s Prosecution, Trials and Imprisonment for Blasphemy. Cheap edition, Is. 6d. Cloth - Was Jesus Insane ? Bible Romances. Each Bible Heroes. Each Infidel Death-Beds - - - - - - - - 2 6 0 1 0 1 -01 0 6 - - - - Cloth -10 List of Freethinkers dealt with : Lords Amberley, Byron and Bolingbroke, Bruno, Buckle, Carlile, Clifford, Collins, Condorcet, Cooper, Danton, Diderot, “ George Eliot,” Frederick the Great, Gambetta, Gendre, Gibbon, Goethe, Hetherington, Hobbes, A. Holyoake, Hugo, Hume, Littré, Miss Martineau, Mill, Mirabeau, Owen, Paine, Shelley, Spinoza, Strauss, Toland, Vanini, Volney, Voltaire, Watson, Watts and Woolston. The Shadow of the Sword - - - 0 2 FOOTE, G. W., & W. P. BALL A Bible Handbook for Freethinkers and In­ quiring Christians. Part I., Bible Contradictions ; Part II., Bible Absurdities. Each - 0 4 �(4 ) FOOTE, G. W., & J. M. WHEELER The Jewish Life of Christ. Being the Sepher Toldoth .Teshu. Translated from the Hebrew. Edited with an Historical Preface and Voluminous Notes.’ Cloth - IQ FORDER, R. There was War in Heaven (Rev. xii., 7) - - o 1 Illustrated with 80 Wood Engravings. Translated by Dr. E. B. Aveling. Cloth 6 0 HAECKAL, PROF. ERNST The Pedigree of Man. HOLYOAKE, G. J. Logic of Death - . - . - 0 1 HOWELL, MISS CONSTANCE Biography of Jesus Christ; The After Life of the Apostles ; History of the Jews. Written for young Freethinkers. Each, Paper Covers, Is. Cloth 1 6 HUME, D. Essay on Miracles. By J. M. Wheeler - With Introduction and Notes . . - 0 3 INGERSOLL, COL. ROBERT Mistakes of Moses. Paper Covers 1 0 . . _ _ -16 Lectures. One Penny each Real Blasphemy, Myth and Miracle, Live Topics, Social Salvation, Take a Road of Your Own, Divine Vivisection or Hell, The Christian Religion, The Ghosts (Parts I. and II.), Thomas Paine, Is all Religion Inspired ? (Parts I. and II.), Mistakes of Moses, Saviors of the World, What Must I do to be Saved ? (Parts I. and n.), Spirit of the Age, Intellectual Development (Parts I. and II.), Which Way ? The Oath Question, The Great Mistake, and Do I Blaspheme ? Lectures. Twopence each .-—Hereafter, Religion of The Future, Breaking the Fetters, Farm Life in America, Difficulties of Belief, and Prose Poems. Cloth TAYLOR, REV. ROBERT, B.A. . - 3 6 For this latter work the author was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and a heavy fine for Blas­ phemy. 2 0 The Diegesis The Devil’s Pulpit. Two vols. - Printed and Published by R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter Street, London. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Saladin the little : an exposure Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Jacob, T. Evan Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 28, 4 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's list (4 p.) at the end. Subtitle on p.[3]: 'Saladin's motives exposed'. William Stewart Ross was a Scottish writer and publisher. He was a noted secularist thinker, and used the pseudonym "Saladin". Between 1888 and 1906 he was the editor of the Agnostic Journal, successor to the Secular Review. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Robert Forder Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N571 Subject The topic of the resource Secularism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Saladin the little : an exposure), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Free Thought NSS Secularism William Stewart Ross https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/28a01b9a8c58a74a237258bbe9d3e3a8.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=GtCIPjs7xpgnmebzL2E6jfMyDytdVwMlUFuMQEjhYPOfvOTWhPFF49ydaWS2OZDVGEHxNlGWErunsCqMfTTv9XVm22esegNBHKSdvOvveokFhMUr8pGmMir0Y9eROXuMlk035G9GvGVHWnkJOJielk3n-uKwaqzh6Bi9-DNKsRjx8he%7Eel1btpNUQdqUg0bzy0XKfhtfIhnC2PXc9vFg3%7EMUz0Xq6JWmjJBD0LHPH%7EUjidYVFWZZk99usRJQGM6wU66uQHHaVbDzB0ZjirsqaOW5XNBtuHaF%7EyzEd1mOoErKeynpYu%7EIvg4%7E9eMGMMlSsetLxg6HFOs6kRFUd8-rBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 8d87645b9f7c154eeb20194318a338d2 PDF Text Text WITH SOME COMMENTS ON THE ARMY ENLISTMENT FRAUD. By GEORGE BATEMAN, Late 2nd. 23rd. (Royal Welsh Fusiliers,) With an Introduction by H. H. CHAMPION, Late Royal Artillery. LONDON: THE MODERN PRESS, 13, Paternoster Row, E.C Anp W. L. ROSENBERG, 261, East Tenth Street, NEW YORK CITY. 1887. �YMflA 3HT ? X XX x.VJL JL A X -w • <r!//.H) .11 .h HDHOMO yS -v 5\ srtnl • .oil jfjboijfil H£ fUi/f ’tsW\VsK \n\jofl siv)A / t f 1 �PREFACE The account, which appears in the following pages, of the circum­ stances which go so far to make the life of a private soldier unbearable agrees with my experience gained during four years as a commissioned officer in the army. The fault, to my mind, rests chiefly with the system of appointing the superior officers. Choosing the profession of arms because it confers a certain amount of social distinction and necessitates very little work, as a rule they know little or nothing of the men they command, and confer promotion or inflict punishment on the advice of the non-commissioned officers who save them trouble. “ Discipline must be maintained,” impartial enquiry is tedious and difficult, and it is so much easier to take the word of the sergeant or corporal than to sift the matter to the bottom. Consequently much gross injustice goes on. I know of one instance when in India some hundreds of high caste natives were enlisted, as they sincerely believed, to become cavalry soldiers. They found to their dismay that instead of this they were to act as mule drivers. They protested and finally mutinied when unable to obtain redress, and as many as half-a-dozen a day for days together were flogged for disobeying orders in consequence. When the mule battery, with which they were compelled to serve, on its way to the front reached the district from which these men had been recruited, they deserted in shoals. A similar result is sure to follow whenever men who know they are treated unfairly see an opportunity of revenging themselves on their oppressors. It is one of the “ facts not generally known ” that the Reform Bill of 1832 would not have been passed, had not a confidential circular sent to all commanding officers in England been answered to the effect that, if the Bill were refused, and the people then rose as they threatened to do, in that case it would be impossible to count on the soldiers to obey orders in repressing disturbances. The certainty that they would put their duty as citizens before their duty as soldiers saved our country at that time from all the horrors of civil war. Is it not at least as likely that on a definite social, and not merely political issue, the sympathies -of the troops with the people may do England as great a service in the future ? It is not possible to reform our military system so as to ensure the comfort and content of the private soldier. Of this I am glad for I feel certain that it can only be rendered useful for honest purposes and impo­ tent for evil, by converting it from a mercenary to a real volunteer system. When we have no standing army, and every citizen who votes for war knows that he will have to take his share of danger and hardship we shall have no more of these piratical expeditions against weaker.nations, while England will be infinitely more able to speak to her enemies in the gate, should they ever pick an unjust quarrel with her. Till that day it is better for all that our army which, small though it be, is a standing menace to the liberties of those who exercise no power in the State, should be inefficient, disorganised, and discontented—as it certainly is. H. H. Champion. �SOCIALISM AND SOLDIERING. N a panic born of cowardice, and consciousness of wrong done to the mass of the people, Sir Charles Warren and those who employ him to protect the property they and their forefathers have wrung from the present and past generations of workers, applied to the military authorities on two recent occasions for troops to “assist in maintaining order” at the Lord Mayor’s Show, and the pro­ posed counter demonstration of the unemployed and suffering; and at another meeting called in Trafalgar Square by the Social-Democratic Federation, on November 21st, 1886, for the purpose of demanding from the Tory Government relief works and reduction of the hours of labour, to enable the starving workers to earn sufficient to feed them­ selves and their families. Although the troops were brought from Windsor and elsewhere on the first occasion, in consequence of a letter sent by the Socialist party exposing the authorities to the jeers of the whole world, it was thought better at the last moment to countermand the order for the attendance of troops on the 21st inst., and although our comrades in red and blue were deprived of their holiday in many instances and strictly forbidden to attend our meeting, they were not exposed a second time to the sneers of the assembled multitude, many of whom, on Lord Mayor’s Show day, very foolishly exhibited considerable ill-will towards the men who were but acting under compulsion, and much against their own inclination. But sufficient has been : aid and done by the robbing classes and their Christian (?) servant, Sii Charles Warren, to show that, if conflict between the workers of Great Britain, and their comrades in the Army and Police, is avoided in the near future, it will not be because the “ respectable classes” are loth to use physical force to suppress any attempt on the part of the wealth-producers to come by their own ; but because of other influences which are at work, causing both constables and redcoats to ask themselves whether, after all, they have anything to gain by the continuance in power of the useless classes. That these influences are. at work, and that they are beginning to be felt by our soldiers, is a fact known to many of our comrades, and we propose in the following narrative of the everyday life of a man in the army, to show that from the moment when he joins the Depot of his regiment, he is a more or less discontented man, and a fit subject for revolutionary propaganda to take bold of. “ One Volunteer is worth twenty Pressed Men,’ Is a motto that holds good in the case of an army as well as in many other instances, and it is often boasted that ours is a volunteer system of enlistment, and, so far, superior to that of Germany and other neighbour­ ing countries. Like the “ freedom of contract” theory, this statement �5 has one grain of truth to a whole bushel of (to put it mildly) sheer nonsense. How far it is truth may be judged from the fact, that of seven men spoken to when met accidentally in the street, everyone had entered the service because “ he was hard up.” And so far from men entering the army from any foolish notion of loyalty or patriotism, a great pro­ portion of them would gladly leave the “ honourable profession ” of a soldier, and take their place among the “ degraded ” toilers of our civil­ isation, could they but get discharged by any other means than purchase or “discharge with ignominy,” with its accompanyment of 2 years impri­ sonment. To talk of men as volunteer soldiers when they have been compelled to enlist by the semi-starvation and suffering of civilian life, is as incorrect as speaking of the “gift” made by the traveller in the olden days when met by some half dozen highwaymen armed with pistols, who, with more determination than divine right, insisted on the surrender of his “ money or his life.” Our soldiers then commence their service not as men who have chosen their professions, but as men forced into an irksome position by their bad circumstances of life—as men who have already been wronged by Society, and thus have a debt to pay. Having made up his mind to try and get a living as a soldier, our recruit attends before a doctor, after passing through the disgusting pre­ liminary of a bath in the same tank in which some twenty or thirty more have “ washed ” before him. After being weighed, hopping about on one leg, and going through a very disagreeable examination (which is of such a character as to try a sensitive man exceedingly) he is either passed or rejected. If the former is the case he is sent off in due course to the head recruiting station of the regiment to which he is posted. And now commences the making of a discontented fighting machine. From the moment he arrives at his Depot he finds that he has been Enlisted by Fraud and Wilful Misrepresentation, and that henceforth he is a mere machine, expected to obey any orders which may be given him without questioning, to submit to any amount of degradation and insult, and in fact to sell his manhood with his civilian clothes, and become part of the great army of “ Christian England,” to assassinate men with whom he has no quarrel, to protect those who are crushing his father and brother, and, should occasion arise, to shoot at a mass of people, among whom is mother, sweetheart, sister or friend. For such self-sacrifice as this, in return for such complete self-abne­ gation, there must surely be corresponding rewards or benefits. So thinks the intending soldier, and for the purpose of discovering what these are he commences to study a very attractive looking bill, issued by Her Majesty’s ministers, and headed, “ Advantages of the Army.” Pro­ minent among these advantages is seen the statement that the soldier receives “ Free Kit,” “ Free Rations,” and pay to commence with at is. id. per day, and comparing this regular supply of the necessaries of life with his miserable condition as an unemployed workman, the balance seems in favour of the red coat and the necesaries of life, as against his present light pockets and liberty. But the Will-o-th’-Wisp is no harder to catch than these advantages are to obtain. Arrived at the Depot the recruit receives orders to parade at the Quartermaster’s Stores, where he has given to him His “Free Kit,” consisting of two shirts, three pairs of socks, one pair of serge trousers, �6 0 I n i one pair of cloth trousers, one cap or shako, or whatever may be the headgear in use in his regiment, one serge frock, two pairs of boots, a hold-all complete containing small necessaries. Fitting on his new cloth­ ing our embryo Commander in Chief finds that all his clothing requires alterations, and he is told to parade at the tailor’s shop, where the alterations necessary are noted—and made if the recruit is enough a man of the world to understand the use of “palm oil.” This issue of clothing with a further supply of trousers, serges, and boots, at very long inter­ vals, completes the “ Free Kit ” promised by the “Fly-papers” (so-called because they are spread to catch the unwary by their promises of good things to come) issued by the government. The future, as Charles Bradlaugh used to say when he was an atheist, is left to take care of itself. Thus we find a very considerable outlay necessary before the “ Free Kit ” is completed. From, his own pocket the deluded recruit finds he has got to provide a duplicate hold-all with necessaries, as the one issued to him must be kept clean and spotless for “ Kit inspection,” as woe betide the unlucky wight whose spoon is not polished like bur­ nished silver, or whose knife and fork show signs of having been used, although the inspection takes place at the meal time when the things are wanted in use. Meals over he starts to work to clean his accoutrements, but finds to his dismay that he wants polishing paste, oxalic acid, pouch blacking, pipeclay, sponge, soap, white and coloured rags, “ Cleaning­ trap bag,” and a thousand other articles of kit which are not included in the “ Free ” issue. To complete his dismay he learns in the course of conversation that any shirts he may require to replace those worn out will have to be purchased out of his own pocket. The same rule applies with regard to socks, towels, braces, caps, small articles, such as razors, knives, etc., etc., so that, as a matter of fact, our young soldier finds that so far from getting his kit free he has continually to apply to the colour­ sergeant of his company for “ necessaries ” for which he has the pleasure of paying. Another evil from which he finds constant inconvenience and expense is the exceedingly slovenly and careless work put into the clothing by those who make them up. . The work, thanks partly to the strain in every stitch while the man is doing “ extension motions ” and “ setting-up drill ” generally, is continually giving way, and it is not at all unusual to see the men coming from drill of that description (which includes throwing the arms back violently, swinging them round and round, and bending over until the fingers touch the toes, keeping the legs quite straight) with jackets open under the arms, and trousers hardly capable of covering the man’s nakedness. Doubtless the new order to the police, which is to the effect that they are to go through these drills, is as embarrassing to them as to their red-coated brothers, and it certainly borders on the ridiculous to see a constable who has not been able to see below the fourth button of his tunic for some years trying his best to “ get right down ” in order to touch his toes. Another reason, doubtless, for the tendency to give way observed in the sewing of government clothing, is that much of it is done on the sweating system, in which the hands employed get such wretched wages that they cannot possibly put in decent work if they are to live honestly, and are to be able to remain outside the ranks of the 80,000 or 100,000 victims of capitalism who infest our streets and minister to the lusts of our spiritual pastors and masters. In this, as in very many other cases, our present wretched system of society brings its own Nemesis. But turning from this, our soldier at once comes in contact with i �7 another evidence of the fraud and misrepresentation which have been used to induce him to join the service. One of the first bugle calls which the new recruit learns is the “ Grand Charge,” or meal bugle, and hearing the call which announces the meal hour, he takes his place with his comrades, and for the first time comes face to face with His “ Free Rations.” Sitting down to breakfast, he finds provided for him by government nothing whatever but a pound of dry bread (not always of the best) and water ad lib. This will hardly be credited by the civilian, but can easily be verified by a few enquiries addressed to any soldier casually met in the street. But says our reader, “ I myself have seen the soldier with tea, coffee, or cocoa for his breakfast, and also with some little relish such as fish, corned beef, or at any rate a little butter.” Quite true, friend; and had you been by his side a minute after his dismissal from the early parade, you would also have seen him at the canteen buying those little delicacies, or at the barrack room door cheapening fish or some other relish with a native from the town. And had you been present with the orderly man or the cook of the company the day before you would have seen them drawing the material with which to give taste to the warm water which alone is supplied by government for its soldiers to drink. But making the best of the job, he sets to work and very soon demolishes what is set before him, in blissful ignorance of the fact that the bread he has found insufficient to satisfy an appetite of the finest possible quality, even for the time being is supposed by the Government who have been mean enough to trick him, to serve him for breakfast, dinner, tea, and supper. Dinner time having arrived, he is introduced to the second portion of the “ Free Ration ” fraud, inasmuch as govern­ ment sets before him for his meal nothing whatever but a very meagre portion of some substance, which in life probably had more acquaintance with London cabs than country cowsheds, but which is popularly supposed to be three-quarters of a pound of meat, the bone of which is limited to two ounces. Again appearances (to the looker-on) are in favour of the authorities, as a fair portion of potatoes is placed on top of the meat, and sometimes even a basin of soup placed by the side. But these favourable evidences are somewhat discounted when he learns in answer to his enquiries that not only the potatoes but the soup and even the salt, pepper, and any other seasoning in use are all provided out of a common fund called the “ Grocery Book,” and are paid for in equal proportions by the whole company. Tea time arriving, our young hero finds that Her Majesty’s Government have thought two meals (save the mark) per day sufficient for a healthy growing lad, and have made no provision for satisfying his hunger from i p.m. until 7.45 the next day, thus giving the stomach nearly 19 hours in which to digest the abundant feast which has been provided. Thus we find the powers that be, with unexampled meanness taking advantage of the wretched and semi­ starving condition of the victims of society to entice them by lying promises and statements which are known full well to be untrue, to enter into an engagement • to serve “ Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen, her heirs, and successors.” The “ Free Ration ” statement is a gross fraud, inasmuch as the total allowance made by the official regulations is one pound of bread and three-quarters of a pound of meat per man per day, not more than enough for the morning meal when it is re­ membered that the man has been up two hours or more and has done a good sharp hour’s exercise in the shape of drill. That the food is �8 miserably insufficient is proved by the one fact that nearly every “ duty man (that is men who have no employment as servant, groom, or otherwise) buys at least one pound of bread per day, besides cheese or other food, so long as he has money to do so. For some short period of his service the writer was engaged as kitchen man at the officer’s mess, and it may relieve the consciences of those gentlemen whose luxurious dinners he was allowed to assist in preparing to know that during the time m which he was so engaged he found many opportunities of ministering to the temporal wants of his comrades by the assistance of their superfluities. They may be surprised to hear, too, that even the coarse palates and vitiated tastes of their humble companions in arms could appreciate the beauties of codfish and oyster sauce, and that even the raw oysters did just as good a service when consumed by “ yours truly as when put into their sauce. It may also open their eyes and the eyes of civilian readers not a little when we tell them that so insuf­ ficient and poor is the food supplied to the “ defenders of the country ” that when sent on “ fatigue ” to assist in cleaning at the officers’ mess their first duty was invariably to search for any scraps of cold meat or sh, or in fact anything eatable, which might have been rejected by their more dainty officers at dinner overnight. The coffee-pot was always a first object of interest, and there was generally a sharp competition for the honour of cleaning the “ ante-room ” in which it was possible they might find some half-consumed cigar or forgotten tobacco pouch. ShocKing! says my middle-class reader. Yes, dear friends, very shocking ; and these are the men whose hearts are so full of love and gratitude to you and your class that they are going, at your bidding, to use their cold steel and leaden bullets against the men from whose ranks they are drawn, to whose ranks they must return, and among whom are all those towards whom they feel the love of the son for the mother, the lover for the sweetheart, the man for his mate with whom he went to school, by whose side he toiled, with whom he fought side by side in their common quarrels, and who is to him as a dear brother. Are you sure, my wealthy, idle friend, that these men will act as your blind unthinking tools in crushing out the aspirations of their comrades, their brothers, their class ? Do you feel quite satisfied that they will never think, and that, if they think, they will not act on their convictions ? Sufficient has been already said to show that the soldier's life is not so bright as it might be, but the greater part has yet to be told. The tale of the petty tyranny, the crushing degrading insults, and the heart­ breaking impossibility of doing right, and giving satisfaction. And besides all this we have yet to examine the next count in the indictment, the deceiving promise of One Shilling and a penny per day as his pay. Reading the announcement of the rate of pay, coupled as it is with the statement that he shall have “Free Rations” and “Free Kit,” it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that the pay becomes pocket money to be expended in the purchase of any little •comfort or luxury which may conduce to the happiness of our friend Tommy Atkins. Looking at the announcement as it stands one naturally supposes that the man can go to the pay table at the end of the week, and draw seven shillings and sevenpence as his pay. Any such notion is soon knocked out of his head, and he finds that in point number three those who are responsible for the issue of the “ Fly papers ” have made filse statements to him, and have deceived him, and he is made Stillmore morose, discontented, and unlikely to make a good soldier. The first two �9 deductions made are 3d. per day for “ messing” and a halfpenny per day for washing. Now what is this messing ? Simply a compulsory payment by the soldier which goes to buy potatoes, coffee, flour, pepper, salt, etc., in fact to provide him with a large portion of what should be provided free in fulfilment of the promise that he should have free rations. Another deduction is for “ barrack damages,” which varies from 4d. to 6d. per month per man, and which goes (in whole or in part) to repair damages and replace losses (real and imaginary) which may have taken place during the month. Again we have a stoppage of the subscription to the Library and another for haircutting; add to this the replacing of worn out clothing, the repairing of the same, and repairing of boots ; the purchase of various materials for cleaning accoutrements, etc. ; the repairing of any accidental injury to arms, and a hundred and one other matters, and it will readily be seen that the statement that a soldier gets one shilling and a penny a day is a deliberate misstatement made in order to get the men to join. In closing this part of my subject I may say that referring to my account book I find three months in which I “ signed accounts” in debt, instead of having money to come. But now I come to matters which, as affecting the general contentment and happiness of our soldiers, are of still greater importance. And first among these I shall place the system of Petty Tyranny on the part of Non-Commissioned Officers. What this means to the men will be seen in the number of habitual bad characters, the number of men “ discharged with ignominy,” and the extraordinary number of desertions in a year. The promotion of men from the ranks seems to be arranged on the principle most likely to cause discontent, and least likely to ensure the good conduct, efficiency, and soldier-like behaviour of the men. And the bad effects of the present injudicious promotions of extremely young and unqualified men, to the rank of Non-Commissioned Officer, will readily be seen by my readers, when they hear that a man who has only joined the service three months, and has received his first step in promotion—being appointed lance-cor­ poral—is absolutely and completely the master of every man who is still a private, and has it in his power to make a man’s life most miserable, or, on the contrary, very happy, in proportion as he himself may be in a good or bad temper. By “ Queen’s Regulations ” it takes a man two years of absolutely irreproachable service to get his good conduct stripes, for which he gets one penny per day extra ; it takes him four years more (or six years altogether) to get his second stripe, for which he gets another penny per day; twelve years to get three stripes ; eighteen years to get four stripes ; and twenty-one years of absolutely perfect soldiering to get five stripes—the highest possible. Now suppose a man to have served without a single regimental entry for eighteen years, and by so doing to have won the four good conduct stripes. On a certain occasion a young jack-in-office, who has just got his lance stripe, comes into the barrack room, and full of his new authority warns our old soldier for a certain “ fatigue ” duty. Knowing that he is not first on the duty “roster” for fatigue our friend with the good conduct stripes ventures to expos­ tulate with him, and to refer him to the “roster.” The pride of our eighteen-year-old three-month’s-service youngster is in arms directly, and without taking the trouble to ascertain whether the man is right or not, he puts him between a file of men, and confines him to the guard room, with the charge against him of refusing to obey the orders of the Acting Orderly Sergeant. On going to the orderly-room in the morning the veteran’s explanation is met with the parrot-cry “ no-excuse,” and �IO probably finds himself with enough punishment against him to take off his arm the whole of the stripes it has cost him eighteen years good soldiering to obtain. And thus a good soldier is turned into a discontented, disheartened men, who will sit and brood over the hardship of his case until fresh provocation being offered, he strikes the man who has degraded him, and finds himself sentenced to two years imprisonment and to be discharged with ignominy. In this case the Government would save a pension (and thus help to show a good budget), and would turn loose to prey upon society a man whose every particle of self-respect has been crushed out of him merely by the tyranny of some boyish non­ commissioned officer, who had been promoted before he knew his duty. But this is an extreme case ! ’ says the reader. Granted ; but it may be the case of every man who enters the service—it is a possibility which may occur to each. And although this may be an infrequent case, it is not so with the continual bullying, the degrading and insulting language and the monotonous punishment drill which is the lot of nearly every man in the service. I am under the difficulty in explaining this that I cannot put on paper the filthy expressions which are not uncommonly used by the drill instructors to the men in their squads. But anyone who may desire to know the truth of these statements has only to go to a place like the Citadel barracks at Plymouth, and there from the ram­ parts watch the recruits at drill between the hours of two and three in the afternoon. On one occasion in those very barracks, I was one of a squad under a man named Harvey. The drill was between seven and eight one morning, and because the squad could not please this man, (whose principal qualifications were his power to yell, and his unlimited capacity for swearing and bullying) he gave the word to fix bayonets, charge bayonets, and then to double, and he kept the men so long at this very distressing drill, that several of the squad dropped their rifles from sheer inability to hold them any longer, while others fell out unable to keep it up. “ But why not appeal ? ” Simply because it would be no good, and would only bring down the wrath of every Non-Commissioned officer in the regiment on the head of “ the fellow who lagged.” The non-commissioned officer’s best chance of getiing on is to show his smartness, and regimentallism, which is best done by “ wheeling ” men before the officers for frivolous crimes, and not allowing those under him a moment’s rest, or time for recreation. It is an old saying that if a man goes in for promotion “ he must be ready to ‘shop’ (or make prisoner) his own brother.” But the curse of authority, unfortunately, is not confined to the NonCommissioned Officers. It is often said that our army is not what it used to be, and that were we to be engaged in an European war, we should not find the same dogged never-know-when-thev’re-beaten sort of pluck which characterised our men in the past. If that be so, the blame for such a lamentable state of affairs would be found to lie very much with Bad Commissioned Officers. As I write my mind goes back to the year 1881, and I see again a regiment which has been complimented by General Napier at Gibraltar on its smart soldier-like behaviour. Stationed at Plymouth the “ Goats ” were mounting the main guard. The smartest and best men had been picked for this guard by the Orderly Sergeants (as was the invariable rule) because it was one on which they came under the notice of the General commanding the whole of the Western Division (at that time Major General Pakenham). Formed up for inspection by the Adjutant, “ clean, smart, and fit for anything,” instead of being sent off to their �II duty with a cheering word of advice, that worthy spent some twenty minutes in fault-finding, then told the men they were “beastly dirty,” and finished up by declaring that if they did^not turn out smarter he would “ make their lives a burden to them ! ” On another occasion (I think in August 1881) the regiment was on Commanding Officer’s parade in full marching order, which means something like 60 pounds weight to be carried. So extremely hot had been the season that all parades were ordered to be stopped at Aidershot between io a.m. and 4 p.m. Not­ withstanding this intense heat the men were kept in marching order, and drilled from 10-30 a.m. until 1-15 p.m., the morning’s drill including skirmishing, and doubling. Although this drill was not finished until after 1 p.m. some of the men who had made mistakes had to parade again at 2, thus allowing only three quarters of an hour to clean their accoutre­ ments and have dinner. So bad did the treatment become at this time that the discontent of the men found vent in a long letter by the author of this pamphlet, and another by a Corporal who afterwards deserted, both of which the Editor of the Western Morning News, an influential Plymouth daily, inserted in his columns, although by so doing he ran considerable risk. It may be objected that these cases concern only one regiment, but I reply that the broad facts contained in this pamphlet are in a greater or less degree (according to the officers) descriptions of the soldier’s every-day life all through the service. True it is that all officers, or all non-commissioned officers are not bad; and I would here bear testimony to the exceedingly good character borne by one officer especially, Mr. C. A. Boughton Knight, among the men of his company. But in his particular regiment he was an exception. When he ex­ changed into the Scots Guards, there was hardly a dry eye in the com­ pany as they said good-bye to the man who had treated them as fellow men and thus won their respect and (laugh if you will) their heartfelt love. Such men as he are the salt of the service who keep the men just below the point of insubordination. But bad as is the treatment of soldiers at home it is sometimes even worse when on foreign or active service, and if a soldier is treated in such a way at home as to make him disgusted and discontented, he sees such sights and receives such examples of neglect while abroad that at times it is hard to keep his indignation within bounds. Not only does he find that he is ordered to risk his life in such brutal struggles and butchery as those of Ashantee, Zululand, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Burmah, but he soon understands that even while doing his duty there are some around him whose sole employment consists of Robbing the sick and wounded. One instance, vouched for by one who saw the exposure, will suffice to show to what an abominable extent this sort of thing is carried. Charitable ladies and gentlemen in England, who interested themselves in our soldiers in Egypt, sent out for the use of the sick and wTounded several cases of oranges and other “ medical comforts.” Oranges were a very great luxury in that hot climate, and the civilian storekeepers who supplied such things from tents to those who could afford to purchase, used to retail them at about fourpence each. One old Maltese especially did a very good business, and on one occasion some of our navvies who were engaged in building the railway determined to see if they could not steal some of the old gentleman’s stock. The oranges were kept in boxes which were stacked at the back of the tent, and for their purpose the navvies attacked the back, and having loosened the tent they began to raise the canvas for the purpose of extracting some of �12 the coveted fruit. What was their surprise and disgust on discovering marked on every one of the boxes the following words: “ For the sick and wounded in Egypt ” ! Whose was the fault I know not, but there is the fact. The oranges sent for the sick had been disposed of to the Maltese who was selling them at fourpence each, while our brave fellows were in hospital with parched tongues and throats. We also know, though in very small part, of the sufferings of our men who are away fighting the Burmese in order to open fresh markets for the shoddy goods of the manufacturing community of which John Bright is a member. News has just come to hand that In Burmah men are dying like rotten sheep, the totals so far ascertained showing fatalities 372, only 23 of which are from wounds in action, the remaining 349 being from disease. Besides this we have invalided home 575 of all ranks, a very large proportion of whom are probably cases which will always leave the seeds of disease behind, which will sooner or later carry off other victims to the mad effort to obtain new markets. If ever the real history of our wars of conquest and aggrandizement is written by a competent pen, it will form a record of crime and suffering which will have no equal in modern times. Another section of our forces is engaged in a still more disgraceful work. The men who enlisted to protect this country against her foes are to-day found Executing “ sentences of death ” in Ireland ; English workmen fighting their Irish brothers, and thus assisting in collecting the rents of men who rob the English and Irish democracies, and who use the money thus stolen to debauch the wives and prostitute the daughters of their victims. But in the fraternising of the Marines at Skye with the Crofters whom they were sent to coerce, and in the rumbling of discontent which was recently heard among the troops engaged in Ireland, the watchful ear recognises the commencement of the strike of our troops against the degrading work to which they are being put; and one begins again to hope that our men will shortly realise that though they may wear red coats, the battle of the Irish peasants is their battle, and that they will refuse to prostitute their strength in the effort to crush a people “ rightly struggling to be free.” The men who are now fighting under the same flags which cheered on those who fought for the relief of the oppressed, will, looking on those flags, remember that their duty is to be ever found on the side of right. “ Obedience is the first duty of a soldier,” is the motto in the soldier’s book : yes, obedience to the call of right, obedience to the call of justice; obedience when appealed to on behalf of the suffering and oppressed ; but not obedience to the call of peers who evict women in the pangs of labour, and who spend the money wrung from the suffering Irish in debauchery in the brothels of Chelsea and Pimlico. Soldiers, do your duty ; but first be sure what your duty is. The above are but a few of the incidents which make a soldier’s life unhappy, and make the men discontented, miserable, and fit subjects for the truths of Socialism to make an impression upon. But the tale of petty spite and tyranny, of injustice and fraud, of drill never-ending and punishment undeserved might be prolonged until it would fill a book of several hundred pages. But why go on ? Enough has been said to answer my purpose,—to show to those who oppress the soldiers as they oppress the workers how weak is the force they threaten to use to �B prevent the class to which our soldiers belong from making an attempt to free themselves from their slavery. Think a moment, my middle-class readers, do you not think the men whom you call your army will some day refuse to prostitute their strength to fight against father or brother, mother or sister. Do you imagine that at your bidding these men will fire into the ranks of men and women with whom they have eaten and drunk ? Will they not remember that among those men, are their brothers; that the people on whom they are told to charge are the people among whom they will take their place when they leave the army, only a few years or may be months hence ? Are you not a little rash in supposing that these men whom your government has defrauded, whom the officers drawn from your class have embittered against themselves and you, will never remember that if they refuse to fight for you (and instead of doing so go and join their brothers who are struggling for freedom for soldiers as well as civilians, police as well as citizens, sailors as well as all others drawn from the working classes) you are absolutely powerless and at the mercy of those against whom you fight. Your short service system is filling the ranks of the army with thinking men, men who have already heard the truths of Socialism, and by discharging the men at the end of three or seven years you are giving us trained and discontented men, and are hastening the time when Socialists and Soldiers will shake hands and unite in bringing about by their unity in peace or war (as you of the middle and upper classes shall decide) the happier and better time when all shall labour usefully, and not too long, and when each shall have the full value of his toil. Soldiers and policemen, sailors and marines, all classes are beginning to understand that Social-Democrats are fighting a just battle. That our cause is a strong one because based upon the eternal foundation of truth and justice. That our cause is their cause because we are struggling on behalf of their dear ones, and are doing our honest best to make it possible for al! men to live decent happy lives as the return for their useful labour. You of the class who live without labour, on the labour of others, you are the only people who will not shortly be convinced of the justice of our cause. Your army, your police have but to announce their determination not to use their strength against us, and you cannot by any possibility force them to do so. Why should they ? They soon will be found in the ranks of the unemployed—we are to-day fighting the battle on behalf of those who have no work. Every man in army or police has suffered from the system which makes one man to live in luxury at the expense of the misery of the many,—against that system we alone are battling. Pause while there is time; think is it not the cause of humanity, justice and right which we are struggling for? Is there any other hope of ridding society of the jails full of what might have been the brightest manhood of our country ? Is there any other means by which you can bring back to their place as honest citizens the 80,000 women of this great London, who have found it impossible to live by honest toil ? Is there any other way by which you can give comfort to the children of the unemployed workmen of to-day? If this be the only way—whether you be wealthy or poor, soldiers, police, or what not —if you be men, take your place, and accept your share of the necessary burden, in the struggle for that cause which will bring in peace, happiness, and comfort, and which will build up a new society which shall be based upon the universal brotherhood of man, and whose motto shall be “ Each for all, and all for each.” �i4 And, after all, what is this great mass of evil against which we are told the forces of the army and police are to be used ? What is this terrible thing Social-Democracy? How many know, bow many have sought to know the truth as between Socialism and Capitalism ? It is so easy to condemn a thing—a man—a system as criminal, but it is so wearisome to argue out fairly and honestly a somewhat difficult problem, especially when it is quite possible the real solution when found may tell against oneself, one’s own pet theories, one’s own comfort, one’s own idle luxurious life. Who are the men whom we see branded as mischievous agitators, stirrers up of class hatred, and disturbers of the “harmonious relations between labour and capital?” Simply, in the majority of cases, men who have lived and suffered among the “ masses,” who have felt the terrible grinding of the heel of capitalism as it crushes out of their lives all that makes life bright, and happy, and worth living. Simply men who have stood, without the power to shed the tears which would have given relief, by the side of the little plain coffin containing all that is left of the little one who used to make home happy, even when stomachs were empty and the body shivered for want of the clothes which had been parted with for food, and who have cursed with bitterest curses the cruel selfishness of the system which has slowly and surely murdered the darling of their life. Who are they ? Men who have seen the infant sucking the empty breast while the mother’s eyes have appealed to them for the food they could not give. Who have seen their, sisters damned in this world, and—if we are to believe those who call themselves our spiritual pastors and masters—damned in the world to come. Who are they ? The brothers of the men forced into the criminal classes, the fathers of sons compelled to thieve to live ! These are the men against whom you who are not with us are fighting. Are they dangerous ? It is you—whether workman or idler—who are propping up the system which causes suffering and degradation, it is you who make them so. Are they madmen ? It is you, middle-class man, aristocrat,, it is you who have made them mad by the hellish cruelty of your oppression, by the degradation of their womanhood, and it is against you—if they be mad, their madness will turn and avenge itself. But they are not mad. They are those who, taught by men from your class but not of it, have determined that come what may, whether by peace or war, through weal or through woe, they are going on with the struggle for liberty, for life, for happiness. These are the men against whom you must fight, or with whom you must unite in the struggle. Fanatics if you will; violent if you like ; but fanatics in their confidence in the justice of their cause, and violent only in their hatred of seeing what they believe to be truth crushed down by your blind folly. What are they striving for ? Do they seek fame? No, or they would sell their voice or pen to a party as the Broadhursts, the Howells, and the Cremers ha.ve done in the past I Do they seek riches ? No, for every one of them in a greater or lesser degree is giving of his small earnings to help in his cause ! .For what then are they spending their lives ? For the hope of better things in the future ; for the hope of gaining for themselves and those who suffer with them some of the glorious possibilities of life ; for the hope of lighting up with joy the thousands of lives which to-day are full of dark dangerous despair. For this hope they strive ; for this hope they �15 fight on ; for this hope they will be found struggling though all the powers of earth are fighting against them ; for this hope they will sacrifice all that makes life happy; and by their striving, their fighting, their struggling, and their sacrifice they will assuredly conquer. IS THE BATTLE WORTH FlGHTING ? To you of the classes who never labour, but who are living upon the labour of others, what will a victory mean? Think just a moment! You can but gain a continuance of your present aimless existence, your life of hypocrisy, hollowness, rottenness, of which, even now, when you are honest enough to think seriously, you are sometimes.ashamed; especially when you remember how mean, how contemptible, is your life if you are living—not on your own labour, for you do none—but on the labour of your fellow men and women. And what does a continuance of this throat-cutting system mean to the great mass of the men and women of the world. It means continuous toil, continuous misery and suffering, continuous degradation, for you cannot point to a remedy, or even to anything like a sufficient palliative, outside of that proposed by the Socialists whom you despise. It means to the “people” lives of dull grinding poverty, without education, without pleasure, and, worst of all, without hope ! Do you who read- this belong to the middle class, the wealthy class ? I ask you are you prepared to use your energies, your strength, your skill to gain a victory, to support a system, which will condemn your fellow men and women to such a life as this. Men of your class in other countries have sacrificed everything for this cause, and men like Peter Krapotkine, men like Stepniak, appeal to you to give up your mean despicable existence and take your share in the fight, success in which means happiness for so many. Nor is your own country without noble examples for you ; think then whether you can resist the appeal of thousands of blighted lives, thousands of weak voiced children, who cry to you to help them to live as decent men and women a life of happiness and peace. Is it such a crime to ask that men should enjoy the fruits of their own toil ? Is it so great a wrong to forbid a man, a class, to take that which belongs to another without returning him a full equivalent. If a member of a family will not work, what is the result ? That family turns the lazy one into the streets to starve—until he works. And if labour applied to nature is alone the source of wealth how comes it that the idle classes, who do no useful work, are found in possession of the wealth produced by industrious toilers ? How comes it that those who produce so much enjoy so little ? Answer truly, and the confession must come, that it is because labour is robbed of that which it produces ; because those who toil not steal from those who labour. Call it profit, call it interest, call it rent, and.it remains, notwithstanding all your arguments, robbery, because no equivalent is returned to those from whom it is taken and to whom it belongs. We seek but Justice and Fair Play. We ask not for that which is another’s, but simply the right to labour usefully, and to enjoy the fruits of our labour. How can this be secured ? A man wishes to apply his labour to nature—in order to be able to live he must do so, but he finds himself prevented because the implements of production, and even the gifts of nature, are controlled by someone else, who refuses him access to them unless he will allow him a large share of the produce of his labour. What then ? Since it is absolutely necessary that labour and nature should come together, the barrier between them �i6 —private ownership—must be removed, and the people—the Statemust assume the position of its own trustee. Surely our position is reasonable. If the welfare of the great mass of the people demands self-sacrifice on the part of the few, the sacrifice must be made. If the life of ease, and luxury, and idleness of the wealthy classes can only be maintained at the expense of the unhappiness and robbery of the poor, then they must give up their luxury and ease, and raise themselves to the position of honest useful toilers, taking their part in the battle of life, and cheered by the knowledge that they are helping to give better,’ brighter, and happier lives, to those who have suffered so much in the past. Do any want an ideal for which to strive ? we put before you the highest possible ideal—the greatest possible happiness and culture of the human race. Does anyone want to spend his life in practical efforts to raise up his down-trodden fellows ? We show you a certain path to success. Search it, try it, examine it honestlyj; forget that it is called Socialism, and see only if it be right, if it be just, if it be good. And if so, if you see no other way out of the difficulty, take your place—whether you be workman or middle-class, aristocrat or beggar, in the forefront of the battle ; and with perfect freedom as your motto, with hearts filled with hope, with hand clasped in hand and shoulder to shoulder, fight with all your strength—not the battle of the bondholders, not the fight of the usurers—but the battle of the workers of all nations, the battle of SocialDemocracy, and you will thus be hastening the time when the peoples of the world will stand side by side, without strife, without quarrelling, happy, contented, free. Note to Second Edition.—Since the first edition was issued, an appeal has been made to various sections of the community for funds with which to erect the “ Imperial Institute,” in commemoration of Her Majesty’s fifty years’ reign. Among others, the men of the Army and Navy, and even the inmates of Chelsea Hospital have had issued to them what is tantamount to an order to contribute of their small means to this object. Refuse they dare not, and thus they are to be robbed still further. Why not appeal to the widows and children of men killed in action, and to the young women who have been forced on the streets because their fathers have “ died for their country? ” It is to be hoped that men in all the services will resolutely refuse to contribute to such an object as this, while their fellows, their women­ folk, and their children perish for want of bread. Many letters from Non-Commissioned Officers and privates have been received, corroborating the statements contained in this pamphlet, and the author will be glad to correspond (in confidence) with any who can further expose the frauds, deceptions, and tyranny practised upon the rank and file either of the Army or Navy. All communications should be addressed to George Bateman, care of the Publishers. [Those who wish to know move about Socialism should send to the\ Modern Press for a list of pamphlets on the subject. On receipt of One Shilling a dozen different pamphlets will be sent post-free.] � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Socialism and soldiering; with some comments on the army enlistment fraud Description An account of the resource Edition: 2nd. ed. Place of publication: London Collation: 16 p. : ill. (front. port.) ; 23 cm. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bateman, George Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Modern Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G4978 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Champion, H.H. Subject The topic of the resource Socialism Military Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Socialism and soldiering; with some comments on the army enlistment fraud), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Armed forces Armed forces;Enlistment Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9430b80127c6293781407ff8cd2c6c07.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=rqT6ji-lX8X9gtoTBfW-tCYr6COpCIU9QRrgtcCPo8kjca6p3CYhyWOLstOi6tBWtOqTjoKcDwG66Sg7bR2BzbGFxkZGB9HqxzcGRhp7SDvYjS7FFazkDqDR18FN9eU1S8BpPOXmvaOcg7eA-r8hkL%7Eig4OWrJnywIpA5kg3Kk5upa4CSVLw3zdLdaFTNGirJQMgfDYKmGQ5LUyn7NOthD6u5C0yIAue-DyZoKR6Yl2e0ohu2Ym1fOT%7E6b%7E9Nwp-6HyqN9XLD3fm4mH9uwRxrHGoP3FqXBIartf2VfHyqN0pG9PBjHu714G46dQectAg8jywM%7EudfHWEVGY8pStkAg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 4ac589f2ac1a1207e00ef2a7742d92cb PDF Text Text ON ITS A REPLY TO PROFESSOR FLINT. PRICE ONE PENNY. EDINBURGH : ^rottxsl) nnb Xabflxir jbRngue, 4 PARK STREET. 1 8 8 7. �“Justice is the freedom of those who are equal: Injustice is the freedom of those mho are unequal.” ~Jacobi. �SOCIALISM ON ITS DEFENCE A REPLY TO PROFESSOR FLINT. r-T^HE community is indebted to Professor Flint for calling its attention to Socialism, and for this ser­ vice Socialists must be specially grateful. We have confidence in our position. The more our system is con­ sidered, the wider will be its acceptation. The prelates were recommended by a sagacious observer during the Reformation to burn the martyrs in cellars, and the news­ papers, in the exercise of a similar discretion, generally exclude the utterances of Socialists from their columns. We must, however, thank Professor Flint not only for lecturing on the subject, but for the kind things he has said with respect to us—-a fact we are apt to forget in the midst of his misrepresentations. Socialism has hitherto been received with ridicule and reviling by many ignorant but important people among us, who will now, after the assurance of an eminent theologian, believe there is some­ thing in it. Dr Flint has at least confessed the importance of the subject, and has therefore led many to its considera­ tion. It does seem singular, however, that it should have been left to the faculty of Divinity to undertake this work, but the persistent indifference of the lecturer on Economics is more than a sufficient excuse for entering on his pro­ vince. He seems engrossed with the depreciation of silver, �— 4 — and only recognises the existence of Socialists to denounce them, on the authority of imperfect statistics, for repeating the conclusion of Fawcett and other orthodox economists, that in relation to the increase of wealth the rich are grow­ ing richer, and the poor, poorer. The statement may be true or false, it matters little to Socialists, and has no special bearing on their system. To the credit of Dr Flint, economics is rather more to him than a question of the currency. He does not seem to believe the condition of the people is much aflectecl by the comparative value of metals; and in this respect the disciple of the Master cer­ tainly shows to better advantage than the nominee of the merchants. Even this, however, does not exhaust our reasons for gratitude to the Professor. Socialism is a vague word under which some shelter themselves with whose opinions and methods few of us can sympathise. The system, like every other, has its dangers, and it is well to face them : it has also its false and foolish friends, and it is well to know them. A good critic would at present be a true benefactor to us, but, unfortunately, it is only in a very modified sense we can apply this term to Dr Flint. We frankly admit a real value in his lectures, but they are vitiated at the outset from want of a proper definition, and rendered ineffective throughout from want of sufficient discrimination. It may seem daring to question the information of the learned Professor, considering the reputation he deservedly enjoys in all circles, but our imputation of ignorance is sufficiently justified in his treatment of Socialism. With the origin and history of the movement, up to within fifty years ago, he shews a certain familiarity, but this sketch of it stands in striking contrast to his superficial acquaintance with its �— 5 — modern revival. It would, however, be as reasonable for one ignorant of the physiology of the last half-century to undertake its instruction to the students of to-day, as it is for one to speak of the Socialism of the present from a study of its literature in the past. Mere reading indeed gives one little insight in either case. Words half conceal as well as half reveal the thoughts of men, and it is only after mixing much with them you can be very confident about their ideas. We not only suffer from misrepresentation, but, the fact is, we hardly ever experience anything else. Much of this is no doubt the result of ignorance more or less culp­ able, but some of it is produced on purpose to discredit us. Our sayings are perverted and our doings defamed. It is difficult, therefore, for an outsider like Dr Flint to know much about us with accuracy, but even he would have known more if he had come to his subject with the sym­ pathy of the critic instead of the partiality of the polemic. There has in fact been rather much logic in his treatment of Socialism, and this concession is not meant by way of ■compliment; for conclusions drawn rigorously from defec­ tive premises are bound to be erroneous. We venture to affirm, there is not a Socialist of any intelligence prepared to accept the definition of it given by Dr. Flint, or willing to admit any validity in the objections urged by him against it. He may, of course, affect to despise the one, but he cannot be indifferent to the other. No controversy can be conducted to any satisfactory issue, unless the combatants agree about the point in dispute. Argument otherwise is a mere beating of the air. The Socialism of these lectures however, is, in the opinion of Socialists, partly an anachron­ ism and partly a figment; while the reasons of his opposi­ tion to it resolve themselves into its interference with the �— 6 — liberty of the individual, and of its realisation by violence. Now, we do not altogethei’ deny the applicability of this criticism to certain forms of Socialism and its supporters, but a definition must not confound a part with the whole. It would really be much fairer to say that all Christians believed in the Mass than to bring such objections against Socialism ; for they not only do not belong to the essence of the system, but, even as accidents, apply to a very limited number of its advocates. As a matter of fact, there are many Socialists averse to war in every shape and form, nor could Dr. Flint find one disposed to prefer war to peace in the realisation of his ideas. The worst one can say about the most of them is, that they will not turn their cheek to the smiter. Force will be met by force. The Socialists of Germany for example were constitutional reformers till Bismarck passed repressive measures against them; and Britain has nothing to fear from violence on our part so long as her military and police do not interfere with our rights of pub­ lic meeting and political action. It is scarcely candid, more­ over, to represent even the militant attitude of Socialism as peculiar. History unfortunately shows the sword has been a frequent and efficient instrument of enfranchisement. There were circumstances when even Christ seemed to think it would be the duty of His disciples to part with their gar­ ments and buy one, and certainly much has been yielded to violence that never was given to entreaty. It was the battle-axe of the barons that compelled a craven king to sign Magna Charta. The Commons of England could only get its Petition of Rights by the Ironsides of Cromwell. There were riots enough before even the middle classes secured the Reform Bill of ’32. Nor are the powerful any wiser to-day. Ireland has triumphed by dynamite as well �7 — as organisation, and the action of our politicians must be held largely responsible for the spread among the people of the deplorable conviction that petitions are mere paper unless presented on pikes. The language of the most sanguine Socialist indicates nothing worse than the belief that history will in this respect repeat itself in connection with his movement. Let us hope he may be mistaken, and there is no reason in fact for the fulfilment of his prophecy. The Government has only to treat Socialists with justice to avert this calamity. Their scheme could be realised to­ morrow with felicitation instead of fighting, if our mer­ chants and manufacturers would simply resolve to use their influence and power for the welfare of all instead of for their own. The capital and intelligence so much wasted at present in internecine competition would then be concentrated for the benefit of the community, instead of employed for the glorification of individuals. Let them continue, on the contrary, to exploit the workers for their own profit, as well as oppose the machinery of law to the demands of justice, and violence will characterise the triumph of Socialism, as it has done that of every great and good movement. May God, however, avert the omen ! We shrink from the contemplation of such a conflict, but must protest with all possible vehemence against Dr Flint throwing on Socialism the responsibility of such a result. If he is in earnest about the maintenance of peace, let him preach to the originators of war, and this, if all stories are true, will mean plain speaking directed to high quarters. May we shed our blood for the restoration of a Battenberg and not spare a drop for the emancipation of our brethren ? The curse of Capitalism, however, is even worse -than the influence of Courts. It sent out our soldiers to Egypt to �— 8 — slaughter the poor peasants for not paying exorbitant taxes to meet the claims of avaricious bondholders. They gave their money freely to minister to the sensuality of a vicious Viceroy on condition of receiving a high rate of interest wrung from the extreme poverty of his industrious subjects, and would, for the same inducement, supply the sinews of war to the greatest enemy of their own country. So much for the morality of Capitalism, which at this very moment is anxious to get up a Continental war for the sake of im­ mediate gain. It must all, however, be done under the name of patriotism. Patriotism ! It would burn the palladia of the country to cook its potatoes. It would be worthier, therefore, of Dr Flint to attack, in our exchanges and cabinets, the promoters of war, than to make sport for the Philistines by throwing ridicule on the lovers of peace. Even Goethe, with all his heathenism, saw in the conduct of the rulers the real cause for all popular risings, and a nation like Scotland, honouring the Covenanters for resist­ ing with then- blood the imposition of a liturgy, is not likely to censure their descendants in contending for a living. In connection, however, with violence, we may be par­ doned a passing reference to the revolutionary character of Socialism. Dr Flint said very truly it was not “ A system merely of amendment, improvement, and reform.” It holds the condition of society to be “ essentially one of anarchy and injustice,” and for this reason it is impossible to tinker at it, as if it were essentially sound. Industry must be carried on for the good of all instead of the gain of one, and nothing short of the realisation of this ideal will content Socialists. We are certainly revolutionary in this sense but in no other. Such a term neither of necessity implies �— 9 the use of violence nor indifference to circumstances. We know full well theories cannot be carried out unless in har­ mony with the nature and surroundings of men. We are in no danger, therefore, of degenerating into doctrinaires. Our revolution is based on evolution, and is no more “ momentous and unparalleled ” than other changes through which industry has already passed. The movement from competition to co-operation is really in no way greater than that from communal to private property in land, and will be accomplished from the same motive, and perhaps by the same method. Socialism can only be realised by people believing it to be for their interest. We are not likely to imitate the conduct of the Emperor of Russia in construct­ ing a railway between Moscow and St Petersburg. He merely asked for a map and drew a strait line from the one town to the other, utterly regardless of the condition of the country lying between. It is not after this fashion we desire or expect the institution of Socialism. There are signs of decrepitude about the system of Competition. Grey hairs are upon it. The crust is cracking, and multitudes are going down to the abyss. Society is groaning under its insecurity. Infinite mischief is produced by its periodical crises and its limited companies. Capital is being con­ centrated. Manufacturers and merchants are collapsing around us, and falling into the ranks of the workers, while the workers are, by the extension of machinery, being driven to the streets. The drones are drawing dividends and the industrious are eating dust. This inequality, however, has stimulated the sentiment of justice. The better nature of rich and poor is rising in rebellion against our oppressive circumstances. Righteousness can alone exalt a people, and the effect of iniquity in the land is to �induce many to cast their idols of silver and gold to the moles and to the bats, in order to lift the beggar from the dunghill and set the poor among princes. The forces of our revolution are thus busily at work, and cannot be stopped by a mere arrangement of words. It is for us to secure control over them and guide them to a speedy and salutary issue. Destruction need not be known within our borders. The stones of our temple are being fashioned in the quarry, and if only the wealthy and powerful would see it to be their interest, as it undoubtedly is, rather to further than to frustrate our efforts, the stately edifice would forth­ with be erected amid the jubilation of a harmonious people. Industry has but to follow the advice given by the lec­ turer, and organise itself to secure this consummation so devoutly to be wished. It would then become conscious of its power, to the dismay of the idlers ; and, gathering round it the wisdom and integrity of the community, its victory would neither be doubtful nor difficult. But, whatever may betide, the Socialists will be true to themselves. *■ We are they who will not falter, Many swords or few, Till we make this earth the altar Of a worship new. We are they who will not take From palace, priest, or code, A meaner law than * Brotherhood,’ A lower lord than ‘ God.’ ” We come at last to consider the definition given by Dr Flint. He played, with his usual logical ability, between the terms Individualism and Socialism, and reached, as every sensible person might have expected, the somewhat barren conclusion that the one was the opposite of the other. He was, of course, wise enough to see that if the one pole meant slavery the other stood at savagery, and �— 11 therefore, he argued, we must have a judicious mixture of both. The commonplace philosopher always comes to the same conclusion. There is a good deal to be said on both ■sides. No doubt, but there must be some order in dealing with them if we are to arrive at any satisfactory result. The social toddy will never be perfect without this treat­ ment of the separate ingredients. Dr Flint set himself to pour out the whisky of Individualism and the hot water of Socialism, as well as to add a little sentiment by way of sugar, but he got scalded in the operation, and dropped the kettle. It is impossible on any other supposition to account for the energetic but irrelevant remarks that escaped him at this time. He insisted upon paying no attention to the method of mixing the several ingredients together, forget­ ting that hot water is the basis of all good toddy. Enter­ prise can only be mischievous unless inspired by justice, and this is really the essence of Socialism. Nothing could well be more erroneous than the idea of the two poles sug­ gested by the lecturer. The Socialism of to-day, unlike that of yesterday, is in no way opposed to liberty. It really differs in this respect little from politics ; for just as in politics you have one party inclined to favour and another to oppose the action of Government, so is it with Socialism. There is, however, a difference between the two, and it is •one telling still more strongly against the statements of Dr Flint. There is no system so anxious as Socialism to secure the liberty of the individual. One of the planks of the ■Governmental or Marxist party is the extension of freedom to every member of the community, while the devotion of the Anarchists to the same idea puts even Herbert Spencer to shame. These, however, are all Socialists. They are all agreed in their love of liberty, as well as in their opposition �— 12 to the .tyranny of majorities, and differ only about the steps necessary to its realisation. Not only so, they are at one in thinking the present system of competition is altogether inconsistent with any sufficient measure of freedom to the great mass of the people. Hunger enslaves one to purpose, and so long as we are dependent on the few for the means of livelihood, so long will they remain our masters. Social­ ism sets itself to the solution of this problem. It proclaims liberty to the captive, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound. Instead of having any desire to' interfere with our freedom, it is inspired throughout by a purpose to extend it. The principle, therefore, repudiated by all Socialists is really, by a strange perversity, the one constituting the definition of Dr Flint, while that on which they are all agreed is the one he systematically ignores. Socialism is simply neither more nor less than an at­ tempt to transfer the means of production and distribu­ tion from the possession of the individual to the control of the community, in order that every one willing to work may get it, and be paid the full value of his labour. In proof of this let me quote from an article in the Nineteenth Century for February, by our comrade, P. Kropotkin, on “The Scientific Basis of Anarchy.” “ In common with all Socialists,” he says, “ the Anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time.” The watchword of Socialism is, “ Economical freedom as the only secure basis for spiritual freedom.” In spite of such explicit definition, however, we find Dr Flint assuring his admiring audience of exploiters and exploited that the central idea of Socialism is, that labour is the source of all wealth, and that labour is often confounded by us with the mere use of our hands. There are no doubt ignorant �— 13 — people among us, and one would not like to become respon­ sible for all their statements, but would the learned Pro­ fessor not object if we went for an exposition of his creed to a street preacher ? Intelligence, we maintain, on the contrary, is essential for every operation, except the draw­ ing of dividends, and ought to be rewarded if applied to public welfare. This is the doctrine of Socialism. It is really too absurd to blame us at one time for indifference to land and capital in the creation of wealth, and at another to denounce us for desiring to get possession of them by legal means if possible, but by all means since necessary. We know the value of these things in the production of wealth, and maintain not only the right of all to what has been created by none, but that every modification of natural agents for human welfare has been brought about by com­ bined labour, and ought not therefore to be in the posses­ sion of individuals, but under the control of the community. Capital, for example, is wanted very badly at present to provide the poor with nourishing food, warm clothing, and decent houses, but cannot be had for such purposes, since its owners find it more remunerative “to supply the Khedive with harems, and the Russian Government with strategic railways and Krupp guns.” It would seem, how­ ever, we ought to acquiesce in such an arrangement, and refuse to say to any member of society, “ I have no need of thee.” It is impossible for us to do so, and we presume Dr Flint himself is not prepared to fully carry out this prin­ ciple. It is really a platitude, meaning anything or nothing, and therefore worthy of the ignorant applause with which it was greeted. Are we willing, for example, to apply it to the criminals in our midst ? Do we actually require thieves? Certainly not. But if not, why not? �— 14 — The answer is of course obvious. They are taking what belongs to others, and either living in Idleness themselves ■or devoting their energy to the production of mischief. Just so ! We can do very well without them, and they constitute a very large category. Mr. Ruskin somewhere •divides society into robbers, beggars, and workers. It ■seems to us the last class should set itself to get rid of the other two, for in so doing it would not only perform a duty to itself, but confer a benefit on them. Nor should this be a difficult task to accomplish, for the workers really number two-thirds of the community, and are sufficiently generous to keep only one-third of the national income to themselves. The lynx eye of the lecturer, however, sees the cloven hoof in such statements. He would turn in holy horror from our figures and suggestions. We are, according to him, indifferent to the intellectual, moral, and religious mission of society. Such objections do certainly surprise us. Are we not doing, with our miserable resources, much to persuade the community to consider its own interest ? Can Dr Flint really believe people have much intelligence who submit to such a chaotic and iniquitous state of matters, or would he find a greater proof of it in their familiarity with metaphysical problems ? Moral ! Do we know any morality that can dispense with justice in our relation to each other ? It is at least the aim of Socialism to extend this principle, and we utterly fail to understand how any society can be conscious of a moral mission that does not set herself to deliver the oppressed from the spoiler. Has not the in­ equality of the classes much to do with the immorality of both ? We must have neither the luxury of the rich nor the privation of the poor, if we desire virtue to prevail in �15 the community. Wise man was he who sought neither poverty nor riches, for the one brings temptations to extra­ vagance and the other to avarice. Religious ! May wepresume to differ on this point from a doctor of the Church ? We will not venture to discuss with him questions of dogma, ceremony, or institution. These, we submit, are not of the essence of religion. We read somewhere in an old book for which, along with himself, many of us profess, the greatest respect, that what God really requires of one is to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly beforeHim. This is the principle of Socialism. We are bold enough, in fact, to number in our ranks the Son of Man Himself, and certainly His immediate followers went very much farther than our present proposals. The religion of Christ did not consist of sermons and sacrifices, nor did it ever become indifferent to our temporal condition. One was not only taught by Him to love his neighbour as him­ self, but commanded to leave his gift at the altar till he had been reconciled to his brother. There are religions, of' course, indifferent to all moral and social considerations,, but we generally speak of them as superstitions, and con­ trast them, to their disadvantage, with Christianity. The elementary principles of it demand that we stand in a right relation to each other. It is, however, the desire of Social­ ism to promote this, and therefore the statement of Dr Elint that “ At present the main body of the Socialist army ” looks on “ religion with a jealous and hostile eye,” may be met with a direct negative. He is too good a logician and theologian not to know the ambiguous use he is here making of the term “religion.” What is religion? Is it to be identified with Popery or Presbyterianism? Must it be connected with temples and tithes? Many Socialists of �— 16 — course, like other sensible people, have grave doubts about the value of much connected with our ecclesiastical religions. They are not enamoured of priestcraft and dogma. This suspicion, however, of what has proved so mischievous, makes them prize all the more the evangelical religion of justice and mercy opposed to it. Dr. Flint had also a sneer at the “ so-called Christian Socialists,” for looking on Christ as “a mere Social Reformer,” but, so far as any relevancy in it was concerned, he might as well, like a popular orator, have applied it to “this so-called nineteenth century.” Our Christianity is a reality, and this is more than, with all our charity, we can confess to be the case with much of the re­ ligion sheltering itself under the segis of the Professor. There was more of cavil than candour in contrasting to their dis­ advantage the Christian Socialists of the present with Maurice and Kingsley. It is impossible to admire either the spirit or the accuracy of such remarks, for there is really no essential difference between the Christian Socialism of to-day and that of a generation ago. Maurice was intensely opposed to the principle of competition—to buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest market—to every one for himself and none for his neighbour. It was to him an inspiration of Antichrist—utterly inconsistent with the command to “look not every one on his own things, but every one also on the things of others.” Competition appeared to Maurice diametrically opposed to Christian precept as well as example, and had therefore to be corn, pletely rejected. Attempts to correct the evil results of it are simply efforts to make Satan respectable, and are there­ fore doomed to failure. We certainly agree in this view of competition, and desire with him to substitute for it the principle of co-operation. This, however, is the aim of �17 — Socialism. It is true he was not in favour of confiscation or violence in carrying it out, but no more are the Christian Socialists of to-day. They cannot, however, altogether de­ termine the course humanity will take, or be allowed to take, in the realisation of its ideals, but in doing what they can to persuade the rich to consider the condition of the poor and act justly towards them, they deserve not only to be complimented for their noble purpose, but also for their excellent method. Nor is it by any means the case that Christ is reduced by them to “a mere Social Reformer.” There is not only liberty to hold every variety of opinion about His person and work, but the variety exists. Trini­ tarian and Unitarian meet on the same platform of evan­ gelical morality, and believe it is better to carry out the gospel precepts on which they all agree, than dispute about the theological dogmas on which they differ. Controversy with Dr. Flint is not a pleasure to us, but Caesar must yield to Rome. We expected larger know­ ledge and wiser counsels from him. The community ought to know the meaning of Socialism, and these lectures, with all their merits, will only make “confusion worse con­ founded.” They have certainly done harm to the lecturer. Many familiar with the subject, and not without respect for himself, have been asking in perplexity an explanation of his statements, reluctant to account for them either through ignorance or intention. It is not for us to deal with the causes, but with the errors themselves. We can, however, easily account for them without the imputation of any unworthy motives to the lecturer, for Dr. Flint is, unfor­ tunately, not the only wise and good man in the community capable of saying foolish things about Socialism, and we do not despair of his conversion. There were times, indeed, �— 18 — when even he seemed to kick against the pricks of his conscience in his condemnation of our system, and we can only hope that by the exercise of his trained intellect, as well as under the inspiration of his better nature, he will be speedily led to embrace it. None would receive a warmer welcome into our ranks, and few could do more for our cause. It is in this spirit of conciliation we desire to criticise his statements. He has far too much good sense ever to be influenced by the applause of an ignorant multi­ tude, most of them in broad-cloth and seal-skin, while we can wish him no greater honour than to become a leader in our beneficent movement, for its aim is not merely the elevation of man to the stature of Christ, but the realisation of the Kingdom of God upon earth. “ Then let us pray that come it may, As come it will for a’ that, That sense an’ worth o’er a’ the earth May bear the gree an’ a’ that. For a’ that, an’ a’ that, It’s cornin’ yet for a’ that, That man to man the warld o’er Shall brithers be an’ a’ that.” “be just and FEAR NOT.” A. Hossack, Printer, 71 Bristo Street, Edinburgh. �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Socialism on its defence: a reply to Professor Flint Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Edinburgh Collation: 18 p. ; 19 cm. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Scottish Land and Labour League Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context T466 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource [Unknown] Subject The topic of the resource Socialism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Socialism on its defence: a reply to Professor Flint), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Flint Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b17e54a0ca78b8e5523efa4ba566a1ba.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=V4-PDXZgUGrBh75-cTgk6m2wWwLE0JsE4LEEvfHinlswMmMJ3Ot9B1XziHb6A0Oqo4Xh-csItlClmt-nXWS4AmlLHKrMYK7g7klJ3oDFQMVvsv-W83DamD9twxsF8LrlID5SzL7dwC39EuXPZ1HEy8lpDwtSF5muy8sZSBOsfIPyMu-YilD4RAXTvmbAI53V0avOP6UW8qyL6c-TFv3n-Stb1b7SdZp4tx4FzuGGltr1bZ0zIbw1-3njn2tfYJXTdMYX4bgRhiWEr8wvYOFu6n1ZGK-xhSyVVIB4FeYqxjcdSIiLn1jI1ih7hfKowcy6otNR3ZVp0iZt7%7EQAjlo4Ww__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM fc867c8a956e4cdece02e876219417d8 PDF Text Text (Llj£ Cbljnmwl ®nnnd: OUGHT THE DEMOCRACY TO OPPOSE OR SUPPORT IT? <* --------------------- - By CJ^LEg BHJTOIiJlU'QjI, JI.P. LONDON: Printed and Published by A. Bonner, 34, BOUVERIE STREET, FLEET STREET, E.C. Price 2d. ��THE CHANNEL TUNNEL: OUGHT THE DEMOCRACY TO OPPOSE OR SUPPORT IT ? ---------- +---------- I went down to the House of Commons on August 3rd intending to speak and vote in favor of the second reading of the Channel Tunnel Experimental Works Bill, but on the appeal made first by the Chairman of Committees, and repeated by the leader of the House—an appeal also con­ curred in by Mr. John Morley, speaking on behalf of the front Opposition bench—I refrained from speaking, and contented myself with a silent vote in favor of the measure. Since then I find such a concurrence of opinion in the press hostile to the Channel Tunnel that I think it my duty to publicly state my reasons for my vote, especially as Sir Edward Watkin, in moving the Bill, directly asked for an expression of opinion from the English democracy, and on the division being taken the representatives of labor in the House were in opposing lobbies on the question. A circular signed by Mr. C. Sheath, Secretary pro tem. of the Channel Tunnel Company, clearly stated the objects of the Bill voted on, i.e., “To authorise the promoters to prosecute the experimental works which they have commenced at their own cost under authority granted �4 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. by Parliamant in 1874, to test the practicability of con­ structing a tunnel beneath the Straits of Dover”; and explained that “the Bill empowers her Majesty’s Govern­ ment, in the event of the experimental works proving successful, to sanction the prosecution of permanent works under such conditions and safeguards as the Government in their absolute discretion may impose. The experi­ mental works for which permission is now sought will be made upon the promoters’ own property and at their own cost. The public are not asked to contribute towards the work, which will not impose any pecuniary obligation upon the country.” I, however, quite admit that those who are prepared to support the experimental works ought also to be pre­ pared—in the event of these workings proving successful •—to authorise the construction of a complete working tunnel, and that any objections which might be valid as against the complete undertaking ought to be admitted as conclusive against the experimental proposal. I am personally in favor of the Channel Tunnel because I believe it would promote peaceful relations between the peoples of France and England. I am not a shareholder in either the French or English scheme solely because I have not the pecuniary means to acquire shares. I believe that peaceful relations between Great Britain and Europe would be rendered more probable by the facilities afforded for commercial intercommunication. I hold that the more peoples trade with each other, the more they know one another, the less likely they are to fight one another. It is because I am in favor of peace between France and England that I am in favor of the Channel Tunnel. Here I only reaffirm what was so well �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 5 •said by the late Richard Cobden, speaking on this very question of a tunnel between England and the Continent: “It is not enough to put the Government and the higher ■classes of each country on a friendly footing; that good feeling ought to penetrate the masses of the two nations ; and it is our duty to multiply all the means for an inces­ sant contact, which will certainly put an end to super­ annuated prejudices and old ideas of antagonism?’ The horribly increased and always augmenting Euro­ pean army and navy expenditure of the last twenty-five years, the British share of which Lord Randolph Churchill now strongly denounces, can only be efficiently checked by concurrent and decided peace action on the part of all European peoples. The great need for early disarming is admitted. The peaceful co-operation of France and England would enable each, relying on the other’s good will, to waste less money in warlike preparations. It is in this interest that I support the proposed submarine pathway between this island and the Continent. I believe that increased facilities for friendly intercourse would pro­ mote and secure the peaceful co-operation I desire. Something has already been done towards showing that the Channel betwixt Kent and the Pas de Calais can be tunnelled. Last year I visited the works, near Shakspere’s Cliff, on the west of Dover, and penetrated under the sea to the place where the engine, worked by compressed air, had bored from England through the greyish clay chalk If miles in the direction of France. I found the piece of tunnel already executed quite dry; the air was perfectly pure, the ventilation being provided by the compressed air which works theboringmachine; and the work of tunnelling—which under the supervision of a Government official was allowed �6 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. to be continued for a few seconds—seemed astonishingly easy, as the revolution of the machine cut the chalk away and delivered it into the waggon behind ready for removal.. The experimental tunnel is bored in the strata which are sup­ posed to represent the continuous earth surface—between what are now the coasts of France and England—in pre­ historic times when the land, now these islands, formed, part of the great European continent. Messieurs Lavalley, Larousse, Potier, and Lapparent, in their report to theFrench Channel Tunnel Company, presented in 1877, say: “Examination of the cliffs on each coast of the Straitsshows that the geological strata are the same in the area which concerns us, and which includes especially thecretaceous formation. On both sides are the same strata, with the same characteristics, and, remarkable to say, with, the same thickness. Hence the presumption—authorised indeed by other considerations—that in the prehistoricperiod, instead of an arm of the sea, separating two coasts, there stretched here a continuous, more or less undulating, plain, between the points at which have since been built Calais and Boulogne on the one side, Folkestone and Doveron the other. According to this hypothesis, the Straits would be due to the gradual erosion of a soil of slight consistency, such as the cretaceous formation in general, which yielded before the ceaseless repetition of blows from, the waves of the Northern Sea, a sea so stormy during therougher months of the year. From this we gather thehope that the strata encountered beneath the sea, through which the tunnel must be driven, will be free from seriousdislocations, and will only present slight undulations to which it will generally be possible to conform the plan of.' the subterranean railway without any great difficulty. �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 7 “ This hope is confirmed by the following circumstance: the strata of the chalk formation on the two sides of the Straits, although thrown out of the horizontal plane they first occupied, have not acquired a steep inclination. The inclination is always slight. Over the greater part of the area of the Straits, starting from France, the gradient is but f, a fact that seems to indicate that the force of the upheaval which threw the strata out of the horizontal plane was not violent.” I am told that on the French side a similar boring to the one which I visited near Dover has been made towards this country, so that about one-eighth of the experimental work has already been executed. Why is it not continued to completion? The promoters on both sides are ready enough; the French Government is willing; but the British Government—influenced as I think by the worst form of national prejudice—absolutely forbids further working on this side, and the French are of course unwilling to continue costly works—which can only be completed with our full consent—until that con­ sent is officially secured. The only reason for objecting to the Channel Tunnel is that it will render us specially liable to invasion. Some contend that the Tunnel will not pay ; but that, as the British Government said thirteen years ago, is rather the business of those who, believing in the probabilities of its financial success, are willing to risk their moneys in the hope of reasonable financial profit. The war danger is the only cry to which the democracy need pay any attention. When the matter was discussed between the Governments of Great Britain and France thirteen years ago, this war danger was examined by the Government of the day of this country �8 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. and dismissed as not serious. In a despatch from the Foreign Office to Count de Jarnac, the French Ambassador, dated 24th December, 1874, the Earl of Derby wrote that “Her Majesty’s Government consider that it is for the promoters of the undertaking to weigh well the questions of the physical possibility of the undertaking, and its probable financial success; but they see no objection to the proposed preliminary concession to the French pro­ moters, for the execution of the preliminary works, for a term of three years, nor to the concession of five years for making a definite contract with an English Company for the completion of the undertaking, on the understand­ ing that, should the promoters fail to fulfil these condi­ tions, the land in England occupied by them, and the works upon it, should revert to the Crown, or other present owners thereof, so that the occupation of the land by a Company which has failed, may not stand in the way of any other undertaking. “Her Majesty’s Government have no objection to offer to the proposed grant to the promoters of a monopoly for thirty years after the final completion of and opening of the tunnel, nor to the concession itself extending to a period of ninety-nine years from the same date, the ques­ tion being reserved of some limitation being imposed as tothe date of the final completion.” And it is clear that the military side of the question had not been overlooked, for Lord Derby in a dispatch of the same date to Lord Lyons says: “In regard to the refer­ ence made in the papers received from Count de Jarnac to the military necessities of either country, her Majesty’s Government will only now observe that they must retain absolute power not only to erect and maintain such works �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 9 at the English mouth of the tunnel as they may deem expedient, but also, should they apprehend danger of war, or of intended war, to stop traffic through the tunnel; and it remains to be considered whether they should not have the right to exercise their power without claim for com­ pensation.” Nor was the military question neglected or glossed over, for two months later the following memorandum was submitted to the Surveyor-General of Ordnance by Sir W. Drummond Jervois, Deputy-Director of Works, on 3rd March, 1875, Sir Frederick Chapman being at that time the Inspector-General of Fortifications : ‘1 Memorandum with Deference to the Proposed Tunnel between England and France. “ There appears to be no military objection to the pro­ posed tunnel, provided due precautions be adopted. “Should this country, in alliance with France, be at war with another Continental power, the existence of the tunnel might be advantageous. “ Should this country be at war with France, the pro­ posed tunnel could no doubt be readily closed. Having regard, however, to the possibility of the tunnel being unnecessarily injured under the influence of panic, and to the probable cost of repairing such injury, it is desirable to obviate, as far as possible, the necessity for adopting extreme measures, and with this object to pay due regard to defensive considerations in the construction of the tunnel. “ Moreover, unless proper military precautions be taken, it might under some circumstances happen that France might be able, in anticipation of a declaration of war, to �10 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. send a body of troops through, the tunnel, and thus obtain an important military advantage. Such a body of troops could readily intrench themselves, and could be rapidly reinforced. “ If, however, suitable defensive arrangements are made, such an undertaking would be impracticable, and even in case of war being imminent, no fears need be entertained which might lead to the partial destruction of this costly work.” In April, 1876, the French Ambassador at the Court of St. James applied on behalf of La Societe Frangaise Concessionnaire du. Chemin de Fer Sous-Marin entre la France et l’Angleterre for the permission of her Majesty’s Govern­ ment to take soundings in British waters near Dover for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the bottom of that part of the English Channel, and the Board of Trade were informed by the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty’s Treasury, on the 10th June following, that the necessary application had been granted. Although a Channel Tunnel Company, with Lord Stalbridge (then Lord R. Grosvenor) as chairman, had ob­ tained an Act of Parliament in 1875 authorising the com­ mencement of experimental tunnelling works, nothing was really done by way of submarine boring from the English coast until the summer of 1880, when the borings just referred to were commenced by the South Eastern Railway, which obtained special powers from Parliament in 1881 for continuing the work and purchasing the necessary land. These works and powers were taken over and con­ tinued in 1882 by the Submarine Continental Railway Company, Limited. The new company, however, found itself almost immediately interrupted in the work by the �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 11 intervention of the English Government, such intervention being the result of a panic created by military alarmists. In August, 1881, the Board of Trade wrote to the Admiralty that “ the work of forming a subway under the Channel was making considerable progress ”, and that “public susceptibility having been aroused as to possible danger to this country from a tunnel under the Channel”, the Board desired “to be fortified with the opinion of the naval and military authorities ”. In January, 1882, Admiral Cooper Key sounded the panic trumpet, and did much to excite the opposition which has, up to the present, proved fatally obstructive to the progress of the English borings. In May, 1882, a memorandum—most important because issued after the panic opposition had got into full cry— was issued by Sir John Adye, then Surveyor-General of the Ordnance, embodying the report of a military com­ mittee, presided over by General Sir A. Alison, which had been instructed to consider “the means by which, sup­ posing the Channel Tunnel completed, its use could be interdicted to an enemy in time of war ”. Sir J. Adye says : “The military precautions necessary to provide against such a contingency almost naturally divide themselves into two parts:—1. The defence or command of the exit by means of batteries and fortifications. 2. The closing or destruction of the tunnel itself, either temporarily or per­ manently, both as regards its land and submarine portions. The Committee have dealt with both points in some detail. As regards the former they urge, that whilst the land portion of the tunnel should be constructed in the vicinity of a fortress, it is also important that its exit should lie outside but under the full command of the �12 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. batteries in the outworks of the fortress itself. With respect to the partial closing or entire destruction of the tunnel, both in its land and submarine portions, the Com­ mittee have entered into various details, and have made numerous proposals by which, if necessary, these objects may be accomplished. According to my judgment their recommendations, both as to defence and closure, are sound and practical, can be carried on without great cost or difficulty, and will amply suffice for the objects in view. I agree with them that the general line of the land portion of the tunnel had better be constructed not far from the lines of a fortress, whilst the exit should also be under the command of the guns of its outworks. Such a dis­ position of the tunnel will facilitate the arrangements in respect to the preparation of mines, etc., whilst a full command of the mouth will render its use or occupation by an enemy practically impossible. The various details and proposals of the Committee as to obstruction and closure, partial or permanent, are such as, I think, will commend themselves to engineers, civil or military, as being efficacious for the purpose; and I would further point out that whilst they are comparatively simple, it is evident they can be multiplied indefinitely, and have the further advantage, that the possession of the tunnel and its exit by an enemy would not prevent their being carried into effect; and even should some of them fail, such a contingency would not necessarily entail the failure of others. The means of obstruction, in short, are not only various but are independent of each other, and many of them could be improvised or multiplied even at the last moment. Nothing, indeed, is more obvious than the facility with which the tunnel can be denied to an enemy, �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 13> by means which no vigilance on his part could prevent or remove.” And yet the British democracy are in 1887 asked to reject the tunnel scheme because a real or counterfeit fear, in any case begotten of ignorance and prejudice, has seized on some of our “great generals” and hysterical journalists. In April, 1883, a joint Select Committee of the Lords, and Commons, five members from each House, was. appointed ‘ ‘ to inquire whether it is expedient that Par­ liamentary sanction should be given to a submarine com­ munication between England and France ; and to consider whether any or what conditions should be imposed by Parliament in the event of such communication being sanctioned This Committee, presided over by the Marquis of Lansdowne, held fifteen sittings, but although several draft reports were prepared none was accepted, but the majority of the Committee, six against four, wereof “opinion that it is not expedient that Parliamentary sanction should be given to a submarine communication between England and France The minority report pre­ sented by Lord Lansdowne is a paper of remarkable ability, and sets out with great clearness the reasons for and against the proposed tunnel. General Sir Edward Hamley, M.P., who rose to speak against the tunnel, as I rose to speak in its favor, but who did not deliver his speech for the same reason which kept me silent, wrote a letter to the Times, which the editor, also hostile to the tunnel, says, “contrasts the position of an invading army which had succeeded in effecting a landing before a tunnel was formed with that of such an army in the event of a tunnel being constructed—its helplessness and peril, the difficulty in getting supplies �14 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. or reinforcements, the risk that we should again obtain command of the Channel in the former case, and the power to draw indefinite supplies through the tunnel in the latter case. The letter brings into relief the fact that even if we succeeded in preventing an invader from coming on our soil by means of this communication, it would be a great .aid to invaders who had actually made good their footing ■otherwise.” 11 1 The possession of both ends would render the invader independent of the sea. . . . Night and day a stream of troops and supplies would be pouring through the tunnel, possibly under the keels of our victorious but helpless Channel fleet. Now, in this case—and I would impress this point—it would no longer be a contest between two armies, but between the entire military resources of France on the one side and what we could oppose on the other.’ Thus a tunnel makes hostile occupation, if not invasion, easier.” I submit that this is really carrying panic to madness point, for, if an invading army, large enough and strong enough to capture Dover, had landed otherwise than through the tunnel, our state must have become so hope­ less that discussion as to how such an enemy would get supplies and reinforcement would cease to be material. Such an army so invading England, otherwise than by the tunnel, would be as dangerous to England whether or not the tunnel existed. The view now put forward by Sir E. Hamley was fully raised and considered in 1883, and discussed in the Minority Report of Lord Lansdowne, Lord Aberdare, the Right Hon. W. E. Baxter, and Mr. Reel, now Speaker of the House of Commons. The editor of the Times treats Sir E. Hamley’s objection as not having been answered; �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 15 but it was in truth exhaustively examined and completely answered in that Report. In paragraph 92 the Report examines seriatim the principal apprehensions expressed for the safety of the tunnel. “ These are to the effect that it might pass into the hands of an enemy— “(1) By surprise, effected through the tunnel itself; “(2) By surprise, effected by a force landed in the neighborhood of the tunnel, with or without the aid of troops passed through the tunnel; 11 (3) By surprise, facilitated by treachery; “ (4) After investment by an invading force; “ (5) By cession as the condition of a disastrous peace.” All these apprehensions are really expressions of fear of hostility from Prance. If anyone of these apprehen­ sions had carried weight with Italy, Germany, or France, the St. Gothard Tunnel, or the Mont Cenis Tunnel would never have been made. The three suppositions, 1, 2, and 3, are possible in case of an attempt made by Frenchmen when France and England are both at peace, and indeed this is Lord Wolseley’s contention. “ The seizing of the tunnel by a coup de main is, in my opinion,” says his lord­ ship, “ a very simple operation, provided it he done without any previous warning or intimation whatever by those who wish to invade the country.” “My contention is, that were a tunnel made, England, as a nation, could be destroyed without any warning whatever, when Europe was in a condition of profound peace............. the whole plan is based upon the assumption of its being carried out during a time of profound peace between the two nations, and whilst we were enjoying life in the security and unsuspicion of a fool’s paradise.” My short answer to this wild contention is that all �16 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. intercourse between nations would be impossible and life would be unendurable, if in time of “ profound peace ” we are always to treat neighboring nations as ever ready without provocation to suddenly assail our shores in order to rob and destroy. The European experience of the past century is entirely against the monstrous con­ tention put forward by Lord Wolseley that Erance might suddenly surprise us whilst we were in peace and alliance with her and all European powers. It is an insult to suspect our French neighbors of any such possible treason. The repetition of such insulting suspicions is in itself a provocation. In modern times there is no instance of any outbreak of hostilities between two great powers which has not been preceded at least by rumors and ex­ pressions of uneasiness and highly strained diplomatic negotiations on the points likely to culminate in rupture of peaceful relations. Yet, except on such a traitorous sur­ prise, Lord Wolseley himself guarantees the safety of the tunnel, for he says that, if sufficient notice were to be given, “fifty men at the entrance of the tunnel can pre­ vent an army of 100,000 men coming through it ”. The strongest military objections to the proposed tunnel are those stated with considerable literary skill, heightened by strong flavor of romance, in the long Memorandum of Adjutant-General Sir Garnet (now Lord) Wolseley, dated 16th June, 1882. The weight of Lord Wolseley’s objec­ tions on military grounds is a little weakened by the almost special pleading in which he indulges on the com­ mercial and diplomatic aspects of the question. The whole attitude of Lord Wolseley towards the Channel tunnel is that of an advocate who has a very hostile brief. He is not in this memorandum a serious military �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL, 17 counsellor, warning his countrymen against real dangers. He has recourse to poetry, pathos, general denunciation of treaties as valueless, and to tricks of curiously irrelevant appeal to national passion and national fear. Every objection stated by Lord Wolseley was seriously weighed by Lord Lansdowne and those who concurred in the minority report. ‘‘With regard to the possibility of seizing the English end of the tunnel by means of a small force landed in its neighborhood,” Lord Lansdowne and those concurring with him report: “we have endeavored to ascertain pre­ cisely the conditions, of which the presence would be indispensable if such an attempt were to have any chance of success. Those conditions would, we understand, be the following: “(1.) It would be necessary that the invading force should be despatched with absolute secrecy. “ (2.) That it should cross the Channel unobserved and unmolested by our fleet. “ (3.) That the state of the weather should offer no difficulties to the disembarcation. “(4.) That its landing should be effected without hindrance. “ (5.) That it should advance without molestation from the point at which it might be landed to the works by which the exit of the tunnel would be protected. “(6.) That it should find the garrison in a state of absolute unpreparedness. “(7.) That it should succeed in carrying by a simul­ taneous rush the whole of the various works surrounding the exit of the tunnel. “ (8.) That this capture should be effected so rapidly as �18 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. to render it impossible for the defenders of those works to have recourse to any of the means which would be in existence for the purpose of closing or destroying the tunnel, or, that the whole of those means should simul­ taneously chance to be out of working order. “ That every one of these conditions should be present at the same time appears to us most improbable. We can well conceive that, with the rapid communications now available for the movement of troops by land or sea, a force such as that contemplated might be collected and despatched, and possibly reach our coasts without warn­ ing. That its landing, formation, and forward movement could altogether escape detection we can scarcely conceive. It would, we learn from Admiral Rice, take twelve hours, even under the most favorable conditions, and assuming the landing to be unresisted, to land 20,000 men, the force contemplated by Sir Lintorn Simmons. Such a force could not, however, in Admiral Rice’s opinion, be landed with­ out attracting attention. A smaller body could, of course, be landed with greater rapidity, but the diminution of its numbers would not increase its chance of success. A force of 1,000 men could, Sir Cooper Key informs us, be landed under favorable circumstances in an hour; ‘the larger the number of men,’ however, this witness adds, ‘ the more the difficulties that would arise against the time, but I have no hesitation in saying, that if they were equipped for it, with boats properly prepared, and a good clear beach, they could land 10,000 men under ten hours.’ That such a force, or one approaching to it in strength, should be able to traverse without detection or hindrance, the distance intervening between the point of landing and the exit of the tunnel, which, unless the recommendations �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 19 of the military committee are altogether disregarded, would be at a considerable distance from the shore, appears to us difficult to conceive; were it to be detected, and the alarm given, the complete surprise of the garrisons of the different forts would no longer be possible.” One most extraordinary objection to the tunnel was gravely urged before the joint Committee of Lords find Commons in the evidence by the late Mr. Eckroyd, M.P. for Preston, in answer to a suggestive question from the Earl of Devon : “ Earl of Devon : You spoke of the probable influence you anticipated from the introduction of Erench labor upon the pecuniary interests of the British workman in the manufacturing departments of industry with which you are concerned; does it occur to you that any other evil might arise by the spread of Socialistic or Com­ munistic views from an increased intercourse between the large body of French and English workmen ?—Mr E.: That is an apprehension that is very often felt; and I believe we have found that, specially in periods of slack­ ness of employment and discontent, there would be an active propaganda of an Atheistic and Socialistic kind ” As though any ideas now circulated in France or on the Continent could be hindered from permeating here by mere refusal to construct a submarine tunnel! Lord "Wolseley and the Duke of Cambridge fear that French soldiers may conquer us bodily, coming for that purpose secretly through the tunnel. The Earl of Devon and Mr. Eckroyd have like fears of French Atheists and Socialists, who would find in the Channel tunnel a con­ venient conduit-pipe for their propaganda! The great plague of Europe just now, and one that has been increasing in its virulence and oppressiveness for the �20 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. last quarter of a century, is the huge waste of men and material in every European country in preparing for armed offence and defence. If the figures compiled by Mr. Lewis Appleton are correct, then during the year ending 31st December, 1886, Europe had under arms, not including reserves, no less than 4,123,675 men, and the European forces available for war, including reserves, were 16,697,484. In 1886 Europe spent on army and navy no less than £187,474,522. Unless there be disarmament, there must be fierce war or terrible revolution. The burden of in­ creasing taxation is too continuously heavy for long peaceful bearing. The rulers find pride and pomp in the controlling and array of huge masses of armed men. It is the peoples who pay and suffer. Commerce is an eloquent peace preacher; the frequent and more complete intermingling of unarmed peoples begets distaste for war; national prejudices die away under frequent contact; explanations are easier as peoples know one another better. I am in favor of this Channel tunnel because it will give to us in this island easier moans of seeing our European brethren in their own cities. It will afford to the folk of France the opportunity of knnwing for themselves that the English workmen do not desire quarrel or war. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Channel Tunnel : ought the democracy to oppose it or support it? Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 20 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available A. Bonner Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N082 Subject The topic of the resource International relations Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Channel Tunnel : ought the democracy to oppose it or support it?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Channel Tunnel France Great Britain-Foreign Relations-France NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ca9dc2235e36314834838a1e9bd6bc9a.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=h6l3RZiCYIqV0GPY%7EvtN6mlcXMpgMkwkJ%7E2pCQyPtZrbsddlf5Uor8Lg2IgnenWwukCr0Esch3aHREROx9JMEHz09auBtPMvnM46UTbOGaFdgPmxLlY-mTax0tEEeHYOBOoEfq%7EZSsJVBIT2QgEW-CB8MwZbx8FClEOLuqSIz8ycAqcC6XfStz8sfP1Ag-vIzscodgDNHWAdQt9I1OiIEUfqV5r5LPbHvkia6XVx4lCUFvbjcj80gRZQWa4AfX0OSzyZ0q67hgFIUwd5PIhGMmF2b8C3cbuw8iA6nKLX6fFXAC2ti6gRi676-mPbyJQ408zdeXxyqJN46w7-gPkzjw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 520587af2e2c99329ee569ce67947d57 PDF Text Text ���������������������������� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The ethics of social reform: A paper read at a meeting of The Fellowship of the New Life, London Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Adams, Maurice Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 26 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Publisher's advertisements on front and back endpaper. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available W. Reeves Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G898 Subject The topic of the resource Ethics Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The ethics of social reform: A paper read at a meeting of The Fellowship of the New Life, London), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Ethics Social Reform https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f3d658a369013348e36a4db63ebc5c47.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=U3iOgiNmCy-8mV5r7SjwyeHABpSFV9pze-ldHRWzO9R785kKpYcyGTY0KtrMBE6ZwmDWd3idijTsiaMwTo-Dt21eGnFw%7ElO4CJyrRTp-hk6gn2rBvCkq8x1XUUS0UI5IGJkF02AI89sM4a8quAymAPYfPwUbzHbvmMR6Nn22SrQOinRaTdm4v1aFCt11UMh%7EuLAlKKbzBJ0mknVexSzaG1ndVSTwrAP1lhvAptwWbcWcaHwqC%7ECV8s6tepyaCci6PR4KLokD-je9hgxokhbUMW4CfAdY2hOxHK3c18lHS6OTSg4N7PuW-ed1sVFxd6wPV7P54ZhfwINLw%7EispoX6gQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 6b3ce4e0cefc756657933ec14f6c52d4 PDF Text Text OF PRAYER G. W. FOOTE. (Third Edition.) TWOPENCE. PRICE LONDON: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.G. 1887. �LONDON : MINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE, AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �fS 2474- INTRODUCTION. The following Essay was first published in 1880, and a second edition was published in 1884, with an introduction dealing with current illustrations of the doctrine of prayer. In issuing this third edition I rewrite that Introduction, bringing the subject “up to date.” My Essay was originally entitled 77/e Futility of Prayer, but the second edition bore the more forcible title of The Folly of Prayer. I am con­ vinced that Heine was right when he said that “ the superfluous is harmful.” Progress is so huge a task, so arduous, and so painful, that any diversion of human energy into unprofitable channels is a disaster. If prayer is futile, it is a folly. I omitted in my Essay to mention the recovery of the Prince of Wales from gastric fever, many years ago, and the National Thanks­ giving Service held in St. Paul’s Cathedral. What orgies of religious excitement were worked up by the London press, and notably by that eminently pious journal, the Daily Telegraph ! How we were bidden tofwatch the great national wave of prayer surging against the throne of grace! Thanks to a good constitution, and the highest medical skill, the Prince recovered. But the clergy insisted that his recovery was due to prayer. Accordingly they organised a stupendous farce at St. Paul’s, where they thanked God for his marvellous mercy. But amidst all the delirium the authorities retained a little sagacity. The doctors were handsomely rewarded, and one of them was elevated to the dignity of a knight. Deity received the empty praise, and the phvsiciansthe solid pudding. Several years after that interesting event, President Garfield was assassinated by a wretched being, whose mind was diseased with vanity and religion. Week after week science fought with death over the President’s sick bed, while prayers for his recovery were offered up in every church and chapel in the United States. But his life ebbed slowly away amid a people’s supplications. If prayer saved the life of �Introduction. the P rince of Wales, why did it not save the life of President Garfield ? Is God a respecter of persons? Or is the Deity so monarchical that he will not succor the President of a Republc ? It is difficult to see how the fatality of Guiteau’s bullet can be explained, without denying the effioac y of prayer, or impeaching the character of God. When France and Italy were visited by the cholera, in 1884, it naturally excited the popular superstition. Religious processions and public prayers to the Virgin were frequently demanded, but the civic authorities resisted these pious clamors, and it is a remarkable fact that they were usually supported by the higher priests, who were sensible enough to perceive that excitement would render the multitude more susceptible to the plague. There can be litttle doubt that, if England were visited by the plague, our higher clergy would exhibit the same prudence, although our Prayer Book contains a form of “prayer in time of sickness.” During the present year the north of Italy and the south of France have suffered from earthquakes. But while the gambling hell of Monte Carlo was scarcely shaken, the sacred edifices of many other towns have been injured or demolished. The inhabitants of Bajardo fled from their dwellings at the first shock, and assembled in the parish church, where they fell on their knees, and implored the divine pro­ tection. The priests and the people were praying with one voice, when the celestial answer arrived. A fresh wave of earthquake rent the walls, and the roof fell in on the devoted crowd, killing three hundred, and mutilating as many more. Such an appalling illustration of the folly of prayer might be thought sufficient to destroy the doctrine. But superstition is not so easily extinguished. Faith is superior to logic, and there is always a loophole for the Deity's c scape. Prayer is like the quick-tongued gambler ; it plays on the principle of “ heads I win, tails you lose.” All the facts on one side are counted, and all on the other side neglected. There is even a subtler form of the same irrationality. It is sometimes said that God helps those who help themselves. We must trust in God, but we must also keep our powder dry. This exhortation, however, loses sight of the very essence of the problem. The deity is supplicated when our own resources fail, and it is certainly absurd to credit another being, however exalted, with the fruits of our own wisdom, our own courage, and our own strength. Such a one-sided doctrine is not too severely atirised in the following epigram by James Thomson : �Introduction. “ God helpeth him who helps himself, They preach to us as a fact, Which seems to lay up God on the shelf, And leave the man to act. Whish seems to mean—You do the work, Have all the trouble and pains, While God, that indolent grand Old Turk, Gets credit for the gains.” It may be safely said that there is very little practical belief in the efficacy of prayer among the clergy themselves. Whole regiments of the Black Army may be seen at places like Bath, in search of health and rich widows. When they fall ill they act like other men. They con­ sult Dr. Science instead of Dr. Providence, and leave the Lord’s vine­ yard for the seaside. Faith is the same in both places, but the air is different, and it is a curious fact in religious chemistry that prayer is more efficacious when it is taken with oxygen than when it is taken with carbonic acid gas. Mr. Spurgeon, for instance, is accounted one of the most orthodox preachers of our age. He maintains all the time-honored doctrines of Christianity, and among them the efficacy of prayer. But his own practice is a curious commentary on his teaching. Whenever he is troubled by his old acquaintance the gout, he rushes off to Mentone, and leaves his congregation at home to pray for him ; and as soon as the Mediterranean air and sunshine have given him relief, he writes to the Tabernacle “ Beloved, the Lord has heard our prayers.” The unctuous hypocrisy of all this would be beneath contempt, if religion were not such a lively influence for evil. Not 'only could God cure Mr. Spurgeon’s gout in South London as easily as in the South of France, but he might extend his divine assistance to the myriad suf­ ferers from disease in the back-streets and slums of the metropolis, who do-not earn a few thousands a year by preaching the gospel, and are unable to take a month’s holiday at a fashionable watering-place. �THE FOLLY OF PRAYER. “ Thebe was,” says Luther in his Table Talk, “ a great drought, as it had not rained for a long time, and the grain in the field began to dry up, when Dr. M. L. prayed continually and said finally with heavy sighs : 0 Lord, pray regard our petition in behalf of thy promise. ... I know that we cry to thee and sigh desirously ; ivhy dost thou not hear us ? And the very next night there came a very fine fruitful rain.” From Luther to Sammy Hicks the Yorkshireman is a fap cry, but an episode of his history somewhat resembles this naive story of the great Reformer. Sammy Hicks was a miller and a Methodist, and once while looking forward to a Love Feast, at which cakes were consumed, he was sorely troubled by a dead calm that lasted for days together,'and caused a complete stoppage of his windmill. It so happened that all the flour was exhausted before the calm was broken, and on the very eve of the Love Feast there was none left for the cakes. In this extremity recourse was had to prayer. Sammy himself, who excelled in that line, petitioned Heaven for a breath of wind to fill his sails. In a few moments the cheeks of the suppliants were fanned by a gentle zephyr, which rapidly grew to a strong breeze. Around went the sails of Sammy’s mill, until enough flour was ground to make the Love Feast cakes, when the wind suddenly subsided and died away as miraculously as it came. How amusing are both Luther and Sammy Hicks, in these instances, to the educated minds of to-day! Yet amongst, the ignorant and those who are not imbued with the spirit of Science, the old superstition of prayer still lingers, and ever and anon betrays itself in speech and act. Whatever remnant of superstition exists the priests are very careful to foster. Accordingly, whenever an opportunity occurs, they stimulate popular folly and make them­ selves the laughing-stock or contempt of the wise and thoughtful. In Catholic countries the miracles of the Middle Ages are even now, in this age of railways and electric telegraphs, repeated before the shrines of new-fangled saints. Pilgrims journey to Lourdes and other holy places, where the credulity of the multitude is equalled by the imposture of their priests. The blood of St. Januarius still liquefies annually at Naples, precious relics heal all manner of �The Folly of Prayer. 7 diseases, and the Virgin appears to prayerful peasants and hysterical nuns. In England these things do not happen, for there is not faith enough to make them possible. Yet here also the Catholic priests get souls out of purgatory by the saying of masses which have to be duly paid for; and our own Protestant priests, who have relinquished almost every peculiar function of their office, still retain one, that of standing between us and bad weather. We may call them our Kain Doctors, a name applied to the African medicine­ men, who beat gongs and dance and shout to scare off the sun and bring down rain when the land is parched with drought. The difference between a bishop of the English Church praying for sun­ shine and an African medicine-man howling for wet, is purely accidental and nowise intrinsic. Intellectually they stand on the same level, the sole difference being that one goes through his per­ formance in a vulgar and the other in a high-bred fashion. Perhaps there is another difference ; one may be honest and the other dis­ honest, one sincere and the other hypocritical. Cato wondered how two augurs could meet without laughter, and probably it would be comical to witness the meeting of two friendly parsons after a lusty bout of prayer for fine weather. In 1879 we were afflicted with a descent of rain scarcely paral­ leled in the century. Through the spring and through the summer the deluge persisted, and each month seemed to bring more violent storms than its predecessors. Yet our Hain Doctors kept as quiet as mice. Perhaps they reflected that it was scarcely politic to pray for sunshine until the Americans had ceased to telegraph the approach of fresh tempests. How different from the African Bain Doctors, who will pray for rain while the sun glares torrid and implacable, and no cloudlet mitigates the awful azure of heaven ! But, deceived by a brief spell of fine weather in the middle of July, they suddenly plucked up courage and proceeded to counsel Omni­ science. The result was woeful. On the very next Sunday after prayers for fine weather began to be offered, a terrific storm burst over the land, and for weeks after the rain was almost incessant. During one week in August only seventeen hours of sunshine were registered in London. The harvest was spoiled, about forty million pounds’ worth of produce was lost to the country, and farmers looked in the face of ruin. This was the answer to prayer ! Yet the votaries of superstition and their priestly abettors will not admit the futility of prayer. Their reasoning is like the gambler’s “ heads I win, tails you lose ” ! All the facts that tell for their case are allowed to count, and all that tell against it are excluded. If what they pray for happens, that proves the efficacy �8 The Folly of Prayer. of prayer ; if it does not happen, that proves nothing at all. Such is the logic of superstition in every age and clime. Notwithstanding the occasional outbursts of our Rain Doctors, it is evident that the docrine of Prayer is being gradually refined away, like many other doctrines of theology. It originated in simpler times, when people thought that something tangible could be got by it. Whenever danger or difficulty confronted our bar­ barous ancestors, they naturally looked to the god or gods of their faith for assistance. If any transcendental philosopher or mystical theologian had told them that prayer was not a practical request but a spiritual aspiration, they would have answered with a stare of astonishment. Even the New Testament embodies the belief of the savage, although in a slightly refined form, and the Lord’s Prayer contains a distinct request for daily bread. Before the advent of science, when men ignorantly and unskilfully wrestled with the 'manifold evils of fife, their prayers for aid were grimly earnest, and often the last cry of despair. Fire, earthquake, flood, famine, and pestilence, afflicted them sorely ; often they gazed blankly on sheer ruin ; and in lifting their supplicating hands and eyes and voice, they besought no spiritual anodyne, but a real out­ ward relief. The hand of supernatural power was expected to visibly interpose on their behalf. Now, however, the idea of prayer is greatly changed for all save a few fools or fanatics. Educated Christians, for the most part, do not appear to think that objective miracles are wrought in answer to prayer. They think that now God only works subjective miracles, and by operating upon men’s hearts, produces results that would not happen in the natural course of things. According to this subtler form of superstition, outward circumstances are never interfered with, but our inward condition is changed to suit them. Thus, if a ship were speeding onward to some fatal danger of simoon or sunken reef, God would not alter the circuit of the storm, or remove the rocks from the ship’s path, but if he deigned to interpose would work upon the captain’s mind and induce him to deviate from his appointed course.' If an innocent man were sentenced to be hung, God would not break’the rope or strike the executioner blind, but he might influ­ ence the Home Secretary to grant a reprieve. Or if in a thunder­ storm we had sought the shelter of a tree, God would not divert the lightning, although he might, just before it struck the tree, whisper that we had better move on. This last refinement of the doctrine of the efficacy of prayer is very intelligible to the psychologist. Physical science has thoroughly demonstrated the reign of law in the material universe, and educated people are indisposed to look for miracles in that direc- �The Folly of Troyer. 9 tion, notwithstanding the occasional attempts of our rain doctors to cure bad weather with spiritual medicines. But mental science has produced much less effect. Man’s mind is still supposed to be a chaos, haunted and mysteriously influenced by a phantasmal free­ will. Save by a few philosophers and students, the reign of law is not suspected to obtain there. Accordingly the miracles which were thought to occur in the material world are now relegated to the spiritual world—a ghoul-haunted region wherein there survives a home for them. Yet progress is being made here also, and we1 may confidently predict that as miracles have been banished from the domain of matter, so they will be banished from the domain of mind. The reign of law, it will be perceived, is universal within us as without us. It is manifested alike in the growth of a blade of grass and in the silent procession of the stars ; alike in tumult and in peace, in the loud overwhelming storm or engulphing earth­ quake, and in the soft-falling rain or golden sunshine nurturing the grass in a thousand valleys and ripening the harvest on a thousand plains ; and no less apparent in the noblest leaps of passion and the highest flights of thought, but binding all things in one harmonious whole, so that the brain of Shakespeare and tne heart of Buddha acknowledge kinship with the mountains, waves and skies. e Meanwhile the sceptic asks the believer in prayer to justify it, and show that it is not merely a superstitious and foolish waste of energy. The proper spirit in which to approach this subject is the rational and not the credulous. The efficacy of prayer is a question to be decided by the methods of science. If efficacious, prayer is a cause, and its presence may be detected by experiment or investiga­ tion. The experimental method is the best, but there is difficulty in applying it as the believers perversely refuse to undertake their share of the process. Professor Tyndall on behalf (I think) of Sir Henry Thompson, has proposed that a ward in some hospital should be set apart, and the patients in it specially prayed for, so that it might be ascertained whether more cures were effected in it than in other wards containing similar patients, and tended by the same medical and nursing skill. This proposal the theologians fought shy of ; and one of them (Dr. Littledale) gravely rebuked Professor Tyndall for presuming to think that God Almighty would submit to be made the subject of a scientific experiment. Theologically there is much force in this objection, although scientifically and morally there is none. A universal Father would assuredly welcome such a test of his goodness, but the proud irascible God of theology would be sure to frown upon it, and signalise his preference for the fine old plan of closing our eyes while opening our mouths to �10 The Folly of Prayer. receive his benefactions. There is a way, however, to take him at it were by a side-wind. There are certain things impossible even to Omnipotence. Sidney Smith (I think) said that God himself could not make a clock strike less than one. Nor can any power revoke what has already occurred. “Not heaven itself upon the past has power,” as Dryden tells us. The past is irrevocable, and we may investi­ gate it for the purpose of ascertaining whether prayer has been efficacious, without the least fear of being baffled by any power in the heavens above, in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. People have prayed enough in the past—far more, indeed, than they are likely to pray in the future—and if we find that their prayers have been futile, the whole question at issue must be con­ sidered as practically decided in the negative. Let us dismiss all appeals to individual experience, and deal only with broad classes of facts. It is quite impossible in any particular case to determine whether prayer has been answered or not, even when the object besought has been wholly obtained. A single result is so often produced by a combination of causes, some obvious and direct, and others obscure and indirect, that we cannot abso­ lutely say whether the natural agencies have operated alone or in conjunction with a supernatural power. If after long and fervent prayers a precious life has been spared, it cannot be affirmed that prayer was a cause of the recovery, since the sick person might, have recovered without it. Nor, on the other hand, can it be affirmed that prayer was not a cause, since the sick person might, have died without it. Our ignorance in such cases precludes us from deciding one way or the other. The only way to neutralise this is to examine general categories, to take whole classes of persons, and see whether those who pray get what they ask for any more than those who do not pray, or if classes of persons who are prayed for by others are more favored than those who enjoy no such advantage. Pursuing this line of inquiry, Mr. Francis Galton, the author of a remarkable work on “Hereditary Genius,” was led many years ago to collect and collate statistics relative to the subject of prayer, which he subsequently published in the Fortnightly Review of August, 1872. Mr. Galton’s article did not, so far as I am aware, attract the attention it deserved. Its facts and conclusions are of great importance, and the remainder of my own essay will be largely indebted to it. Let us take first the case of recovery from sickness. It has been frequently remarked that sickness is more afflictive than death �The Folly of Tray er. 11 itself, and it is common for persons who suffer from it, if they are at all of a religious turn of mind, to pray for relief and restoration to health. Their relatives also pray for them. However pious men may be, they always submit to Omniscience their own view of the case when their lives are in the least degree endangered; and how­ ever fervently they believe in the eternal and ineffable felicities of heaven, they are scarcely ever content to leave this vale of tears. They desire as long a continuance of life on this earth as the sceptic does. Often, indeed, they repine far more than the sceptic at the ordinance of fate. Now, as a matter of fact, is it found that pious persons of a prayerful disposition recover from sickness more frequently than worldly persons who are not in the habit of praying at all? If so, the medical profession would long ago have dis­ covered it, and prayer would have taken a recognised place among sanative agencies. On this point Mr. Galton writes as follows :— “ The medical works of modern Europe teem with records of individual illnesses and of broad averages of disease, but I have been able to discover hardly any instance in which a medical man of any repute has attributed recovery to the influence of prayer. There is not a single instance, to^my knowledge, in which papers read before statistical societies have recognised the agency of prayer either on disease or on anything else. The universal habit of the scientific world to ignore the agency of prayer is a very important fact. To fully appreciate the ‘ eloquence of the silence ’ of medical men, we must bear in mind the care with which they endeavor to assign a sanitary value to every influence. Had prayers for the sick any notable effect, it is incredible but that the doctors, who are always on the watch for such things, should have observed it, and added their influence to that of the priests towards obtaining them for every sick man. If they abstain from doing so, it is not because their attention has never been awakened to the possible efficacy of prayer, but, on the contrary, that although they have heard jt insisted on from childhood upwards, they are unable to detect its influence.” It thus appears that prayer is a medicine only in the pharma­ copoeia of the priests. Many doctors rather dislike it. A medical friend of mine, who hated the sight of a parson, used always to keep any member of the clerical fraternity waiting outside the sick-room door in extreme cases, until it was certain that death would supervene. He would then allow the reverend gentleman to go through his performance, knowing that he could do harm. My friend said that when his patients required absolute repose their nerves were often agitated in his absence by obtrusive and officious priests. A class of persons who are specially and generally prayed for are kings and queens and other members of royal families. A high value is always set on things which cost a great deal. Royal per­ sonages are very expensive, and we naturally esteem and love them according to their cost. Animated by an amiable desire that they �12 The Folly of Prayer. may long live to spend the money we delight to shower upon them, ' we pray that God will prolong their existence beyond that of ordinary mortals. “ Grant her in health and wealth long to live,” is the prayer offered up for the Queen in our State churches, and the same petition is made in hundreds of Nonconformist chapels. If, then, there be any efficacy in prayer, kings should enjoy a greater longevity than their subjects. We do not, however, find this to be the case. The average age of ninety-seven members of royal houses who lived from 1758 to 1843, and survived their thirtieth year, was 54-04 years, which is nearly two years less than the average age of the shortest-lived of the well-to-do classes, and more than six years less than that of the longest. Sovereigns are literally the shortest lived of all who have the advantage of affluence. In their case it is evident that prayer has been absolutely of no avail. Another class of men very much prayed for are the clergy. They pray for themselves, and as they all profess to be called to the ministry by the Holy Ghost their prayers should be unusually effica­ cious. If there be any faith capable of removing mountains, they should possess it. If the fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much, the fervent prayer of a parson should avail exceedingly. Now the clergy pray not for spiritual light and help, but also for temporal blessings. They like to prosper here as well as hereafter, and are adepts in the sublime art, reprobated by Jesus but lumi­ nously expounded and forcibly commended by Dr. Binney, of making the best of both worlds. They believe in heaven, but are in no haste to get there, being content to defer occupation of the heavenly " mansions in store for them until they can no longer inhabit the snug residences provided for them here. With a laudable desire to enjoy the bird-in-the-hand to the uttermost before resorting to the bird-in-the-bush, which is sure to await their convenience, they naturally pray for health, and therefore long life, since health and longevity are inseparable friends. Yet we do not find that they live longer than their less pious brethren. The average age attained to by the clergy from 1758 to 1843, according to Mr. Galton’s statistics, was 69-49 years, while that of lawyers was 68-14, and of medical men 67-31. Here is a slight advantage on the side of the clergy, but it is amply accounted for by the greater ease and com­ fort so many of them enjoy, and the general salubrity of their surroundings. The difference is, however, reversed when a comparison is made between distinguished members of the three classes—that is to say, between persons of sufficient note to have had their lives recorded in a biographical dictionary. Then we find the respective mean ages of the clergy, lawyers and doctors, are 66-42, 66-51 and 67-04, the clergy being the shortest lived of the �The Folly of Prayer. 13 three. Thus they succumb sooner than the members of secular professions to a heavy demand on their energies. Prayer does not protect them from sickness, does not recover them when they are laid low, or in the least prolong their precious lives. They are no more favored than the ungodly; one fate befalls them both. In their case also prayer has been absolutely of no avail. The same law obtains with regard to missionaries. They are not miraculously protected from sickness or danger, from perils by night or the pestilence that walketh by day. The duration of life among them is accurately proportioned to the hazards of their profession. Yet theirs is a case wherein prayer should be peculiarly effectual. Arriving in a remote region of the earth, they are almost powerless until they have acquired a thorough knowledge of the language and habits of the people. They are engaged in the Lord’s work, and if any persons are watched over by him they should be. Yet at dangerous stations one missionary after another dies shortly after arrival, and their efforts are thus literally wasted, while the work naturally suffers because the Lord does not economise the missionary power which has been provided for it. Ships also have sunk with missionaries on board before they could even reach their destination ; and the Lord has so far refrained from working sub­ jective miracles on their behalf, that missionaries have been in some cases digested in the stomachs of the very savages whose souls they had journeyed thousands of miles to convert. Parents are naturally very anxious as to their offspring, and it is to be presumed that the children of pious fathers and mothers are earnestly and constantly prayed for. This solicitude antedates birth, it being generally deemed a misfortune for a child to be still-born, and often a serious evil for death to deprive it of baptism, without which salvation is difficult if not impossible. In extreme •cases the Catholic Church provided for the baptism of the child in the womb. Yet the prayers of pious parents are not found to -exercise any appreciable influence. Mr. Galton analysed the lists of the Record and the Times of a particular period, and the propor­ dion of still-births to the total number of deaths was discovered to be exactly the same in both. A more conclusive test than this could scarcely be devised. Our nobility are another class especially prayed for. The pre­ scription for their case may be found in the Church Liturgy. In a worldly sense they are undoubtedly very prosperous ; they live on the fat of the land, and enjoy all kinds of privileges. But these are not the advantages we ask God to bestow upon them ; we pray “ that the nobility may be endued with grace, wisdom and under­ standing.” And what is the result ? The history of our glorious �14 The Folly of Prayer. aristocracy shows them to have always been singularly devoid of “ grace,” in the religious sense of the word; and they have mani­ fested a similar plentiful lack of “wisdom and understanding.” Even in politics, despite their exceptional training and opportunities, they have been beaten by unprayed-for commoners. Cromwell, Chatham, Pitt, Fox, Burke, Canning, all arose outside the sacred precincts of nobility. Gladstone is the son of a Liverpool merchant, and Earl Beaconsfield was the son of a literary Jew. In science, philosophy, literature and art, how few aristocrats have distinguished themselves! Further, as Mr. Galton points out, “wisdom and understanding ” are incompatible with insanity. Yet our nobility are not exempted from that frightful scourge. On the contrary, owing to their intermarriages, and the lack of those wholesome restraints felt in humbler walks of life, they are peculiarly liable to it. Clearly the aristocracy have not been benefited by our prayers. Let us now turn to another aspect of the question. How is it that insurance companies make no allowance for prayers ? When a man wishes to insure his life, confidential questions are asked about his antecedents and his present condition, but the question, “ Does he habitually pray ?” is never ventured. Yet, if prayer conduces to health and longevity, this question is of great import­ ance ; nay, of the very greatest; for what are hereditary tendencies to disease, or the physical effects of previous modes of living, to a man under the especial protection of God ? Insurance offices, however, eliminate prayer from their calculations. They do not recognise it as a sanitary influence, and this fact proves that there is no efficacy in prayer or that its efficacy is so slight as to be altogether inappreciable. Suppose the owner of two ships, similarly built and rigged, and bound for the same port, wanted to insure them for the voyage ; and suppose the one ship had a pious captain and crew taken redhot from a Methodist prayer-meeting, while the captain and crew of the other ship, although excellent seamen, never entered a place of worship, never bent their knees in prayer, and never spoke of God except to take his name in vain. Would any difference be made in the rate of insurance ? Assuredly not. And if the owner, being a soft-headed sincere Christian, should say to the agent: “ But, my dear sir, the ship with the pious captain and crew, who will certainly pray for their safety every day, runs much less risk than the other, for the Lord has promised that he will answer prayer, that he will watch over those who trust him, and that what­ soever they ask, believing, that they shall receive,” what would the answer be ? Probably this : “ My dear sir, as a Christian I admit �The Folly of Prayer. 15 the truth of what you say, but I can’t mix up my religion with my business. That sort of thing is all very well in church on Sunday, you know, but it doesn’t do any other day in the week down in the City.” The decline and final extinction of belief in ordeals and duels is an episode in the history of prayer. Both these superstitious processes were appeals to God to decide what was indeterminable by human logic. In the ordeal of jealousy, so revoltingly set forth in the fifth chapter of Numbers, the same curious concoction was given to all suspected wives, and the difference in the effect pro­ duced was attributable solely to the interposition of God. The same idea prevailed in other forms during the chaotic Middle Ages, notably in connection with the witch mania. Some idea of the critical ability which accompanied it may be gathered from the fact that “ witches ” were often tied at the hands and feet, and thrown into the nearest pond or river : if they swam they were guilty, and at once burnt or hung, and if they sank they were innocent, but of course they were drowned! The duel was explicitly sanctioned and sometimes commanded by the ecclesiastical and secular autho­ rities, and it was devoutly believed that God would give the victory to the just and overthrow the wrong. This belief has died out, but a reflex of it exists in the fond idea, not yet wholly discarded, that the God of battles fights on the side of his favorites. Only the simpletons think thus, and only the charlatans of clericalism abet them. All the praying in the world is powerless against superior tactics, more scientific arms, greater numbers, and better discipline. Victory, as Napoleon remarked, is on the side of the heaviest battalions ; and prayer, as a counteractant to such advan­ tages, is just as efficacious as the celebrated pill to cure earthquakes. Driven from all tangible strongholds by inevitable logic, the believers in prayer take final refuge in their cloud-citadel of faith. They maintain that there is a spiritual if not a material efficacy in prayer, that communion with God exalts and purifies their inner nature, and thus indirectly influences the course of events. “ Cer­ tainly,” says a man of magnificent genius, though not a Materialist, “it does alter him who prays, and alters him supremely, changing despair into hope, confusion into steady light, timidity into confi­ dence, cowardice into courage, hatred into love, and the genius of compromise into the spirit of martyrdom.”* Far be it from me to deny this. It is attested by the life and death of many a patient saint and martyred hero. But the God communed with has been after all not a person, but a lofty ideal, varying in each according * Dr Garth Wilkinson, Human Science awl Divine Revelation, p. ■8). �16 The Folly of Prayer, to the greatness and purity of his nature. A similar communion, in essence the very same, is possible to the Humanitarian, who feels himself descended from the endless past, bound to the living and working present, and in a measure the parent of an endless future. His ideal of an ever-striving and ever-conquering Humanity, emerging generation after generation into loftier levels, and leaving at its feet the lusts and follies of its youth, serves him instead of a personal God; and in moments snatched from the hot strife of the world he can commune with it, either through its .great poets and prophets, or solely through the vision of his own higher self, which is essential humanity within him, and thus find serenity and ennoblement of resolve. This communion, into which religious prayer may ultimately merge, will survive, because while inspiring it does not outrage intellect and fact. The laws of nature will not be suspended to suit our needs; for—• “ Nature with equal mind Sees all her sons at play; Sees man control the wind, The wind sweep man away 1 Allows the proudly riding and the foundered bark.”* But “ the music born of love,” as another poet tells us, will “ ease the world’s immortal pain.” Finding no help outside ourselves, seeing no Providence to succor and comfort the afflicted, no hand to lift up the down-trodden and establish the weak, to wipe the tears from sorrowing eyes and convey balm to wounded hearts ; knowing that except we listen the wail of human anguish is un­ heard, and that unless we give it no aid can come ; we shall feel more imperative upon us the duties and holy charities of life. If the world’s misery cannot be assuaged by. fatherly love from heaven, all the more need is there for brotherly love on earth. ♦ Matthew Arnold, Empedocles on Etna. Printed and Published by G. W. Foote at 28 Stonecutter Street, London. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The folly of prayer Description An account of the resource Edition: 3rd ed. Place of publication: London Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Includes bibliographical references. First published 1880 under title The futility of prayer; 2nd ed. 1884. Printed and published by G.W. Foote. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915] Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N239 Subject The topic of the resource Prayer Religious practice Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The folly of prayer), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English NSS Prayer https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/75c19e51d9dbbf987030514dd5ddec2c.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=WSy-hbZT208V1wfN7jjS5ZiZPYV0n78bny8c9DCrbweHthWKwe4RsKdyz7uSPKz-CYx7PC6-EVeldGgO741vli7MuNnMOk1kiTNvUewhrbinaiQQVZ5pfoDJdmjU1qZig2MDwmmnvEgquD%7ESKtM8wztdl6ZLakWy8idDnc7Is5ypav%7EODrNCRZsP53%7EwOYJ0SkTASmJ%7EVlZ7zFVVjqxBpSWey6WTAR2hQNkZZBQYPmFew89o3P20%7ENVTgkrgvKQ9UqnlFaz3s7fHQ-jCzw5cNjqPgFVStymrd9UIVatx75r8DSbzYWwa3U%7EXn-%7E8B2HYPnNpm4ROYpdfs1AvEYjxDQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM a0bb954f46e15c4b342aae9119b92f31 PDF Text Text Price One Penny. THE GENESIS OF CAPITAL. * TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH OF GABRIEL BY DEVILLE, B. J. London : THE MODERN PRESS, 13, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C. 1887. ��THE GENESIS OF CAPITAL. APITAL, considered in its evolution, from its origin to the destined disappearance that the actual conditions of its existence show to be imminent, will be the subject of this series. Just as nothing remained for chemists since the time of Lavoisier, but ‘to teach that water was formed by the combination of hydrogen and oxygen, so my only aim will be to interpret faithfully the work of the great writer whose profound insight into economic facts first enabled us to understand them clearly. The glory of having discovered the origin and growth of capital, with the elements of which it is composed, is due to Karl Marx. Now that, thanks to him, we possess the method of analysis, every one may assure himself of the correctness of his deductions, just as every one may verify the composition of water. Being a correct description of the exact truth, the ideas of Marx, as will be quickly seen, may be easily grasped by every reader, Therefore when we see a theory of his described as “ that old story of Marx,” without the shadow of argument, or even with the announcement that none will be given—and reason good !—we are pretty sure to be dealing with a blockhead, whose silly and feeble hostility merits nothing more, under the circumstances, than a scornful shrug of the shoulders. In stating that my analysis will tally with that of Marx, I know that I lay myself open to the regular charge brought against Socialists by bourgeois journalists, the crime of always repeating the same thing ; but what of that ? We must continue to maintain that two and two make four, and we are unable to transfer the heart to the right side of the body, even to please these gentlemen’s whim for change. Anyhow, if it be true that we seldom change our theories, still less do our adversaries vary their method of attack. Can anything be more monotonous than their milk-and-water criticism of us ? It is like the refrain of a wearisome song repeated over and over again. Whenever a Socialist speaks or agitates they instantly seize the opportunity of reiterating the complaint that he has been attacking that “ infamous capital.” They have found nothing else to say : and this is never varied. I beg their pardon though ; I am wrong : some put “ infamous capital ” in italics, others in inverted commas, but that is the only differ­ ence ; their imagination has gone no further. �4 It is not as if the epithet gave a correct impression of the attitude of Socialists towards capital; unfortunately it does not even do that. The expression is not only absent from the Socialist vocabulary, but, more­ over, being of bourgeois invention, both in substance and in form, it misrepresents the attitude which it pretends to portray. It misrepresents it by assuming that Socialists criticise the present state of things from a sentimental standpoint, whereas they stand exclusively on scientific ground. For from the scientific point of view the attitude of goodness or badness, infamy or merit, is due either to our personal material circumstances, or to the particular bent of our character; that is a sufficient criterion for judging the individual; in fact we have only to deal with economic states, evolved according to laws which we have to determine. If strict obedience to the laws of the physiology of the human frame could lead, by suppressing morbid conditions, to the disappearance of pain, which is the consequence of these conditions, without the feeling of pain having been taken into consideration in the study of physiology, we shall see that in the same way, a complete conformity to the economic laws of the social organism, would result in social health, which would put an end to the sufferings and injustice which are unquestionably crushing the masses to-day, without allowing the burning reality of this last fact to influence the march of events. Therefore our aim thould be to arrive at a knowledge of economic laws. It will suffice us to know these laws, but we must know them thoroughly. Nor does thorough knowledge of these laws—that is to say, of the relations existing between things, and resulting from their nature—con­ sist in confining ourselves to analysing isolated facts, without taking into account their mutual connection, their constant relation to their surroundings, and the endless modifications necessarily resulting there­ from : in confining ourselves to the study of things separately, and in a state of rest, though everything in the universe is always in motion. And what does movement mean but change ? This, however, is what economists do. According to them, there have been economic states which were artificial and temporal, but that at present existing is natural and eternal; in this economists imitate theo­ logians, in whose eyes their particular theory is always of divine origin, while rival religions are merely of human invention. The means of production and subsistence which embody to-day the idea of capital are continually confounded by economists with their material substance; it is as if they maintained that a negro is naturally a slave. A negro is a negro; it is only in certain definite social conditions that he becomes a slave. A spinning machine is a spinning machine; it only becomes capital under fixed social conditions. The idea of capital is not a natural idea, but purely social; far from being eternal, the capitalist system is only a phase of economic movement. After demonstrating that it has not always existed, I shall show that it is the necessary result of certain historical events. The “ Genesis of Capital ” shall be the title of this first treatise. With all economists alike, as the “Dictionary of Political Economy ” declares, “ the idea of reproduction is firmly allied with that of capital by common consent the term “ capital ” does not only imply “ acquired wealth,” but essentially wealth endowed with the “ faculty of repro­ duction.” Value, “which multiplies continually,” as the economist �5 Sismondi says; “ the insatiable greed for gain,” according to one of the shining lights of bourgeois economy, MacCulloch ; gain for the sake of gain ; realized gain producing more; this is what is generally implied by capital. Therefore the products of labour, as funds which may be used in industrial employment, owing to this single fact, under the present normal conditions increase periodically by a certain sum. From this sum, from this profit, the landlord draws his means of consumption; if he does not consume all, that which he does not consume is used in its turn in industrial employment, and in its turn preserves its character by giving interest; the excess of income over consumption becoming the source of profit. This produce of labour, these funds, in virtue of this power of renewing themselves, have the character of capital. On the contrary the produce of labour which could not be used in industrial enterprise, which, though suitable for consumption, would remain idle if not consumed, would not have this character. This being admitted, we read the following remarks in the “ Dictionary of Political Economy,” already quoted:—“ There is no difference of opinion, among economists, concerning the necessity of capital as auxiliary to labour. From Adam Smith to Rossi, all agree on this point, that, without the assistance of capital in the work of production, man can do nothing. . . . Capital is the companion, the necessary auxiliary to labour, so much so, that we may safely say that without capital there is no labour. This is true, even with regard to the savage state, as has always been recognised, where man never hunts without bow and arrow, or some similar implement.” Here, then, we have before us two opinions on which, as their diction­ ary declares, all economists agree: one explains what is understood by capital, the other proves the existence of capital ever since the savage state, and also in that state itself. Socialists admit the first of these, but they deny that this thing, described by everybody in the same way, makes its appearance “ in the work of production ” before modern times, and they deny it on the grounds of its own specific character. As we have had the savage and his bow given us as an example, let us examine the bow of the savage. Here is an implement of labour which helps its owner to support himself, to gain his living ; but the quality of capital is missing; the wealth of the savage, viz., the means of sub­ sistence acquired by his bow, being devoid of all reproductive properties; he can kill as much game as he pleases, but its excess will only serve to give him indigestion. But further. Let us imagine a Pangloss of political economy, possessed of a bow, entering into communication with a savage in a forest near that country of Eldorado, visited by Candi le, where the pebbles are gold. It is very probable that the savage would consent to give gold to possess the bow. Furnished with this gold, under whose worshipped form capital first presents itself, our economist will shortly see the necessity of social surroundings other than those of the savage, in order that the result of his exchange may act as capital, and become productive. And, if he cannot escape from the economic con­ ditions of the savage, he will not be long regretting his bargain ; for under these conditions a bow enables him, at least, to try to get some­ thing to eat, whereas gold is useless. From the savage state let us pass to ancient communities, before slavery had become an organised method of production. Founded on �6 common property, these communities consumed the provisions produced by their labour, and this produce, divided among their members, was e nough for all. But even when they exchanged products with the neighbouring communities, this exchange, which only played an inferior part in their economy, had simply the satisfaction of their needs in view. Neither their products nor their means of labour or subsistence, ever appear as begetters of interest ; so that here again the character of capital is missing. The producing power of man was originally very small. So long as he could not produce more than enough for his needs, one half of society could not live on the labour of the other half, and slavery could not be­ come established. How could a man work gratuitously for others, when he could barely procure his own means of subsistence ? Under pre ssure of physical wants, man’s faculties slowly developed. As the result of such development labour acquired a productiveness, owing to which it was able to provide for everyone over and above the simple necessaries of life : and, since that time, a certain number have been able to live on the labour of others. As soon as it became possible for a privileged class to exist, a possibility depending from the first upon the productiveness of labour, this class began to organise itself—and this always by force— as for instance after a war or a conquest, or the forceable subjection of one colony by another, and with the increase of productiveness this class has increased. It is because slavery depends, to a certain extent, on the productiveness of labour, that we meet with it only in southern regions, while it loses its importance as we approach the north, where it only appears, when it appears at all, in a modified form ; for this productive­ ness depends, more especially in the earliest stage of civilisation, upon natural conditions, the fertility of the soil, the profusion of the means of subsistence, etc., and all the surroundings of the labourer; and the north being less well endowed in these respects than the south, slaves produce less and cost more to keep. In the work of production, under the slave-owning system, we see the implements of labour, and the means of consumption and of enjoyment, but no capital. The aim of production was the satisfaction of wants: this satisfac­ tion was secured to the master by the absolute possession of slaves, whom he employed according to their number and the resources at his com­ mand, in cultivating the ground, or, it may be, in working mines, and in various domestic services. What he gained from the labour of his slaves, he consumed by living more or less grandly, more or less luxuriously; but this wealth, which was fitted to be an abundant source of enjoyment, was nothing else ; it could be consumed, but it had no inherent power of increase ; therefore it was not capital. This holds good, too, in cases relatively less frequent, where the master made his slaves work to sell the produce. Instead of being directly manufactured, his objects of consumption were produced in the shape of flutes, let us say, which were exchanged for other objects of con­ sumption, or for money, the means of procuring these objects. In one way or another it was in the means of consumption and enjoyment that the fruits of production were used. Under the Roman empire, which embraced the world one may say. a system of production existed differing from the preceding system based on slavery. The central authority absorbed nearly everything, con­ fiscating private fortunes, monopolising implements of labour, directing �7 trades, regulating all kinds of labour. %In this instance of administrative communism, where the labourer was drilled into brigades, it is evident that there could have been no room for the capitalist, but only for officers. At the same time various causes combined to diminish slavery. Experi ence having proved that the slave who had the opportunity of saving money with the hope of freeing himself by means of a third person, who should first buy him, and to whom he should pay back the purchase price, worked better, and produced more, the masters’ own interests led them to facilitate this saving of money, which became a kind of patrimony for the slave. In this way masters profited by the increased pro­ ductiveness of labour, and by the purchase price which they received. Enfranchisement of slaves also became more common. On another side the laws relating to the distribution of provisions rather encouraged such enfranchisements, the masters having thus discovered a means of obtaining part of the provisions accorded by these laws to freed slaves; and we must not forget that the latter continued to be bound to their patrons for certain services. In the country, in order to stimulate production and to satisfy the exigencies of • the exchequer, the profits of agriculture contributed to turn the slaves into settlers, who cultivated the soil and paid a certain rent. These settlers, neither free men nor slaves, but between the two, were not allowed to leave the settlement. At length invasions of bar­ baric tribes, by encouraging the revolt and escape of slaves, and by making the security of proprietors doubtful, made this transformation general. The masters found it to their advantage to parcel out their ground to their slaves, who were turned into settlers, or serfs, performing certain prescribed duties. We can now realise the absurdity of those who persist in maintaining that the abolition of slavery is due to Christianity. It is due to eco­ nomic causes which have gradually led to its disappearance, and re­ placed it by serfdom. Neither religion nor fraternity have had anything to do with it. In the middle ages, when serfdom prevailed, we find all social rela­ tions based on a system of personal dependence, in virtue of which men stood in various degrees of bondage to other men, with different obligations to perform, particular duties and services. Beside the serfs of the glebe, who represented part of the property, the cultivation of the lands of the lord of the manor was secured by the corvee of beasts and men, to which the peasants were bound for a variable number of days. As for industrial labour, it was accomplished by artisan serfs. There was no kind of service that serfs, peasants, or liege men of the town were not obliged to render to the lord of the manor, who would not be satisfied with any special duty incumbent on one or more inhabitants of the domain under his sovereignty. The master could lead an enjoyable life, thanks to all the things provided for him, and all the services rendered; but there was not a trace of capital here, all these means of enjoyment which he could consume at pleasure being incapable of multiplying themselves. Not being content with burdening the town artisans with taxes of all kinds for their own profit, the barons and their retainers had a habit of taking things out of the shops whenever they liked. Constant pillaging went on. Tired of useless complaints, the victims formed a kind of �s Bi I mutual help society against these robberies. Whenever the men from the castle entered any shop, all the townsmen following the same trade were bound by an oath to lend their aid. Constant struggles resulted, till at last the different trade corporations of a town united for defence. Owing to this steady resistance, the towns ceased to be attacked. These energetic risings of the people, occasionally crowned with success, and the interests of the lords of the soil, led them gradually to agree to barter for sums of money all their rights and claims. This money, spent in means of enjoyment, could not by any means fructify “ in the work of production,” or become, in a word, capital; there was no possibility of- investment of this kind. The forming of trades into corporations, at first with a view to mutual protection, had led to practices, customs, and statutes, which, collected and codified, became the substance of royal ordinances, and thus pro­ duced the laws of corporations. These had their limitations, and de­ tailed directions of methods to be used, and rules to be followed; they fixed salaries, and prices, and conditions of apprenticeship ; regulated the quality of products, etc., and all this under severe penalties, which even went so far as the amputation of a hand. Every master—who was one because his father was one before him ; or because he had fulfilled the various rules laid down by the statutes in order to become one ; or, lastly, because he had bought his freedom— every master was one of a privileged class : it was in virtue of a special prerogative that he followed his trade, that he was enabled to produce. But though he was thus privileged, masters of others trades enjoyed similar privileges, whence the impossibility for a master to enlarge his production by joining another branch of industry to his own, however alike the two might be. Again, in his own particular trade he found himself confronted with masters having exactly the same prerogatives as himself; thus each master was prevented from employing more than a certain number of hands. How, then, could the result of production be made to fructify ? Supposing one master to gain more than the others, he could not use his surplus money in producing more for himself, because he could not increase the number of his hands: for the same reason, that which he could not do himself he could not do through the agency of another. It was impossible to increase a sum by investing it in any other master’s concern, simply because the same limitation of employed producers, and, consequently, of manufactured products, existed for all. So, then, production in the middle ages did not allow wealth to multiply itself in any way, to become capital. In that sphere of production, money, excellent for supplying comforts, did not increase if not con­ sumed, it was heaped up in view of future consumption, whence the custom of treasuries so frequent at that time. From this investigation it becomes sufficiently evident that that which is, according to all economists, the specific form of capital, did not appear “ in the work of production ” before the modern era. That which they all agree to be the characteristic of capital is the “ power of reproducing,” and I think I have just shown that this reproductive power is not met with in the pro­ duction of the savage state, nor in that of early communities, neither in the production of early ages by means of slavery, nor in that of the middle ages by means of serfdom ; it is, therefore, a peculiar feature of the production of to-day, contrary to the opinion, always unanimous, of �9 economists who, in their universal love of harmony, would do well to harmonise their own contradictory doctrines. The quotation given above from the “ Dictionary of Political Economy,” which sums up the general opinion oi economists, only con­ sidered capital employed (this is the exact expression) “ in the work of production : ;t in my criticism I have done the same, for studying capital in the sphere of production is the same thing as studying it in its funda­ mental form, production being the source of all wealth. Capitalist production dates from the sixteenth century. In conse­ quence of historical changes which I shall speak of presently, production, as it was carried on in the traditional small work-shop of the master of the corporation, could no longer suffice to keep pace with the growing demands of a daily expanding market, this work-shop must be enlarged; and this enlarging of the corporate work-shop is the starting point of capitalist production. As the result of circumstances which abolished the Feudal system, the system of capitalist production follows as an his­ torical sequence in the development of productive forces. That it might become established, it was indispensable to have at the outset an accumulation of wealth. To develope production it was necessary to have the means for developing it. The masters of corporations certainly might have followed the course of events, and become capitalists, only the general poverty of their means did not allow of their keeeping up at all with the requirements of the new market. But there were two forms of capital which could not be used, which appeared under the most varied economic systems, and which before the modern epoch alone represented capital, being the only forms in which, before this epoch, wealth could increase. I mean commercial capital and loan capital. Although they appear in history before the fundanhental form of capital, yet these two forms are derived forms of capital. This, at first sight, may appear strange; and, in order that it ma4 be clearly understood, I will give an example. Let us imagine a peasant family cultivating For themselves their bit of ground, gaining their livelihood by their labour. We have here neither capital nor capitalist: the means of labour for this family are only the means of using their productive activity in view of the satisfaction of their personal wants. But some useful article! they do not produce, and must therefore buy, and in some cases they need advances, and they borrow. They sell some of their products towards purchasing, and pay­ ing their debts. Their production has only one aim, that of satisfying their wants, and these are satisfied whether directly by their own produce, or indirectly by the help of part of their produce exchanged for money, which to them is simply a means of buying useful articles. So capital in its fundamental form, capital in production, does not exist here. But the merchant to whom the peasant producer went, the lender with whom he had transactions, will make the money received from him fructify, and will turn it into capital. We see then how commercial capital and loan capital may be derived from a production where the form of capital has not yet appeared. Not to leave this brief survey of the origin of capital too incomplete, I shall point out the principal phases of the evolution of its first forms from the time, when, amassed by the meads of commerce and usury, it helped the birth of capitalist production. When capital is studied historically from its first appearance, it is �IO always in the shape of money that we first see it arise ; and this pheno­ menon is equally observable to-day ; at least, it is in this shape that every new form of capital appears in the market. When it first appears on the scene at its source of production, where it is exchanged as the direct pro­ duct of labour for some other product, money represents in the hands of its possessors the price of an article sold; they must have sold to possess the money ; so there must have been circulation of merchandise. Circulation of merchandise is the starting point of capital. Certain historical conditions are necessary in order that the produce of labour may be transformed into merchandise, and that production may be carried on, not with a view to consumption or use, but to exchange. With members of primitive communities their products were not mer­ chandise, for, though they were divided amongst themsqlves, still there was no exchange. Exchange began in the relations of one community with another. Different communities found in their own particular cen­ tre different means of production and subsistence, whence the difference in their conditions of life, and in their produce ; and the intercourse established between the communities led to the exchange of their mutual products. The foreign articles acquired by exchange, at first accidentally, ended by becoming necessary ; the exchange was repeated, and the habit became a regular custom ; certain things were produced solely with a view to exchange, and things which, in dealings of the community with outsiders, had acquired the character of merchandise, kept this character in dealings of the community with one another. The number of products which were capable of exchange slowly in­ creased. To measure their respective quantities, the two forms of merchandise to be exchanged were referred to a third. The form of the standard of value, represented by this third merchandise, vanished with , the social circumstances which produced it; and thus, sometimes one commodity was used, sometimes another, until, when trade had reached a certain point, one especial species of merchandise was used, and this became money. From this time commerce grew. It was especially maritime commerce that produced accumulation of wealth in ancient times; this commerce was centred in certain towns favoured by their geographical position, to which they were indebted for monopolies which brought them wealth, and thus enabled them to increase their traffic. I will give as an example the far-famed commercial city of ancient times, Tyre, called the queen of the seas. Her shores abounded in those shells from which the best purple was prepared, and we know the estimation attached to purple by the ancients. Owing to this natural monopoly riches flowed into Tyre ; and this enabled her to multiply her maritime and commercial transac­ tions, to found prosperous colonies, and to fetch from a distance the coveted products of foreign lands, the sale of which, thus becoming also her exclusive privilege, contributed still more to her wealth. All that the masters drew from the labour of their slaves was, as we have seen, the means of consumption and enjoyment; but a good many of them, after having consumed all the profits of this labour, borrowed, to indulge their expensive tastes and extravagant habits, and so swelled the fortuues of traffickers in merchandise and gold. As a witness to this fact that the ancients borrowed with a view to consumption I may quote Plutarch : “ If people would content themselves with what was necessary, there would be no more usurers than there are centaurs.” �11 I should add that in Rome owing to peculiar circumstances the chief reason for loans was to obtain necessaries. The citizens were soldiers ; in times of war the lands of the rich continued to be cultivated by their slaves, while the poor man was obliged to leave his field untilled. The campaign over, patricians holding commissions in the army came back loaded with the spoils of the conquered, which they had bestowed upon themselves, to find their lands well cultivated, and in full bearing ; the plebeian found his piece of ground lying waste and useless ; and ruined in this way through military service, he was forced to borrow in order to live, and be able to begin cultivating over again. These debts became so heavy that insurrections followed, and struggles constantly renewed between creditors and debtors. In the early part of the middle ages, after the incursions of tribes out of Central Asia and Germany, production was very limited, the business of transporting small amounts of products was perilous owing to the difficulty of communication, aggravated by constant plunder. Each district organised itself as much as possible for the production of its own necessaries, and exchange was only carried on in a narrow circle. To effect exchanges with outsiders certain centres were chosen, whither the people repaired in numbers at fixed periods; this was the origin of fairs, sprung from the material conditions of life at that time. By degrees came intervals of peace in the life of these war-like people ; conflicts became less frequent, without ceasing altogether, and disorder no longer reigned supreme. Unoccupied in their domains during these intervals of relative calm, the cavaliers devoted themselves to all kinds of warlike games, jousts, and tournaments. Every one wished to excel in them ; luxury in armour, jewels, texture, etc., grew; wants multiplied ; town industries were developed ; with this larger pro­ duction commerce widened, and its progress reacted on production, and hastened its development. At the fall of the Roman Empire the results of the ancient order of things were found to survive most successfully in Italy. She inherited the legacy of the old civilisations; and having been longer trained in their customs, she retained their memory the longest. Her products felt the effects of this; they were better, and in consequence more in demand ; they were exported by way of the sea more safely than by the land, which was infested with pillaging armies ; thus her commerce enriched chiefly her towns in the Mediterranean, whose maritime situa­ tion was the reason that permanent fairs were held there. The begin­ nings of social revival also first appeared in these towns. Pisa, Naples, Amalfi, formed free communities when the rest of Europe was under the yoke of tyranny, and during the darkest years of the middle ages their vessels furrowed all seas, owing chiefly to the compass, which, though it had been discovered some time, was not in general use in Europe till this period. Other cities followed in their footsteps. Venice and Genoa also enriched themselves by conveying pilgrims and crusaders. While the crusaders relieved the country of a large number of robbers and highwaymen, they helped to free the cities, the communities, and the serfs by means of financial operations, the barons turning everything into money and pledging even their estates to procure the funds indis­ pensable to these distant expeditions. On the other hand they brought these rude nobles into contact with Eastern manners, and refined their taste, they brought back notions of niceness, ignored till then, and ideas �12 of costly elegance. On their return thej’’ were more than ever dependent on the Italian cities, whose ships went to fetch from Egyptian ports and from the shores of the Black Sea, spices, perfumes, gems, costly stuffs, and all the merchandise in fashion in the Levant. Money—money which their commerce rapidly increased—flowed into those cities which united industrial supremacy with their commercial and maritime power. To the enormous gains of their world-wide commerce, their chief merchants and bankers added the profits of usury, they lent to the kings of Europe ; by means of their wealth they reigned in the retirement of their counting-houses ; from one of these merchant families two sons were raised to the Papacy, Leo X. and Clement VIE, and two daughters became Queens of France, Catherine and Marie de Medicis. Among the causes of this extraordinary accumulation of capital in Italy we must mention the Papacy, which by its fraudulent trade in indulgences and dispensations, and by its Peter’s Pence procured an * enormous revenue. And what helps to support the economic materialism of Marx, and shows that the material conditions of life are the cause of the different social phenomena, is the fact that this prosperity of Italy! gave birth to the Renaissance of art, and its imperishable chefs d’auvre. In the midst of this magnificence intellectual power ripened into wonderful perfection. But this prosperity excited envy ; her riches and the enjoyments of life which they allowed, made Italy a tempting prey, upon which the Euro­ pean monarchies threw themselves in their passion for wealth. Nevertheless it was not these political events that deprived Italy of her capitalist supremacy, however important may have been their con­ sequences. The taking of Constantinople by the Turks, in 1453, dealt a terrible blow to the dominion of Venice, at that time the first commercial city of Italy, and indeed of the world. Italy retired from the Bosphorus to the Adriatic, and her downfall, which was signified by this retreat, was to be completed by the two great discoveries at the end of the 15th century. By doubling the Cape of Gtood Hope in 1497 Vasco di Gama opened a new way to commerce; and in 1492 and 1498 Christopher Columbus gave it a new world; but Italy found herself thenceforth out of the run of fortune. The centre of activity was changed, and passed from the towns on the Mediterranean to the towns of the Atlantic. The new openings in the East and in America, the forming of colonies and the increase of merchandise gave considerable scope to commerce and navigation. Fresh opportunities of exchange were the result, which led on the one hand to the depreciation of the land revenues of the nobles, andon the other increased the wealth of the bourgeoisie ; the commercial and industrial class, the bourgeois element, became more and more developed, at the expense of the old Feudal system which it replaced. The nobles on their side hurried on this work of dissolution. They had * “Peter’s Pence ” was a tax levied on all families possessed of thirty pence yearly rent in land, out of which they paid one penny, and was so called because paid on the feast of St. Peter. It was claimed by the Popes as a tribute from England, and regu­ larly collected till suppressed by Henry VIII. It had been originally presented for the endowment of an English College in Rome. f But compare page 17 of the “ Summary of the Principles of Socialism,” by H. M. Hyndman and William Morris.—Ed. �*3 begun to pledge their estates at the time of the crusades, and their un­ bridled love of luxury, fine horses, splendid armour, sumptuous houses, brilliant fetes, and amusements of all kinds, led them to continue this sys­ tem, and they cared less and less to liberate their pledged property ; while usury was carried on at their expense by Jews and Lombards, under the form of pawnbroking and mortgaging. In short from the 14th century they gradually alienated their estates, and at length the extensive im­ portation of precious metals from America depreciated still more landed fortunes, and contributed to the ruin of the feudal debtor, whose political power declined as the economic basis which had supported it became •feebler, for it was based upon landed property, involving personal rela­ tions of domination and dependence. We must not forget that the use of gunpowder and firearms had dealt a serious blow to the feudal system by taking away its social function. Supported by his serfs and liege men, the noble fought to defend them against the extortions of strangers ; with the invention of artillery the cavaliers cased in iron ceased to be a necessary rampart; the art of war changed, and consequently the corporation of the nobility lost its useful­ ness, and its ancient power was undermined. All discoveries, all changes, which involved expansion of the market and lessening the costs of transport, immeasurably accelerated produc­ tion. Production must be increased to keep pace with growing wants, and from this increase, occasioned by the creation of the market of the two worlds in the 16th century, dates the history of capitalist production, of which only the first faint beginnings had been traced in some of the Italian towns. But that production might increase, pecuniary means were necessary ; and the feudal constitution of the country, and the corporate regime of the towns were opposed to the transformation of capital in money form, amassed by the twofold practice of commerce and usury, into industrial capital. These barriers, becoming less solid with the relaxation of feudal ties, caused by the phenomena shortly stated above, yielded in many points to the force of necessity. Kings multiplied pretexts, not altogether disinterestedly J for the creation of masters in the corporations; they granted privileges to individuals for the purchase and sale of certain products; they suppressed various charges which burdened commerce, etc., and thus surmounted the obstacles which the organisation of craft-guilds held out to the extension of production. It was in this way that commercial capital and capital by usury were developed, and in this way they prepared the way for the capitalist era, properly speaking. To wind up my sketch of the evo­ lution of these two forms of capital, I must add a few words. Commercial and maritime supremacy passed at first from Italy to Portugal, to whom the way to India, discovered by Vasco di Gama, promised splendid possessions in Africa, and still more in Asia. Portu­ gal overflowed with riches, but it was quickly supplanted by Spain, to whom Christopher Columbus had given America; in 1580, Portugal became a province of Spain. In revolt against Philip II, who had crowned himself king of Portugal, the Dutch established themselves with complete success upon the ruins of the power of the Portuguese and Spaniards. These had founded their dominion upon conquest: Holland was the first nation which developed industrial capital simultaneously with commerce and navigation, and she became the most opulent power of the world. �14 When William III, Prince of Orange, was raised to the throne of England in 1689, the Dutch nation with its capital and its men turned towards this last country, and economic supremacy passed with them to England who has since retained it. The United States of America imagine they will subordinate her to the office to which she has subordinated Holland, of being simply the distributor of American products; whether they will succeed or not the future will show. We have now examined the growth of capital in its fundamental form, and the growth of bourgeois industrialism, which necessarily arose in the historical evolution, in order to develope the means of production, and adapt them to the supply of a larger market: for the small work-shop of the master of the corporation had to be enlarged, and at first the difference was merely in quantity. We have seen whence came the funds indis­ pensable to this enlargement, but other conditions were necessary, before the larger work-shops could be used : for besides the means of labour, labourers must be forthcoming. I shall examine in my next sketch, the historical movement which changed the immediate producers into the proletariat, I shall then touch on the different phases of capitalist pro­ duction, co-operation, social machinery, and associated labour; and I shall thus arrive at the present time, where the forces of production are tending to destroy the economic conditions which produced them. Once more, after studying the creation of the class destined to carry into effect the means of operation of which I have traced the origin, I shall take our method of production from the point where I leave it to­ day, at its birth. I shall trace it in its evolution, prove that it is approaching its dissolution, and show, by means of the very symptoms which foretells its end, that its dissolution will evolve the constitutive elements of a superior social organisation, where the means of produc­ tion, being socialised, will no longer be clothed in this form of capital, which they began to assume#nearly 400 years ago. The continual change in the development of productive forces necessarily brings with it modifications in the relations of production, that is to say, in the manner of living; and the social relations depend­ ing upon this must, evidently, be transformed that they may be adapted to the changes in the relations of production : they are, consequently, bound to change at the same time as the change in the productive forces. Socialisation of the means of production, collective appropriation, which is the basis of our theory, presents itself therefore, not as the original conception of brains impassioned for justice, but as the scientific definition of the end towards which economic phenomena are taking us whether we will or no. x\s long as the state of the powers of production was such that the material conditions demanded by the new society had not yet appeared, those whose dream has been to remedy the misery of the lower classes have been reduced to extemporising systems, and have fallen into utopianism ; but the producing forces of to-day have attained a develop­ ment which substitutes for the generous but unscientific speculations 01 the mind, the study of the changes in progress and the relations which depend upon them. Collective superintendence of production and ex­ change, formerly the ideal of certain brains, an institution with no foundation, is at present an historical necessity, material facts tending inevitably towards its realisation. Between the social conditions reserved for us by its realisation, and �i5 the actual conditions of to-day, there stands nothing but the denseness of bourgeois stupidity; the obstacle is enormous I admit, but it is not insurmountable. Were the bourgeois class aware of their true interests, they would facilitate a transformation, by retarding which they are ruining their own supports, and exhausting, as Marx has it, the two sources from which all wealth springs, the soil and the labourer. Ifi this the bourgeois class resemble the animal mentioned by our great prose writer, Gustave Flaubert, in his “Temptation of St. Anthony,” which was so supremely stupid, that it devoured its own paws without being aware of it. I • I'm .beeoqx5 srfT 9 ' .T /flI rl .A ansoNl I .'•I /fl adj ni ifi W easlO •up >1 ,di'n 1 bi » 4 taeoTgTO-.) >iiW �Socialism and Soldiering ; with some comments on the Army Enlistment Fraud. By George Bateman (Late 23rd Regi­ ment), with Portrait. With an introduction by H. H. Champion (Late Royal Artillery). Price One Penny. The Working Man’s Programme (Arbeiter Pro- gramm). By Ferdinand Lassalle. Translated from the German by Edward Peters. Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d. The Robbery of the Poor. By W. H. P. Campbell. Demy 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d. The Appeal to the Young. By Prince Peter Kropotkin. Translated from the French by H. M. Hyndman and reprinted from Justice. Royal 8-vo., 16-pp. Price one penny. The most eloquent and noble appeal to the generous emotions ever penned by a scientific man. Its author has just suffered five years’ imprisonment at rhe hands of the French Republic for advocating the cause of the workers Wage-Labour and Capital. From the German of Karl Marx translated by J. L. Joynes and reprinted from Justice. New and cheaper edition, Royal 8-vo., price id. By Edward Carpenter—Social Progress and Indi­ The Man with the Red Flag I Being John Burns’ vidual Effort; Desirable Mansions; and Co-operative Production. One penny each. Speech at the Old Bailey, when tried for Seditious Conspiracy, on April 9th, 1886. (From the Verbatim Notes of the official short­ hand reporter.) With Portrait. Price threepence. The Socialist Catechism. with additions from Justice. By J. L. Joynes. Reprinted Demy 8-vo., price id. 20th thousand. Socialism and Slavery. By H. M. Hyndman. (In reply to Mr. Herbert Spencer’s article on “ The Coming Slavery.”) New Edition, with portrait. 16 pp. Royal 8-vo., price one penny. The Fmigration Fraud Exposed. By What an Eight Hours Bill Means. By T. Mann H. M. Hyndman. With a Portrait of the Author. Reprinted by per­ mission from the Nineteenth Century for February, 1885. Crown 8-vo., price one penny. (Amalgamated Engineers). New edition with portrait. Thousand. Price one penny. Socialism and the Worker. Price id. By F. A. Sixth Sorge. An explanation in the simplest language of tne main idea of Socialism. The Chicago Riots and the Class War in the United States. By H. M. Hyndman. Reprinted from Time, June, 1886. Price one penny. International Trade Union Congress, held at August, 1886. Report by Adolphe Smith. Price Three-Halfpence. Paris, 24-pp., Royal 8-vo. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The genesis of capital Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Deville, Gabriel [Writer on Political Economy.] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 15, [1] p. ; 23 cm. Notes: Publisher's list on unnumbered page at the end. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Modern Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G4971 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource J., B (tr) Subject The topic of the resource Capitalism Socialism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The genesis of capital), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Capitalism Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2540f2012bd97261bea683373b41ac85.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=GKYXpCOdcFH8kcf6MOXf47dl6-8eVf18S6GHqNJ3bbrO68n0iJ0ea5-pitNBgjwZSwBSkWkiIV6A1C4TDAdsPbxSqIVJQ442ONf8EknRl8xMVsURJxI-D13wjrH6vnAt-Nijau9kgPsKWzbriPcUcv5AGSv7H2r%7E4ENHh5ERgiN0VH8IE5rhbeNf6xAWbC0Ktan4X22KFYJhCLpR4jjb%7E8lzI%7EhTXrVYzxjZ6b7y39NsqluL4EFqIoyyneI%7EavhSa8cGRm241NRPpVM7IpfoL1xQnW2%7ENfJWCOZs%7ERQGGDbLW3YKaoPLSjs1wKc8llK2T%7EEFoTeG27leIp60pEscGA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM de92f9cc9c2b4b3081f84c6f5676a73e PDF Text Text NatiONALSECULa THE Dope of Hu; ggntitrfr BY COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL “ SOCIALISM seems to be one of the worst possible forms of slavery. Nothing in my judgment would so utterly paralyse all the forces, all the splendid ambitions and aspirations that now tend to the civilisa­ tion of man. In ordinary systems of slavery there are some masters—a few are supposed to be free; but in a Socialistic state all would be slaves."—Page 14. PRICE ONE PENNY. LONDON: R. FOLDER, 28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. 1887 �I <i i I �NEW PARTY is struggling for recognition—a party with leaders who are not politicians, with followers who are not seekers after place. Some of those who1 suffer and some of those who sympathise have combined. Those who feel that they are oppressed are organised for the purpose of redressing their wrongs. The workers for wages, and the seekers for work, have uttered a protest. This party is an instrumentality for the accomplishment of certain things that are very near and very dear to the hearts of many millions. The object to be attained is a fairer division of profits'be­ tween employers and employed. There is a feeling that in some way the workers should not want—that the indus­ trious should not be the indigent. There is a hope that' men and women and children are not forever to be the victims of ignorance and want—that the tenement-house is not always to be the home of the poor, nor the gutter the nursery of their babes. As yet, the methods for the accomplishment of these .aims have not been agreed upon. Many theories have been ad­ vanced, and none has been adopted. The question is so vast, so complex, touching human interests in so many ways, that no one has yet been great enough to furnish a solution, or, if anyone has furnished a solution, no one else has been wise enough to understand it. The hope of the future is that this question will finally be understood. It must not be discussed in anger. If A broad and comprehensive view is to be taken, there is no place for hatred or for prejudice. Capital is not td blame. Labor is not to blame. Both have been caught in the net of circumstances. The rich are as generous' as the poor would be if they should change places. Men acquire through the noblest and the tenderest instincts. They work and save not only for themselves, but for1 their wives and for their children. There is but little' confidence in the charity of the world. The prudent man', in his youth makes preparation for his age. The loving father, having struggled himself, hopes to save his childrefi1 from drudgery and toil. �( 4 ) In every country there are classes—that is to say, the spirit of caste, and this spirit will exist until the world is truly civilised. Persons in most communities are judged not as individuals, but as members of a class. Nothing is more natural, and nothing more heartless. These lines that divide hearts on account of clothes or titles are grow­ ing more and more indistinct, and the philanthropists, the lovers of the human race, believe that the time is coming when they will be obliterated. We may do away with kings and peasants, and yet there may still be the rich and the poor, the intelligent and foolish, the beautiful and deformed, the industrious and idle, and, it may be, the honest and vicious. These classifications are in the nature of things. They are produced for the most part by forces that are now beyond the control of man—but the old rule, that men are disreputable in the proportion that they are useful, will certainly be reversed. The idle lord was always held to be the superior of the industrious peasant, the devourer better than the producer, and the waster superior to the worker. While in this country we have no titles of nobility, we have the rich and the poor—no princes, no peasants, but millionaires and mendicants. The individuals composing these classes are continually changing. The rich of to-day may be the poor of to-morrow, and the children of the poor may take their places. In this country the children of the poor are educated substantially in the same schools with those of the rich. All read the same papers, many of the same books, and all for many years hear the same questions discussed. They are continually being educated, not only at schools, but by the press, by political campaigns, by perpetual discussions on public questions, and the result is that those who are rich in gold are often poor in thought, and many who have not whereon to lay their heads have within those heads a part of the intellectual wealth of the world. Years ago the men of wealth were forced to contribute toward the education of the children of the poor. The support of schools by general taxation was defended on the ground that it was a means of providing for the public welfare, of perpetuating the institutions of a free country by making better men and women. This policy has been pursued until at last the school-house is larger than the church, and the common people through education have become uncommon. They now know how little is really �( 5 ) known by what are called the upper classes—how little after all is understood by kings, presidents, legislators, and men of culture. They are capable not only of understand­ ing a few questions, but they have acquired the art of discussing those that no one understands. With the facility of politicians they can hide behind phrases, make barricades of statistics, and chevaux-de-frise of inferences and asser­ tions. They understand the sophistries of those who have governed. In some respects these common people are the superiors of the so-called aristocracy. While the educated have been turning their attention to the classics, to the dead languages, and the dead ideas and mistakes that they contain—while they have been giving their attention to ceramics, artistic decorations, and compulsory prayers, the common people have been compelled to learn the practical things—to be­ come acquainted with facts—by doing the work of the world. The professor of a college is no longer a match for a master mechanic. The master mechanic not only under­ stands principles, but their application. He knows things as they are. He has come in contact with the actual, with realities. He knows something of the adaptation of means to ends, and this is the highest and most valuable form of education. The men who make locomotives, who construct the vast engines that propel ships, necessarily know more than those who have spent their lives in conjugating Greek verbs, looking for Hebrew roots, and discussing the origin and destiny of the universe. Intelligence increases wants. By education the necessities of the people become increased. The old wages will not supply the new wants. Man longs for a harmony between the thought within and the things without. When the soul lives in a palace, the body is not satisfied with rags and patches. The glaring inequalities among men, the differ­ ences in condition, the suffering and the poverty, have appealed to the good and great of every age, and there has been in the brain of the philanthropist a dream—a hope, a prophecy, of a better day. It was believed that tyranny was the foundation and cause of the differences between men—that the rich were all robbers and the poor all victims, and that if a society or government could be founded on equal rights and privi­ leges, the inequalities would disappear, that all would have food and clothes and reasonable work and reasonable leisure, and that content’wonld be found by every hearth. �( 6 ) There was a reliance on nature—an idea that men had interfered with the harmonious action of great principles v^hich, if left to themselves, would work out universal well­ being for the human race. Others imagined that the in­ equalities between men were necessary—that they were part of a divine plan, and that all would be adjusted in some other world—that the poor here would be the rich there, and the rich here might be in torture there. Heaven became the reward of the poor, of the slave, and hell theif revenge. When our government was established, it was declared that all men are endowed by their creator with certain in­ alienable rights, among which were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It was then believed that if all men had an equal opportunity, if they were allowed to make and execute their own laws, to levy their own taxes, the frightful inequalities seen in the despotisms and monarchies of the Old World would entirely disappear. This was the dream of 1776. The founders of the government knew how kings, and princes, and dukes, and lords, and barons had lived upon the labor of the peasants. They knew the history of those ages of want and crime, of luxury and suffering. But in spite of our Declaration, in spite of our Constitution, in spite of universal suffrage, the inequalities still exist. We have the kings and princes, the lords and peasants, in fact, if not in name. Monopolists, corporations, capitalists, workers for wages, have taken their places, and we are forced to admit that even universal suffrage cannot clothe and feed the world. For thousands of years men have been talking and writing about the great law of supply and demand—and insisting that in some way this mysterious law has governed and will continue to govern the activities of the human race. It is admitted that this law is merciless—that when the demand fails, the producer, the laborer, must suffer, must perish— that the law feels neither pity nor malice—it simply acts, regardless of consequences. Under this law, capital will employ the cheapest. The single man can work for less than the married. Wife and children are luxuries not to be enjoyed under this law. The ignorant have fewer wants than the educated, and for this reason can afford to work for less. The great law will give employment to the single and to the ignorant in preference to the married and in­ telligent. The great law has nothing to do with food or clothes, with filth or crime. It cares nothing for homes, �( 7 ) for penitentiaries or asylums. It simply acts—and some men triumph, some succeed, some fail, and some perish. Others insist that the curse of the world is monopoly.* And yet, as long as some men are stronger than others, a$' lofag as some are more intelligent than others, they must be, to the extent of such advantages, monopolists. Every matt Of genius is a monopolist. We are told that the great remedy against monopoly— that is to say, against extortion—is free and unrestricted competition. But, after all, the history of this world showia that the brutalities of competition are equalled only by those of monopoly. The successful competitor becomes a monopolist, and if competitors fail to destroy each other^ the instinct of self-preservation suggests a combination. In other words, competition is a struggle between two or more persons or corporations for the purpose of determining which shall have the uninterrupted privilege of extortion. In this country the people have had the greatest reliance on competition. If a railway company charged too much, a rival road was built. As a matter of fact, we are indebted, for half the railroads of the United States to the extortions of the other half, and the same may truthfully be said of telegraph lines. As a rule, while the exactions of monopoly constructed new roads and new lines, competition has either destroyed the weaker, or produced the pool which is a means of keeping both monopolies alive, or of producing a new monopoly with greater needs, supplied by methods more heartless than the old. When a rival road is built, the people support the rival because the fares and freights are somewhat less. Then the old and richer monopoly inaugu­ rates war, and the people, glorying in the benefits of com­ petition, are absurd enough to support the old. In a little while the new company, unable to maintain the contest, left by the people at the mercy of the stronger, goes to the wall, and the triumphant monopoly proceeds to make the intelligent people pay not Only the old price, but enough in addition to make up for the expenses of the contest. Is there any remedy for this? None, except With the people themselves. When the people become intelligent enough to support the rival at a reasonable price; when they know enough to allow both roads to live ; when they are intelligent enough to recognise a friend and to stand by that friend as against a known enemy, this question will be at least on the edge of solution. �( 8 ) So far as I know, this course has never been pursued except in one instance, and that is in the present war be­ tween the Gould and Mackey cables. The Gould system had been charging from sixty to eighty cents a word, and the Mackey system charged forty. Then the old monopoly tried to induce the rival to put the prices back to sixty. The rival refused, and thereupon the Gould combination dropped to twelve and a half, for the purpose of destroying the rival. The Mackey cable fixed the tariff at twenty-five cents, saying to its customers, “ You are intelligent enough to understand what this war means. If our cables are defeated, the Gould system will go back not only to the old price, but will add enough to reimburse itself for the cost of destroying us. If you really wish for competition, if you desire a reasonable service at a reasonable rate, you will support us.” Fortunately, an exceedingly intelligent class of people does business by the cables. They are merchants, bankers, and brokers, dealing with large amounts, with intricate, complicated, and international questions. Of necessity they are used to thinking for themselves. They are not dazzled into blindness by the glare of the present. They see the future. They are not duped by the sunshine of a moment or the promise of an hour. They see beyond the horizon of a penny saved. These people had intelli­ gence enough to say, “ The rival who stands between us and extortion is our friend, and our friend shall not be allowed to die.” Does not this tend to show that people must depend upon themselves, and that some questions can be settled by the intelligence of those who buy, of those who use, and that customers are not entirely helpless ? Another thing should not be forgotten, and that is this: there is the same war between monopolies that there is between individuals, and the monopolies for many years have been trying to destroy each other. They have uncon­ sciously been working for the extinction of monopolies. These monopolies differ as individuals do. You find among them the rich and the poor, the lucky and the unfortunate, millionaires and tramps. The great monopolies have been devouring the little ones. Only a few years ago the railways in this country were controlled by local directors and local managers. The people along the lines were interested in the stock. As a consequence, whenever any legislation was threatened hos­ tile to the interests of these railways, they had local friends �( 9 ) who used their influence with legislators, governors, and juries. During this time they were protected, but when the hard times came many of these companies were unable to pay their interest. They suddenly became Socialists. They cried out against their prosperous rivals. They felt like joining the Knights of Labor. They began to talk about rights and wrongs. But in spite of their cries, they have passed into the hands of the richer roads—they were seized by the great monopolies. Now the important rail­ ways are owned by persons living in large cities or in foreign countries. They have no local friends, and when the time comes, and it may come, for the general government to say how much these companies shall charge for passengers and freights, they will have no local friends. It may be that the great mass of the people will then be on the other side. So that after all the great corporations have been busy settling the question against themselves. Possibly a majority of the American people believe to-day that in some way all these questions between capital and labor can be settled by constitutions, laws, and judicial de­ cisions. Most people imagine that a statute is a sovereign specific for any evil. But while the theory has all been one way, the actual experience has been the other—just as the free-traders have all the arguments and the protectionists most of the facts. The truth is, as Mr. Buckle says, that for five hundred years all real advance in legislation has been made by re­ pealing laws. Of one thing we must be satisfied, and that is, that real monopolies have never been controlled by law, but the fact that such monopolies exist is a demonstration that the law has been controlled. In our country, legis­ lators are for the most part controlled by those who, by their wealth and influence, elect them. The few in reality cast the votes of the many, and the few influence the ones voted for by the many. Special interests, being active, se­ cure special legislation, and the object of special legislation is to create a kind of monopoly—that is to say, to get some advantage. Chiefs, barons, priests and kings ruled, robbed, destroyed and duped; and their places have been taken by corporations, monopolists and politicians. The large fish still live on the little ones, and the fine theories have as yet failed to change the condition of mankind. Law in this country is effective only when it is the re­ corded will of a majority. When the zealous few get con­ trol of the legislature, and the laws are passed to prevent �( 10 ) Sabbath-breaking or wine-drinking, they succeed only in putting their opinions and provincial prejudices in legal phrase. There was a time when men worked from fourteen to sixteen hours a day. These hours have not been les­ sened, they have not been shortened by law. The law has followed and recorded, but the law is not a leader and not a prophet. It appears to be impossible to fix wages—just as impossible as to fix the values of all manufactured things, including the works of art. The field is too great, the problem too complicated, for the human mind to grasp. To fix the value of labor is to fix all values—labor being the foundation of all values. The value of labor cannot be fixed unless we understand the relation that all things bear to each other and to man. If labor were a legal tender—if a judgment for so many dollars could be discharged by so many days of labor—and the law was that twelve hours of work should be reckoned as one day, then the law could change the hours to ten or eight, and the judgments could be paid in the shortened days. But it is easy to see that in all contracts made after the passage of such a law, the diff­ erence in hours would be taken into consideration. We must remember that law is not a creative force. It produces nothing. It raises neither corn nor wine. The legitimate object of law is to protect the weak, to prevent violence and fraud, and to enforce honest contracts, to the end that each person may be free to do as he desires, pro­ viding only that he does not interfere with the rights of others. Our fathers tried to make people religious by law. They failed. Thousands are now trying to make people temperate in the .same manner. Such efforts always have been, and probably always will be, failures. People who believe that an infinite God gave to the Hebrews a perfect code of laws, must admit that even this code failed to civil­ ise the inhabitants of Palestine. It seems impossible to make people just, or charitable, or industrious, or agreeable, or successful, by law, any more than you cam make them physically perfect or mentally sound. Of course, we admit that good people intend to make good laws, and that good laws, faithfully and honestly executed, tend to the preservation of human rights and to the elevation of the race ; but the enactment of a law not in accordance with a sentiment already existing in the minds and hearts of the people—the very people who are depended upon to enforce this law—is not a help, but a hindrance. A real law is but the expression in an authori- �(11) ttitive and accurate form of the judgment and desire of the majority. As we become intelligent and kind, this intelli­ gence and kindness find expression in law. But how is it possible to fix the wages of every man ? To fix wages is to fix prices, and a government, to do this in­ telligently, would necessarily require the wisdom generally attributed to an infinite being. It would have to supervise and fix the conditions of every exchange of commodities and the value of every conceivable thing. Many things can be accomplished by law. Employers may be held responsible for injuries to the employed. The mines can be ventilated. Children can be rescued from the deformities of toil, burdens taken from the backs of wives and mothers, houses made wholesome, food healthful—that is to say, the weak can be protected from the strong, the honest from the vicious, honest contracts can be enforced, and many rights protected. The men who have simply strength, muscle, endurance, compete not only with other men of strength, but with the inventions of genius. What would doctors say if physicians of iron could be invented with curious cogs and wheels, so that when a certain button was touched the proper pre­ scription would be written ? How would lawyers feel if a lawyer could be invented in such a way that questions of law, being put into a kind of hopper and a crank being turned, decisions of the highest court could be prophesied without failure ? And how would the ministers feel if some­ body should invent a clergyman of wood that would to all intents and purposes answer the purpose ? Invention has filled the world with the competitors not only of laborers, but of mechanics—mechanics of the highest skill. To-day the ordinary laborer is for the most part a cog in a wheel. He works for the tireless—he feeds the in­ satiable. When the monster stops, the man is out of em­ ployment, out of bread. He has not saved anything. The machine that he fed was not feeding him, was not working for him—the invention was not for his benefit. The other d'ay I heard a man say that it was almost impossible for thousands of good mechanics to get employment, and that in his judgment the government ought to furnish work for the people. A few minutes after, I heard another say that he was selling a patent for cutting out clothes, that one of his machines could do the work of twenty tailors, and that only the week before he had sold two to a great house in New York, and that over forty cutters had been discharged. �( 12 ) On every side men are being discharged and machines are being invented to take their places. When the great factory shuts down, the workers who inhabited it and gave it life, as thoughts do the brain, go away, and it stands there Eke an empty skull. A few workmen, by the force of habit, gather about the closed doors and broken windows, and talk about distress, the price of food, and the coming winter. They are convinced that they have not had their share of what their labor created. They feel certain that the machines inside were not their friends. They look at the mansion of the employer and think of the places where they live. They have saved nothing—nothing but them­ selves. The employer seems to have enough. Even when employers fail, when they become bankrupt, they are far better off than the laborers ever were. Their worst is better than the toilers’ best. The capitalist comes forward with his specific. He tells the working man that he must be economical—and yet, under the present system, economy would only lessen wages. Under the great law of supply and demand every saving, frugal, self-denying working man is unconsciously doing what little he can to reduce the compensation of himself and his fellows. The slaves who did not wish to run away helped fasten chains on those who did. So the saving mechanic is a certificate that wages are high enough. Does the great law demand that every worker live on the least possible amount of bread ? Is it his fate to work one day, that he may get enough food to be able to work another ? Is that to be his only hope—that and death ? Capital has always claimed and still claims the right to combine. Manufacturers meet and determine upon prices, even in spite of the great law of supply and demand. Have the laborers the same right to consult and combine ? The rich meet in the bank, the club-house, or parlor. Working men, when they combine, gather in the street. All the or­ ganised forces of society are against them. Capital has the army and the navy, the legislative, the judicial and the ex­ ecutive departments. When the rich combine, it is for the purpose of “ exchanging ideas.” When the poor combine, it is a “ conspiracy.” If they act in concert, if they really do something, it is a “ mob.” If they defend themselves, it is “ treason.” How is it that the rich control the depart­ ments of government ? In this country the political power is equally divided among the men. There are certainly more poor than there are rich. Why should the rich control ? �(13) Why should not the laborers combine for the purpose of controlling the executive, legislative and judicial depart­ ments ? Will they ever find how powerful they are? In every country there is a satisfied class—too satisfied to care. They are like the angels in heaven who are never disturbed by the miseries of earth. They are too happy to be generous. This satisfied class asks no questions, and answers none. They believe the world is as it should be. All reformers are simply disturbers of the peace. When they talk low they should not be listened to ; when they talk loud they should be suppressed. The truth is to-day what it always has been—what it al­ ways will be—those who feel are the only ones who think. A cry comes from the oppressed, from the hungry, from the down-trodden, from the unfortunate, from men who despair and from women who weep. There are times when mendi­ cants become revolutionists—when a rag becomes a banner, under which the noblest and bravest battle for the right. How are we to settle the unequal contest between men and machines ? Will the machine finally go into partner­ ship with the laborer? Can these forces of nature be controlled for the benefit of her suffering children ? Will extravagance keep pace with ingenuity ? Will the workers become intelligent enough and strong enough to be the owners of the machines ? Will these giants, these Titans, shorten or lengthen the hours of labor? Will they give leisure to the industrious, or will they make the rich richer, and the poor poorer ? Is man involved in the “ general scheme of things ” ? Is there no pity, no mercy? Can man become intelligent enough to be generous, to be just; or does the same law or fact control him that controls the animal and vegetable world ? The great oak steals the sunlight from the smaller trees. The strong animals devour the weak—everything eating something else—everything at the mercy of beak, and claw, and hoof, and tooth—of hand and club, of brain and greed—inequality, injustice everywhere. The poor horse standing in the street with his dray, over­ worked, over-whipped, and under-fed, when he sees other horses groomed to mirrors, glittering with gold and silver, scorning with proud feet the very earth, probably indulges in the usual Socialistic reflections; and this same horse, worn out and old, deserted by his master, turned into the dusty road, leans his head on the topmost rail, looks at donkeys in a field of clover, and feels like a Nihilist. �QU) In the days of savagery the strong devoured the weak— actually ate their flesh. In spite of all the laws that man has made, in spite of all advance in science, literature, and art, the strong, the cunning, the heartless still live on the weak, the unfortunate, and foolish. True, they do not eat their flesh, they do not drink their blood, but they live on their labor, on their self-denial, their weariness, and want. The poor man who deforms himself by toil, who labors for wife and child, through all his anxious, barren, wasted life —who goes to the grave without ever' having had one luxury —has been the food of others. He has been devoured by his fellow-men. The poor woman living in the bare and lonely room, cheerless and fireless, sewing night and day to keep starvation from a child, is slowly being eaten by her fellow-men. When I take into consideration the agony of civilised life—the number of failures, the poverty, the anxiety, the tears, the withered hopes, the bitter realities, the hunger, the crime, the humiliation, the shame—I am almost forced to say that cannibalism, after all, is the most merciful form in which man has ever lived upon his fellow­ man. Some of the best and purest of our race have advocated what is known as Socialism. They have not only taught, but, what is much more to the purpose, have believed, that a nation should be a family ; that the government should take care of all its children; that it should provide work, and food, and clothes, and education for all, and that it should divide the results of all labor equitably with all. Seeing the inequalities among men, knowing of the desti­ tution and crime, these men were willing to sacrifice, not only their own liberties, but the liberties of all. Socialism seems to be one of the worst possible forms of slavery. Nothing in my judgment would so utterly paralyse all the forces, all the splendid ambitions and aspirations that now tend to the civilisation of man. In ordinary systems of slavery there are some masters, a few are supposed to be free ; but in a Socialistic state all would be slaves. If the government is to provide work, it must decide for the worker what he must do. It must say who shall chisel statues, who shall paint pictures, who shall compose music, and who shall practise the professions. Is any government, or can any government be, capable of intelligently perform­ ing these countless duties? It must not only control work, it must not only decide what each shall do, but it must �( 15 ) |F control expenses, because expenses bear a direct relation to products. Therefore the government must decide what the worker shall eat and wherewithal he shall be clothed; the kind of house in which he shall live ; the manner in which it shall be furnished, and, if the government furnishes the work, it must decide on the days or the hours of leisure. More than this, it must fix values; it must decide -not only who shall sell, but who shall buy, and the price that must be paid--and it must fix this value not simply upon the labor, but on everything that can be produced, that can be exchanged or sold. Is it possible to conceive of a despotism beyond this? The present condition of the world is bad enough, with its poverty and ignorance, but it is far better than it could by any possibility be under any government like the one de­ scribed ./ There would be less hunger of the body, but not of the mind. Each man would simply be a citizen of a large penitentiary, and, as in every well-regulated prison, some­ body would decide what each should do. The inmates of a prison retire early ; they rise with the sun ; they have somer, thing to eat; they are not dissipated ; they have clothes ; they attend divine service : they have but little to say about their neighbors ; they do not suffer from cold ; their habits are excellent, and yet no one envies their condition. Socialism destroys the family. The children belong to the state. Cer­ tain officers take the places of parents. Individuality is lost. The human race cannot afford to exchange its liberty for any possible comfort. You remember the old fable of the fat dog that met the lean wolf in the forest. The wolf, astonished to see so prosperous an animal, inquired of the dog where he got his food, and the dog told him that there was a man who took care of him, gave him his breakfast, his dinner, and his supper with the utmost regularity, and that he had all that he could eat and very little to do. The wolf said, “ Do you think this man would treat me as he does you ? ” The dog replied, “ Yes ; come along with me.” So they jogged on together toward the dog’s home. On the way the wolf happened to notice that some hair was worn off the dog’s neck, and he said, “ How did the hair become worn ? ” “ That is,” said the dog, “ the mark of the collar—my master ties me at night.” “ Oh,” said the wolf, “are you chained? Are you deprived of vour liberty ? I believe I will go back. I prefer hunger. It is impossible for any man with a. good heart to be satisfied with this world as it now is. No one can truly enjoy even what he earns—what he knows to be his own— �16 knowing that millions of his fellow-men are in misery and want. When we think of the famished we feel that it is almost heartless to eat. To meet the ragged and shivering makes one almost ashamed to be well-dressed and warm— one feels as though his heart was as cold as their bodies. In a world filled with millions and millions of acres of land waiting to be tilled, where one man can raise the food for hundreds, millions are on the edge of famine. Who can comprehend the stupidity at the bottom of this truth ? Is there to be no change ? Are “ the law of supply and demand,” invention and science, monopoly and competition, capital and legislation, always to be the enemies of those who toil ? Will the workers always be ignorant enough and stupid enough to give their earnings for the useless ? Will they support millions of soldiers to kill the sons of other working-men? Will they always build temples for ghosts and phantoms, and live in huts and dens themselves ? Will they forever allow parasites with crowns, and vampires with mitres, to live upon their blood ? Will they remain the slaves of the beggars they support ? How long will they be con­ trolled by friends who seek favors, and by reformers who want office ? Will they always prefer famine in the city to a feast in the fields ? Will they ever feel and know that they have no right to bring children into the world that they cannot support ? Will they use their intelligence for themselves, or for others ? Will they become wise enough to know that they cannot obtain their own liberty by destroying that of others? Will they finally see that every man has a right to choose his trade, his profession, his employment, and has the right to work when, and for whom, and for what he will? Will they finally say that the man who has had equal pri­ vileges with all others has no right to complain, or will they follow the example that has been set by their oppressors ? Will they learn that force, to succeed, must have a thought behind it, and that anything done, in order that it may en­ dure, must rest upon the corner-stone of justice ? Will they, at the command of priests, forever extinguish the spark that sheds a little light in every brain ? Will they ever recognise the fact that labor, above all things, is honorable—that it is the foundation of virtue ? Will they understand that beggars cannot be generous, and that every healthy man must earn the right to live ? Will honest men stop taking off their hats to successful fraud ? Will industry, in the presence of crowned idleness, forever fall upon its knees, and will the lips unstained by lies forever kiss the robed impostor’s hand ? �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The hope of the future Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Not in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available R. Forder Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N357 Subject The topic of the resource Socialism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The hope of the future), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Capitalism NSS Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6ea73c16174c3e137d46e7a0c3d5cdd9.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=OpLicRI7zoPPcRBfd3yIZjYXfLDL19UFAcE7wxnPmradjr5Uedywm7D1g8ngKiFtCdX2sk2yVI%7E7iU%7EmkP%7EUpZys8%7EdfFe6DvvFAWXp9Bqz56O8ApFaDB3PZtlWlQ%7EcDGOegX3VCl3KXrQBVV5XDXQDSJbmQEw8dF3%7Eyt4WxF1Vn45tc9nDLrc42k4yMNQqUC-s4d5IjyzBzyEEp%7E0lxbbyaBEZxGc6MDOR4tpQU3kUTddULP6yiK0BgfadwwbxYPHHz0xaBhtMsG1C4c11%7Evs0du27UEjh6A8JFF6MIAwlm%7EZ78AbFhR5J-ZWk3w87lpD7qR9nxlMAWLPmlqMO0Kw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c029b94fa1cf05ebac9475f426a0d7a9 PDF Text Text 11 PROBLEM INDUSTRIAL SOLVED. BY W. B. ROBERTSON. “ England is full of wealth, of multifarious produce, supply for human want in every kind—yet England is dying of inanition. With unabated bounty the land of England blooms and grows; waving with yellow harvests; thick-studded with workshops, industrial implements, with fifteen millions of workers, understood to be the strongest, the cunningest, and the willingest our earth ever had ; these men are here, the work they have done, the fruit they have realised is here, abundant, exuberant on every hand of us; and behold some baleful fiat as of Enchantment has gone forth, saying, ‘ Touch it not, ye master-workers, ye master-idlers ; none of you can touch it, no man of you shall be the better for it; this is enchanted fruit.’ ”— Thomas Carlyle {Past and Present}. ----- LENDING sb LONDON: THE MODERN PRESS, 13, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C. �CON TEN 7 S. Overproduction ------ Overpopulation ....... Remedy ......... �OVERPRODUCTION. —I. Y over-production is meant that there are more commodities produced than can be sold. The problem, therefore, in connexion with over-production is, why can this surplus of commodities not be sold? .Many writers, among them John Stuart Mill, deny the possibility of a general over-supply. They maintain that, while there may be over­ production as regards one or more kinds of commodities, there cannot be over-production in all kinds, so long as there is a human want un­ satisfied. It is impossible, for instance, to have an over-supply of food so long as millions of our fellow-men are in need of the barest necessities of life. If there be any strength in an argument like this at all, it would follow, or rather it is implied in such argument, that the mere need, the mere human desire, for any given commodity is sufficient to set the machinery in motion to produce it. Here is a man with an empty stomach and in need of a meal, this of itself, is, on such grounds, sufficient to procure such meal; or here is another man with a bare back, and in need of a coat, this is enough to procure him the coat. Now it must be plain to every one, that those that have nothing but empty stomachs and bare backs cannot influence in the slightest degree the quantity of food that may be produced, or the quantity of coats that may be made. Is any farmer going to plough and sow a field for men that come to him with nothing except empty stomachs; or is any tailor going to make coats for men that have nothing to show but bare backs ? Here, however, from one of the Cobden Club publications, are facts that show clearly enough that the quantity of food produced has nothing to do with the number of people that are m need of food, that in fact the more food there is, the greater will be the number of people in want. In this pamphlet * we have the paradoxical statement that the present depression, which set m in 1884, “ was the natural and necessary result of the improved and fairly good harvest with which this country was favoured in that year.” This statement the author (Augustus Mongredien) proves by figures taken from the Boardof Trade returns. Thus, in 1884, our imports and exports together were twenty-five million odd pounds sterling less than the average of the four previous years. This * Trade Depression : Recent and Present. �4 diminution is accounted for by the fact that in the same year “ our foreign supplies of cereals fell short of the previous years to the extent of 15^ millions of pounds sterling ; and to that extent, therefore, we may infer that the home harvests of 1884 had exceeded in yield the harvests of the previous few years.” The effect of this extra harvest was, according to our authority, to lessen directly our importations of cereals ; we had the cereals at home, and consequently did not require to buy them from foreign countries. Indirectly our exports were also lessened. Our whole foreign trade, exports and imports together, by this good harvest, Mr. Mongredien computes, was reduced by 43 millions of pounds sterling ; for he considers the effects of this good harvest as extending into 1885. After, making allowances he concludes, that this 43 millions worth of goods, represents from 2,500 to 3,000 cargoes; by so many cargoes, therefore, would our shipowners’ trade be lessened ; they would have that number of cargoes the less to carry, This sudden diminution in their business threw idle ships upon their hands; it then affected the shipbuilders, for the shipowners having more ships than they could find employment for, were of course not likely to order more. “ As a natural consequence,” Mr. Mongredien proceeds, “ the diminished construction of ships (in which the consumption of iron enters so largely) occasioned a propor­ tionate falling off in the demand for that metal, so that (other causes assisting) the wave of depression extended to the iron trade, and then spread to the closely connected coal-producing industries and others, which they influence more or less directly. Moreover, it would necessarily follow from there being between 2,500 and 3,000 fewer cargoes to load and unload at our chief ports, London, Liverpool, Glas­ gow, &c., that there would be less demand for persons living by that kind of labour, so that a number of dock labourers of all sorts would be thrown out of work. . . . On examination we find that the industries which really did most suffer from the recent and present depression are precisely those which we have enumerated above.” Such then is the account of trade depression given by the Cobden Club. There can be no questioning its accuracy so far as it goes; it leaves us helpless, however—in fact, it paralyses us. The farmer always endeavours to make his labour as productive as possible—the better his crops the more he rejoices, and the more does the nation rejoice with him. How tempered must this joy be though, if its cause is also to be the means of throwing thousands of hard working men out of work, and depriving them of the necessaries of life ! The bounties of Nature would thus seem to benefit no one, for the more bountiful she is, the less wrork is there for people to do, and in consequence the less able are they to get at these bounties. Besides the foregoing facts, we have others showing that .people may and do suffer want in the midst of plenty. The stocks of wheat held in Liverpool at the end of 1885 were 3,578,938 centals, while at the end of 1884 there were only 1,869,146 centals. Now, the winter 1885-6 was marked by great distress throughout the country; and yet we were more abundantly supplied in food-stuffs than we had ever been, for the figures taken at other ports besides Liverpool showed the same increase. The argument, therefore, that a general overproduction is impossible while there is human want can no longer be maintained. It now remains for us to explain why overproduction comes about, and �5 why it is, as already remarked, that the more abundant commodities are, the greater will be the number of people in want. For this purpose it will be necessary for us to say a word upon the system of renumerating labour. The remuneration of every kind of labour is fixed in the same way, viz., by competition. This competition may be amongst the employers, or amongst the employed. When there is a great deal of work to be done, when everybody is in employment, and there is still a demand for more men, these additional men must be drawn from other masters ; and to be so drawn inducements in the shape of higher wages must be held out to them. Under circumstances like these wages tend to rise. In a state of society, for example, such as that presented by a newly settled country where human labour is little aided by machinery, the labouring classes are,, it is well known, highly paid. The reason of this is because labourers are few compared with the amount of work that is offered. For these few labourers employers compete amongst themselves —each one holding out better inducements than the other. Take America some years ago ; wages were high then because there were more labourers wanted than could be got. Not only were wages high, but masters were very civil to their servants, as is evidenced by the fact that servants were euphemistically called “ helps,” allowed to sit at the same table with their employers, and treated in every way as equals. This courtesy, on the part of employers, is rapidly disappearing with the cause that gave rise to it; for labourers are no longer scarce in America, and if a servant dislikes to be called a servant, he can go about his busi­ ness—there are plenty others willing to take his place. It was the scarcity of labour that gave rise to the appearance of a system of equality in America, which many attributed to the Republican form of Govern­ ment. The form of Government had nothing whatever to do with it. So much then for the fixing of wages when labour is scarce. When labour is plentiful, when there are a great many seeking work, the labourers compete with one another for such employment as there is to be had. This of course brings wages down. It is useless for a man to offer his services for five shillings a day, when there are plenty others willing to do the same thing for two shillings and sixpence. Thus one man underbids another, and the one whose necessities are the greatest is the one that will accept the lowest terms. It is this competi­ tion amongst the working-classes that has brought wages down to star­ vation point in the simpler kinds of work. Starving men and women compete with starving men and women, and are glad to get the oppor­ tunity of working long hours every day for a few coppers ; because this is better than nothing at all. The foregoing then is the method upon which wages are fixed, and it operates in every department of human activity. The reason that a navvy is worse paid than a mechanic is simply because there are more men able to do navvy’s work than mechanic’s work, and the competition is consequently keener amongst the navvies than amongst the mechanics. We might go through all the different kinds of labour, and we wnuld find that wages in each kind are high or low according to the relation between the number of men seeking employment, and the quantity of employment to be got. The law of wages, then, may be stated in these words: Wages vary according to the relation between the quantity of labour offered and the quantity of labour required. �6 If people had borne this in mind, we would not have had so many ex­ pressions.of surprise at the fact that our working population has made so little, if, indeed, any progress. We often hear our great wealth spoken of, the wonderful strides we have made, and yet only a few seem, and we are told this with astonishment, to have participated in our increased power. All this is quite in accordance with what Political Economy has predicted, as is shown by the following passage from Ricardo;—“ If the shoes and clothing of the labourer could, by improvements in machinery, be produced by one fourth of the labour now necessary to their production, they would probably fall 75 per cent.; but so far is it from being true, that the labourer would thereby be enabled permanently to consume four coats, or lour pairs of shoes, instead of one, that his wages would in no long time be adjusted by the effects of competition, and the stimulus to popuation, to the new value of the necessaries on which they were expended. If these improvements extended to all the objects of the labourers’ consump­ tion, we should find him, probably at the end of a very few years, in possession of only a small, if any, adddition to his enjoyments.” This was written at the beginning of the present century. It afnounts to saying, “ It makes no difference how much you improve your methods of production, the position of the labourer will not be one whit the better; he will not enjoy any more of the necessaries and conveniences of life, his command over these necessaries and conveniences will always be just enough to enable him to subsist and to raise up more labourers.” This is perfectly true. It was at the beginning of the century, as we have just remarked, that Ricardo wrote the passage. Since then, we have introduced improve­ ments into every kind of work, -and the result is as predicted. The labourers are poor and ignorant; they still toil unceasingly; and they think themselves lucky if they can get the opportunity of undergoing this toil. We shall now endeavour to give more pointedly, the reason of this anomalous position, the reason why in the midst of plenty people starve, why, in fact, the more plentiful things are the less able are we to get at them. As Carlyle says:—“ We have more riches than any nation ever had before ; we have less good of them than any nation ever had before. Our successful industry is hitherto unsuccessful; a strange success if we stop here ! In the midst of plethoric plenty, the people perish ; with gold walls and full barns, no man feels himself safe or satisfied. Workers, master-workers, un workers, all men come to a pause ; stand fixed, and cannot farther. Have’we actually got enchanted then ; accursed by some God1” Now let us offer a simple illustration of some of the economic effects of such a system of remunerating labour. Suppose that the only thing we did in this country was to make cotton—a single industry is supposed because it simplifies matters ; suppose, moreover, that we could make enough cotton to supply our own requirements for that article, and had enough to send to other countries for our food and whatever else we needed. At the beginning of the centruy we will further suppose that everybody is employed, that there is nobody out of work, and the wages are good enough to keep them comfortably and respectably. By and by improved methods of production and transit are introduced, and to such an extent that one man can do as much as five formerly did. As these improvements are applied four men out of every five would be thrown �out of work ; wages, moreover, would be reduced, for rather than be thrown out of work the men would offer their services at a lower rate, and competition amongst the workers would become keener. Here, then, with an increasing power of production, we would have a reduced number of consumers—these too getting a smaller share of the produce of their labour. What under such circumstances can be more natural than a glut, than over-production ? With such a fair start then at the beginning of the century, we should be as bad to-day as we now actually are. The men that had been thrown out of work with every successive improvement, and their families, would have to live somehow ; many of them would become thieves and vagrants, many of them paupers. All this too would come about independently of the extraordinary tendency of population to increase. When we take this into account we can only wonder, not that evils are so rampant in society, but that society has continued so long upon such a basis. The hard lot of man then would appear not to be due to the niggard­ liness of nature as we have been taught; to have no connection with the curse that doomed him to eat his bread “ by the sweat of his brow.” It is due to a mere convention, the shadowy nature of which will appear clearly enough later on. The real significance of over-production is to reduce our present indus­ trial system to an absurdity. It is ridiculous for people to have to starve because they have grown too much food, to go unclad because they have made too many clothes, and unhoused because they have built too many houses. There would be work for all the unemployed to-morrow if the half of London were destroyed; there is nothing like calamities for trade. By bringing about over-production, then, the working population has proved our present industrial system to be false; and how very unequal that system is we see every day. Here in a few words is one of its most ■ glaring inequalities. The governing class has said to the working class, you go to work under this system—your share of the result of your labour will be fixed in this wise, our share of the result of your labour will be fixed in this other wise. So the working population said all right, took up their hammers and went to work. They weret old to work hard and ever harder, and overseers were put to see that they did work hard. But what is this that has come upon us now ? The governing class exclaim, “ Stop ! you have produced too much ; you must lay down your hammers until we require you again ; we have quite enough here of everything to suit us—indeed more than enough. So you can go and shake your heels outside there while we enjoy ourselves and consume the things that you have made.” OVER-POPULATION.—II. The view that attributes our social disorders to the fact that we are overpopulated, is perhaps more widely accepted than any other. The reason for this is because it is an easily understood view. What can be more clear than that, if there be a greater number of people in a commu­ nity than can get employment, and if the livelihood of these people depend upon their getting employment, the privation of those that cannot get employment �8 is due to the fact that there is no room for them in such community ? At one time it was universally believed that the sun moved round the earth ; for what could be more clear than that, if Rome continued to remain in the same spot and the sun every day passed over it, the sun must so move ? Rome, however, did not continue to remain in the same spot; hence what was so very clear was all wrong. Similarly the livelihood of man does not depend upon his getting employment, it depends upon his get­ ting the means of livelihood ; hence what is so very clear as to our being over-populated, may also be all wrong. This is a point, however, that remains for us to consider. The reader has of course heard of Malthus and his celebrated essay on “ Population.” In that essay it was shown that in every community the number of members is limited by the means of subsistence at their command; increase the subsistence and an increased population will result; diminish the subsistence, and there follows a diminished popula­ tion. “ This is incontrovertibly true,” he says. “ Through the animal and vegetable kingdoms, Nature has scattered the seeds of life abroad with the most profuse and liberal hand; but has been comparatively sparing in the room and the nourishment necessary to rear them. The germs of existence contained in this earth, if they could freely develop themselves, would fill millions of worlds in a few thousand years. Necessity, that imperious, all pervading law of nature, restrains them within the prescribed bounds. The race of plants, and the race of animals shrink under this great restrictive law; and man cannot by any efforts of reason escape from it.” Such was the truth that Malthus laboured to enforce—a truth that one would have thought so self-evident as not to need enforcing. His essay, however, is really nothing more than a demonstration of the extraordinary strength of the principle of self- con servation. Malthusians consider themselves followers of Malthus on the ground that they accept and seek to promulgate his views on population. Let us consider for a moment their position. This country, they say, is over-populated. Why I Because there are more people in it wanting work than can get work ; many are con­ sequently compelled to idleness, these not having any other way of procuring the necessaries of life except by labour, are consequently either thrown upon the generosity of their friends or become recipients of public relief, or criminals. In this simple way does the Malthusian explain all our social calamities, and, as the only remedy, he suggests that people must be more prudent, must regulate the number of children they bring into the world—in a word, the population of a country must correspond to the work to be done in that country, the more work the greater the population may be, the less work the less the population. The reader will now see that there is a difference between the view of Malthus and the view of the Malthusian.; the former set up subsistence as the limit to population, the latter sets up employment or work to be done—the more work there is to be done as already remarked, the more room is there for an increased population. Let us now follow the Malthusian position to its logical issue. Why do we call one method of'production or transit an improvement upon another ? Simply because it involves less labour, simply because it abridges labour, and that is the reason that we adopt the improved method. Now, with every abridgment in the labour of making and �9 transferring things there becomes relatively, less and less labour to do, and consequently, the ideal population of the Malthusian becomes less and less. In this way, if the Malthusian position had free play, the most ingenious race, the race that is most apt to discover quicker and quicker methods of doing things, would thereby be always narrowing the limits of its populatiou. It would consequently be the first to disappear from the face of the earth, the fittest to survive would be the most stupid, the unkindest countries would be the most densely populated; in a word, nature and man would be at daggers drawn. We do not say that such is not the case to-day—in fact it is the case. Nature and man are at war, and all through one little fallacy in our economic system. Meanwhile as to our statement that it is the case that nature and man are at daggers drawn, that the stupidest, or least adaptive, are fittest to survive, we have practical proof of this in recent legislative action in America and Australia. Chinese labour was forbid­ den the markets of these countries, because the Chinaman can underbid the Anglo-Saxon. Laws are made to protect the weak against the strong; the strong man m the case just noticed, is the Chinaman, the weak, the Anglo-Saxon, who requires special protection. The fittest will always survive—that statement points to a law that we cannot alter. What we can alter, however, and what we must alter if we would continue our race—if, indeed, we wish to make any further progress at all—are the conditions that make the Chinaman and those that approach him in character the superior. Suppose again, that the Malthusian doctrines were practically adopted and most rigidly carried out. Suppose that to-day our population was so regulated, that there was not an idle man in the kingdom, not a pauper, not even a criminal. Every one is fed, and clad, and legitimately employed. There remains, however, in this happy state of affairs just one thing that we have got to-day, and that is our present industrial system. Let us now take a step forward from this ideal point to a time when improved methods of production and transit have been introduced. Com­ modities can be manufactured with less labour, goods can be conveyed to their destinations with less labour—in a word, we shall suppose, as is really what happens, that in nearly every department of human effort, improvements have been introduced. They are called improvements, because they lessen labour. What then would be the economic effect of a year’s progress upon the ideal state of affairs that we have just been imagining ? The first effect would be that to make the same quantity of manufactures, less workmen would be required ; masters would consequently have to discharge some of their men. Now, what becomes of these men? Well, they do not want to be discharged, so they offer their services at a lower wage, competition amongst the work­ men for such employment as there is to be had becomes keener, wages consequently become lower, for masters are obliged to follow the market rate of wages. No matter, however, whether wages be high or low, the masters cannot employ as many men as they did before the introduction of the supposed improvements. What, then, becomes of the surplus ? Why, enforced idleness, and with it loss of independence : then as wc go on improving, we recruit the ranks of the enforced idlers—they are enforced idlers at first—and out of them springs the necessity for those vigorous institutions police courts, prisons, and workhouses. �IO The Malthusian would thus have to resort periodically to some drastic measures to restore the balance between employment and population. One word more in connexion with improvements. We have seen their effect to be the lessening the nurhber of those employed and the lowering of wages. Now here comes the economic effect par excellence. Fewer men in employment at reduced wages means a diminution in the power of the community to consume. Improved methods of production, &c., are ever increasing our power over nature, our power to produce ; they are at the same time, by rendering competition amongst labourers keener and keener, diminishing our power to consume. This is going on all over the world, is operating upon the industrial classes in every civilised community, is the noose with which we are stranglingourselves, is in the words of Carlyle, “ the accursed invisible night-mare that is crushing out the life of us and ours.” Can anyone wonder that the markets of the world are glutted ? The supply pipes are ever widening, the waste pipes ever contracting: of course, there is a running over ; of course, as Carlyle says, our wealth “i s an enchanted wealth.” THE REMEDY.—III. The 'main evils that result from our present economic svrstem have appeared from our observations on over-production and over-population. Over-production and over-population are themselves under existing arrangements sources of great suffering. Both, curiously enough, too, exist together. This in itself shews that there must be some contradic­ tory forces in operation in the industrial world ; for is it not ridiculous that we should have too large a population while we are complaining of having too great an abundance of useful things? How are we to tell when a population is great or small ? By a reference to the limit of population. Now the limit to population is professed to be the means of subsistence. But our population is so far from pressing upon this limit that we are complaining of a too abundant supply of the means of subsistence. Here then is an absurdity; and we are landed in this absurdity because the limit to population is not as supposed, the means of subsistence, but the employment offered in a community. By referring to this limit, the employment offered in a community, we find that our population is too great; for there are many more than can get employ­ ment, and by so many is our population excessive. Now, it remains for us to ask ourselves whether we are to maintain this limiting principle, or whether it would not be better for us to adopt another. We have already shewn that it is impossible to have population regu­ lated by the employment to be had in a community because such em­ ployment is always varying, is by the introduction of improved methods of production always becoming less and less. Now, here is a fertile source of evil; for with every contraction of the field of employment some are thrust out of that field, these keep on recruiting the everlasting army of paupers and criminals, and form the dregs of society. They are forced into these positions, and no subsequent action on the part of society is of any avail in recalling them. There is the field of labour, it is full; �11 place another man in it, it is more than full; the consequence is that either that man or some one else must go out. Besides paupers and criminals, and what are called the dregs of society, such a limiting principle to population leads in its working out to deterioration in workmanship, and indeed in human character. As already shown, improvements by lessening the demand for labour lead to a keener competition amongst labourers, and thereby lead to a con­ traction of the labourers’ pockets ; to meet this diminished consuming power commodities have to be made as cheaply as possible ; there is no effective demand for good materials, consequently jerrymaundering is in the ascendant. As to the deterioration in human character that is con­ tinually going on, we have already shown what class is best fitted to survive. It is the class that can live on least, whose manner of living approaches more and more closely to the beasts. Thus is our civilisa­ tion being undermined, and thus are all our attempts at social progress frustrated. It is apparent, then, that some other limit to population must be substituted for the one that prevails to-day, and it is. such other limit that we now proceed to unfold. This other limit is the means of subsistence—the very limit that is supposed to be in operation, but which we have shown to be not the case. Now, in the first place, with such a limit as the means of subsist­ ence over-population would be impossible; for no community could ever consist of more members than it could support. This, of course, is evi­ dent, and requires no further elucidation. In speaking of the limiting principle that is in operation now, viz., employment, we objected to it that it was always varying. Might not the means of subsistence vary too ? If, moreover, at any time, writh the means of subsistence as the limit to population there should become less subsistence than will suffice to maintain the whole population, who is to have such subsistence and who is to go without ? Of course the means of subsistence might vary; the difficulties that might arise from such a possibility will, however, disappear after we have shown how this limit is to be practically adopted, and this brings us to enquire into the nature of property. What is property ? Why does society have such a thing as property at all ? Why should it put itself about to ensure any man in the pos­ session of whatever goods he may have got hold of? The only reason that can be given for this, and a very gocd one it is, is to encourage industry. For instance, I make chairs ; suppose that as soon as I have done so a stronger man than myself comes along and takes them from me; I should most certainly come to the conclusion to make no more chairs, because I would derive no benefit from pursuing such a course, and would at once betake myself to procuring whatever I wanted by stealing also. Of course, there would very soon be nothing to steal, and society would at once collapse. To prevent this collapse, however, and to preserve its own life, society steps forward and says that these chairs are mine, that they are mine because I made them ; the reason that such a course of conduct on the part of society preserves its life is because I am .thereby encouraged to go on making more chairs, and every other maker of everything else is encouraged in the same way. Thus are the members of the community kept supplied with such commodities as are required. The institution of private property, then, is maintained by society �T2 for the sake of encouraging industry, and for the sake of nothing else, except what is implied in the encouragement of industry — viz., the continuance of society. Such, then, is the reason why we have such a thing as property. How far does society practically adhere to this, the. recognised theory of property ? It has departed from it as far as it can. To see that this is so, the merest glance round is sufficient; for those that have made everything have got nothing. As soon as an article has been made it is by some magical operation—an operation so subtle that it is scarce perceptible —snatched from the maker, and becomes the property of some one else. Speaking in this connection John Stuart Mill says that he would prefer Communism itself to such an unholy state of affairs. “ If,” he says, “ the institution of private property necessarily carried with it as a con­ sequence that the produce of labour should be apportioned as we now see it, almost in an inverse ratio to the labour—the largest portions to those who have never worked at all, the next largest to those whose work is almost nominal, and so, in a descending scale, the remuneration dwind­ ling as the work grows harder aud more disagreeable, until the most fatiguing and exhausting bodily labour cannot count with certainty on being able to earn even the necessaries of life: if this, or communism were the alternative, ail the difficulties, great or small, of communism would be but as dust in the balance.” Surely it cannot be impossible for society to carry out so simple a theory—a theory that it recognises and accepts as true—as to see that people have the produce of their own labour, that industry is rewarded and encouraged. The grossest inconsistency on the part of society as regards property is the maintenance of property in. land. How can that encourage in­ dustry ? It is only the produce of the land, the result of labour, that can be called property. By insuring to this individual or to that individual this or that tract of land, what industry does society encourage ? It en­ courages the industry of the idle—a terrible industry, a scourge: it reduces thousands of its members to the position of flunkeys, ministers to idleness. As we have already said, the view that property is maintained in a community for the purpose of encouraging industry and for no other pur­ pose, is not new neither is it denied. All that it implies is that men are to be rewarded according to their industry—this, no one can for a mo­ ment deny, is far from being practically carried out; in fact, we practically carry out the very opposite doctrine. Here then are two principles, viz.: that population is limited by subsistence and that property is instituted to encourage industry ; that are universally accepted and argued upon, as if they were carried into practice ; we have shown that the one not carried into practice, how­ ever, seeks to deny them. Why should they not be adopted by society ? It is the adoption of these two principles, and of these two principles alone that is recommended here. Indeed by seeing that the theory of property alone is applied, the limiting principle to population will be implicitly applied too. Such, and such alone, is the work that lies before reformers now. 'AXVV • wy""........... •''WXxxxax" �OBJECT. The Establishment of a Free Condition of Society based on the prin­ ciple of Political Equality, with Equal Social Rights for all and the complete Emancipation of Labour. PROGRAMME. 1. All Officers or Administrators to be elected by Equal Direct Adult Suffrage, and to be paid by the Community. 2. Legislation by the People, in such wise that no project of Law shall become legally binding till accepted by the Majority of the People. 3. The Abolition of a Standing Army, and the Establishment of a National Citizen Force ; the People to decide on Peace or War. 4. All Education, higher no less than elementary, to be Free, Com­ pulsory, Secular, and Industrial for all alike. 5. The Administration of Justice to be Free and Gratuitous for all Members of Society. 6. The Land with all the Mines, Railways and other Means of Tran­ sit, to be declared and treated as Collective or Common Property. 7. Ireland and all other parts of the Empire to have Legislative Independence. 8. The Production of Wealth to be regulated by Society in the com­ mon interest of all its Members. 9. The Means of Production, Distribution and Exchange to be declared and treated as Collective or Common Property. As measures called for to palliate the evils of our existing society the Social-Democratic Federation urges for immediate adoption :— The Compulsory Construction of healthy artizan’s and agricultural labourers’ dwellings in proportion to the population, such dwellings to be let at rents to cover the cost of construction and maintenance alone. Free Compulsory Education for all classes, together with the provision of at least one wholesome meal a day in each school. Eight Hours or less to be the normal working day in all trades. Cumulative Taxation upon all incomes above a fixed minimum not exceeding /300 a year. State Appropriation of Railways, with or without compensation. The establishment of National Banks, which shall absorb all private institutions that derive a profit from operations in money or credit. Rapid Extinction of the National Debt. Nationalisation of the Land, and organisation of agricultural and industrial armies under State control on Co-operative principles. As means for the peaceable attainment of these objects the SocialDemocratic Federation advocates : Adult Suffrage. Annual Parliaments. Proportional Represen­ tation. Payment of Members ; and Official Expenses of Election out of the Rates. Abolition of the House of Lords and all Hereditary Authorities. Disestablishment and Disendowment of all State Churches. Secretary, Social-Democratic Federation, Bridge House, Blackfriars, E.G. �4t J ■ All who are interested in Socialism should read THE FOLLOWING PUBLICATIONS OF THE MODERN PRESS, 13, Paternoster Row, London, E.C. Which will be sent post free at the published prices on receipt of an order amounting to one shilling or more. (The Publications of the Modern Press can be obtained from W. L. Rosenberg, 261, East Tenth Street, New York City.) The Historical Basis of Socialism in England. By H. M. Hyndman. Paul, Trench, & Co. Crown 8-vo., price 8s. 6d London: Kegan This is the only Book in the English Language which gives the Historical and Economical Theories of Organised Socialism. It should be carefully studied by all who desire to understand why Socialists are enthusiastic for their cause, and confident of ucces s in the near future. Woman in the Past, Present and Future. By August Bebel, Deputy in the Reichstag. Translated from the German by H. B. Adams Walther. Demy 8-vo., cloth, price 5s. ft. F This work by the best known of the German Socialists aims at showing that the social condition of women can be permanently improved only by the solution of the whole social problem, The Co-operative Commonwealth: an Exposition of Modern Socialism. By Laurence Gronlund, of Philadelphia. Demy 8-vo., paper cover, is. This book supplies the want, frequently complained of, of definite proposals for the administration of a Socialistic State. Mr. Gronlund has reconciled the teaching of Marx with the influence of Carlyle in the constructive part of his work, which is specially recommended to English Socialists. Socialism versus Smithism: I An open letter from H. M. Hyndman to Samuel Smith, M.P. for Liverpool. 8-vo. Cheaper edition, price id. Crown John E. Williams, and the Early History of THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC FEDERATION. trait. Price one penny. 1 With Por­ Opening Address to the Trade Union Congress at Southport, September, 1885. Delivered by T. R. Threlfall. Royal 8-vo., 16-pp. Price one penny. An able address from a representative working man on political and social topics. i| L- ■ Ek. I I Social ism made Plain. The social and political manifesto of the Social-Democratic Federation issued in June 1883 ; with “The Unemployed,” a Manifesto issued after the “ Riots in the West End” on 8th February, 1886. Sixty-first thousand. Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price id. “ JUSTICE,” the Organ of the Social Democracy. Every Saturday, one penny. I! �Socialism and Soldiering*; with some comments on the Army Enlistment Fraud. By George Bateman (Late 23rd Regi­ ment), with Portrait. With an introduction by H. H. Champion (Late Royal Artillery). Price One Penny. The Working Man’s Programme (Arbeiter Pro- gramm). By Ferdinand Lassalle. Translated from the German by Edward Peters. Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d. The Robbery of the Poor. By W. H. P. Campbell. Demy 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d. The Appeal to the Young. By Prince Peter Kropotkin. Translated from the French by H. M. Hindman and reprinted from Justice. Royal 8-vo., 16-pp. Price one penny. The most eloquent and noble appeal to the generous emotions ever penned by a scientific man. Its author has just suffered five years’ imprisonment at t.he hands of the French Republic for advocating the cause of the workers Wage-Labour and Capital. From the German of Karl Marx translated by J. L. Joynes and reprinted from Justice. New and cheaper edition, Royal 8-vo., price id. By Edward Carpenter.—Social Progress and Indi­ The Man with the Red Flag : Being John Burns’ vidual Effort; Desirable Mansions; and Co-operative Production. One penny each. Speech at the Old Bailey, when tried for Seditious Conspiracy, on April gth, 1886. (From the Verbatim Notes of the official short­ hand reporter.) With Portrait. Price threepence. The Socialist Catechism. with additions from Justice. By J. L. Joynes. Reprinted Demy 8-vo., price id. 20th thousand. Socialism and Slavery. By H. M. Hyndman. (In reply to Mr. Herbert Spencer’s article on “ The Coming Slavery.”) New Edition, with portrait. 16 pp. Royal 8-vo., price one penny. The Emigration Fraud Exposed. By H. M. What an Eight Hours Bill Means. By T. Mann Hyndman. With a Portrait of the Author. Reprinted by per­ mission from the Nineteenth Century for February, 1885. Crown 8-vo., price one penny. (Amalgamated Engineers). New edition with portrait. Thousand. Price one penny. Socialism and the Worker. Price id. By F. A. Sixth Sorge. An explanation in the simplest language of tne main idea of Socialism. The Chicago Riots and the Class War in the United States. By H. M. Hyndman. Reprinted from Time, June, 1886. Price one penny. International Trade Union Congress, held at August, 1886. Report by Adolphe Smith. Price Three-Halfpence. Paris, 24-pp., Royal 8-vo. �Social Progress and Individual Effort. Desirable Mansions. Co-operative Production. England Arise. Song with Music. By Edward Carpenter. Price id. each. Cashel Byron’s Profession: G. Bernard Shaw. A Novel. The Genesis Of Capital. Translated from the French of Gabriel Deville by B. J. Royal 8vo. Price id. The Nationalisation of Societv. dore D’Auton. By Price is. Royal 8vo, paper covers. By J. Theo­ Royal 8vo., price id. The Australian Labour Market: Startling The Industrial Problem Solved. By W. B. Disclosures. By John Norton, New South Wales Labour Delegate. Royal 8vo., Price id. Robertson. Royal 8vo., Price id. The Nationalisation of Railways. By F. Keddell. Reprinted from Justice and revised. 8vo., price id. Mining Rates and Royalties. Royal By J. Morrison Davidson (Author of “ New Book of Kings,” &c.) By the REV. MERCER DAVIES, M.A. The Bishops and their Wealth. The Bishops and their Religion. Price 2d. Price id. The Facts about the Unemployed. One of the Middle Class. Royal 8vo., price id. By An appeal and a warning issued in October, 1886, showing the causes of the present distress, how they can be removed, what steps have already been taken, and what are the consequences of continued indifference to hunger and despair. Also the following Leaflets for Distribution. The Use of a Vote. Royal 8-vo. Handbill. Price 2S. per 500, post free. Work for all, Overwork for none. 8-vo. Handbill. 2s. per 500, post free. Royal � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The industrial problem solved Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Robertson, W.B. Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 12, [4] p. ; 23 cm. Notes: Stamp on title page: South Place Chapel Finsbury, Lending Library. Publisher's list and Information on the Social-Democratic Federation on unnumbered pages at the end. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Modern Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G4973 Subject The topic of the resource Industry Socialism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The industrial problem solved), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Economics Industrial Democracy Industrialization Population Increase Production Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/83ddc69054006a0556b8c0fbfa8b31e4.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=pijVuTHK6ddjGD%7EURu2nAh7xyO1GgdxqHIswecT7msIAY-S904sq7%7Embqn4Sg4yI%7EVvTwprN1tqTmxAWRWzyhBWQoiNYlf26CsDNBexGOP32xab29CnXaGDBP3FlIV2zv5evByexDRhhvSAdwiQ3gpYZjqGxw34iXLYNkvpmHtnBpHTd-pa%7ENILDksC-3Av4vUDMsLsfZL8uA07HmkJCbteviprLh4Fz-I-AKaMZ9n8ff2VJObAdB19sb389o7goa1GXNHtRNvz3mAWb5lRdHiTrmKhjLvsMsC0GdJ4hQSrh0XQpmGhTtks3y9bfE3WCv18kov2gsBLjtfxIfynywg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM bfb48e6bd5a0e7542502f12d65a9d4bf PDF Text Text Price One Penny. THE J. THEODORE L’AUTON. w London : THE MODERN PRESS, 13, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C. 1887. �;•I' �THE NATIONALISATION OF SOCIETY. POVERTY. HERE is in the nature of every man a desire tor happiness, enjoyment, and pleasure ; a horror of pain and oppression. The physical constitution of man has craving instincts ; the intellectual part of him has also its desires. These desires must be satisfied; they cannot be oppressed. All oppression of a man’s lawful instincts means misery and death for him. The instincts of human nature are like dormant volcanoes, ready to burst forth when the opportunity offers. The passions of human nature may lie calmly beneath the surface, but when they break forth, they break forth with rage: men have in the course of the world's history risen against their fellow men, and like savage hyaenas have made them their food. A man will slay his fellow man for the slightest angry word or look. The lowest and meanest man will strive to avenge an insult; but why should he bear so meekly the monster of Poverty ? Poverty is the crime which outrages all a man’s instincts and feelings. What is it which condemns you to live in hovels unfit for brutes ; to eat the food of swine ; to wear out your life, health, strength, and beauty in a desperate inhuman struggle for your existence ? Poverty. What is it which robs you of education, crushes your natural intelligence, and destroys the distinguishing mark of your superiority ? Poverty. What is it that changes a man from contentment tQ sedition ; from sobriety to debauchery, from humanity to brutality? Poverty. What is that it makes men criminals, society a barbarism, and hands down to posterity as an heirloom, deformed, stupid progenies ? Poverty. Poverty is the worst crime in the world. The greatest criminal is not shunned as the poor man. If you are poor, the rich man will not sit beside you, will not eat with you, will not speak with you; but will sneer at you. While you are delving for a mere crumb to eat, he is enjoying himself at your expense. While you are passed by as an insig­ nificant object he is honoured. Who is he, this rich man ? The man who has taken advantage of your stupidity and mean opinion of yourself. Are we rich enough ? Do you think there are no men poor except those who ask for a crumb of bread for God’s sake ? Poverty means the inability to satisfy your lawful instincts; if you cannot satisfy your lawful instincts with ^10,000 a-year, you are poor. But nothing can be more barbarous than our idea of civilisation. If you can by a self-denial that eats out your very heart; by the economy of a miser, appear well before the eyes of men, then those that cannot practise your self-denial or your economy will deem you rich and blessed. Are we free from Poverty, when by a struggle that wears out our lives we can barely manage to cover our bodies and keep our blood circulating? In the present social condition of the world, the majority will consider themselves happy if they can find these two necessaries. Must we then rest satisfied with these ? Is there no grander civilisation for us ; no more blessedness than a life and death struggle ? I for one do net believe it; I see in reality no cruel Destiny com­ manding it to be so. All things have a cause ; and there is a cause for Poverty. There is Poverty, universal, degrading, damnable Poverty; men have a life and death Straggle for existence ; but who is responsible for such a state of things ? Are we not �4 41 ourselves responsible? The remedy is before us ; we need only apply it. There is no Tyrant-God ruling over us. Is not the world ours ? The earth will grow us corn and cotton if we only sow ; will give us food, clothing, light, and heat. Where lies the fault ? Is it not ours ? The life of mankind is not a life of blessedness at present; we must make it a life of blessedness. Not the bare necessaries of existence should be the ultimatum of our desires ; but the abundance that will make life worth living. Let us try. If in the nature of things such an acquisition be impossible ; if it be decreed by the immutable laws of the universe that Poverty must exist, then I say with Carlyle, “ So scandalous a beggarly universe deserves nothing but annihilation,” WHY WE ARE POOR. 1 How can a man become rich ? What is it that will make a man rich ? You would say if a shoemaker was making 1,000 pairs of shoes in a day instead of two pairs, that he was on the road to wealth. Precisely so. If a shoemaker, who by making two pairs of shoes in a day struggled through life, then he certainly has a better chance of a more human existence when he can make 1,000 pairs in a day. So also a farmer who rears 1,000 head of cattle has a better chance of being richer than if he only reared ten head of cattle. For i,ooo pairs of shoes are worth more than two pairs; and i,ooo cows are worth more than ten cows. The first condition of wealth therefore is;—A man must have a large amount of saleable commodity of some kind. The greater the amount the richer he will be. But though that is the first condition, it is not sufficient. What would be the use of you making i,ooo pairs of shoes per day if competition with other shoemakers forced you to sell at a trifling profit; or if people were so poor that they could not buy your shoes. So then it is not enough that you have a great amount of saleable commodity ; another condition is necessary. Other persons must have commodities to give you in exchange for your shoes. What would be the use of you making i.ooo pairs of shoes per day if you could not exchange them for other commodities necessary for your daily wants ? Tobe wealthy, or in other words, to have all your wants satisfied, implies two conditions, viz., you must by your labour produce a great amount; secondly, others must also pro­ duce an equivalent amount. The most illiterate workman knows that these two condi­ tions are implied in a good day’s wages. If you are a shoemaker, you know that the more work you do in the day, and the greater the demand for shoes, the greater will be your wages for that day. So also with every other occupation. The more you produce, therefore the richer you will be; provided there be a demand for the produce of your labour. If a shoemaker can make two of pairs shoes in a day, he will be twice as rich if he can make 4 pairs in a day ; he will be fifty times as rich if he can make 100 pairs in the day; provided that the condition of demand is co-existing. The question, therefore, “ How can we become richer ? ” is reduced to this one, “ How can we increase the produce of labour, and at the same time maintain an equivalent demand for that produce? ” HOW INCREASE THE PRODUCE OF LABOUR. 'T .IP, Do you imagine that a shoemaker or tailor, who works before his fire plying his awl or his needle, will ever become richer by that means ? Never. He may by working late and early add a little to his income ; but that little would be totally insignificant. Take your ordinary shoemaker or tailor, and you will say that in order to live a life worthy of being called Life, they should be at least twenty times as rich as they are. They must consequently produce twenty times as much as they are producing inorder to be twenty times as rich. Men can never become richer till the produce of their labour increases. How then can the produce of labour be increased ? Evidently men cannot be left to themselves, to -work when and how they wish. The shoemaker cannot be left to ply his aw’l at his own leisure, “ far from the busy haunts of men.” The greatest result in labour is got from combination or co-operation. A man who by his own aid can make ten pins in a day, will in a factory make 1,000 in the same amount of time. It is the combination of all sorts of skill working in union that has enabled men to become millionaires. We say, therefore, that the only means of increasing the produce of man s labour is the combination of all the individual workers into factories adapted for their several employments. Machinery is the great increaser of the labour of man. Brain and muscle power is valued a thousandfold when applied to machinery. The shoe­ maker who expends his energy in finishing off a shoe, can finish 100 shoes with the same amount of energy when it directs the forces of Nature. The highest result of individual labour is obtained, therefore, by co-operation and scientific machinery. �5 HOW MAINTAIN A DEMAND FOR THE PRODUCE OF LABOUR. A shoemaker may make 1,000 pairs of shoes in the day by the aid of machinery : even the enormous produce of our factories may increase a hundred-fold ; but what advan­ tage would all that be if competition forced down the prices to an irreducible minimum; or if the poverty of would-be buyers was the cause of the goods lying on hand unsold ? In order that any advantage may arise from increased production, there must be a demand for that increase; that is, these two phenomena, Competition and Poverty, must cease to exist. Competition which forces a man to sell at the lowest possible rate, and Poverty which condemns the produce of a man’s labour to rot on shelves, are the two evils which would render an increase of produce on the part of a portion of the community of no appreciable utility. As we stated before, the only two conditions of wealth are: ist. increased produce on the part of workers; 2nd. a universal demand for that produce. To increase the produce of your labour, with a co-existing co­ ordinate demand means to increase your wealth; the same conditions carried to an indefinite degree means indefinite wealth. We have shown how the produce of labour can be increassd ; we have now to show how a demand for that produce can be main­ tained. The two evils which prevent a universal demand for the produce of labour are poverty and competition. Let us deal first with poverty. We mean that if a certain portion of a community work, and produce a certain amount of commodities, and the other portion, for whom part of these commodities are intended, do not work and produce, and consequently have nothing to give in exchange for their wants, these commodities so produced will have to lie unsold. The poverty therefore of those who do not work is a direct reason why there is no demand for commodities produced ; it nullifies the labour of those who have produced ; it leaves the producer in the same position as if he had not produced at all. It is evident, therefore, that all must work ; there must be no exceptions. There is no use in one-half of a population working and producing, and leaving the produce to rot because the other half who have not worked are not able to buy. Labour must be compulsory. The more labourers, the more wealth. If the poverty of a portion of a community be the direct cause of the poverty of the other portion, no matter how much the other portion may produce, then, the only remedy is to remove the poverty by compelling all to work. No other remedy is possible, Not only must all be compelled to work, all must be compelled to work in such a manner as to obtain the maximum result from their labour : the more work the more wealth. But though actual poverty may be removed by compelling all to work, and a demand in general created for saleable commodities, still the evil of competition would remain. Certain branches of industry would compete with other branches of the same industry ; and while such a condition would exist increased production would only have the effect of increasing the evil. Competition, therefore, must cease to exist. How. can com­ petition be made to cease ? There is only one way : there must be equilibrium ot occupations, that is, the various industries must be so balanced, that the amount pro­ duced in any one industry must not be a surplus of what there is a demand for. If the produce of any one industry were more abundant than there was a demand for, then there would be depression or stagnation in that industry. We do not mean, as some political economists mean who cry out that there is overproduction, that industries in general should be restricted ; we mean only that industries should not be allow to overgrow themselves. That does not mean that men should be kept half idle; if men are not wanted in one industry, there are plenty of other industries for them. Hence we conceive that with every man working so that he may have something to to give in exchange for his wants; with every man, aided by science, producing the greatest possible amount so that he may have the greatest possible amount to give in exchange for his unlimited wants ; with equilibrium of occupations, so that no particular industry would produce more than the population naturally demanded, we conceive that poverty would be unknown; that the present barbarism and savagery of our civilisation would disappear ; and society would have more of the elements of perfection. NO-CAUSES AND FALSE REMEDIES. I. Ov.er-Population.—Since the dawn of political economy as a science, " over­ population ” has been adduced as one among the causes of poverty. That " over-popu­ lation ” is essentially a source of poverty is self-evident, if we attach any meaning at all to the word. If the population of the British Isles were such that in town and country, �6 moorland and upland, a man could just rind elbow room, then indeed you would say we were over-populated ; and should try to find elbowroom in some other part of the globe But we have not arrived at such straitened circumstances as that yet; we are in fact a considerable distance from that. It is one thing to say over-population is an evil • it is another to say the British Isles are over-populated. What part of the habitable’globe was ever yet over-populated ? We maintain that “ over-population ” is not the cause of either of the two great evils which we have pointed out as the causes of poverty. We maintain there is no such phenomenon in the British Isles as " over-population.” That there are multitudes who can get no employment is no reason for saying there are too many people here. These multitudes could get employment if labour were properly organised. Evidently a large population does not diminish the productiveness of labour. Neither does the fact that there are multitudes without employment prove that there can be no work here for them ; and that they should go elsewhere to find employment. That would be the case if the work of a country were identical with the work of miners, who having a limited quantity of work to do, must necessarily have it finished at some time. When the mine is worked out, they must go to some other mine. But the work of a nation is not identical with that. The manufacturer will never be in want of materials for labour. He can dig down 4,000 miles without injuring his neighbour. To illustrate further Suppose a settlement of 1,000 persons had formed a society among themselves, and by judicious apportioning of occupations, had formed themselves into a miniature nation, in which each man found ample demand for the product of his labour, why could not 1,000, or 10,000 more settle down there too, provided they adopted and maintained the same internal.organisation as the first thousand. Where everyone found demand for the product of his labour, there would be no cry of ‘‘over-population.” But if that internal organisation were destroyed, and occupations lost their commercial equilibrium, then, necessarily there would be a loss of employment for some. Suppose a few thousand missionaries were to go to Africa to evangelise the Hottentots, there would probably be a cry from some after a time that there. was" over-population " in the Hottentot terri­ tory. But [let these few thousand missionaries betake themselves to the making of drums, wooden pipes, spears, or whatever may be in demand, and the “ over-popula­ tion ” would disappear. It is not “ over-population ” that causes want of employment; it is want of employment that causes “ over-population.” It is the want of equilibrium or organisation in the occupations of life that condemns men to walk about idle, when they earnestly desire to work. The existing poverty will not be alleviated by diminish­ ing the population. As long as'the various industries remain unorganised, as long as some are permitted to live in voluntary pauperism and beggary, as long as one industry is permitted to compete with another, to reduce the value of labour to its lowest value, so long, with ‘‘overpopulation,” or a sparse population, poverty will exist. II. Landlordism.—No greater despotism or diabolical wrong than our present system of landlordism could exist on the surface of the earth. It has been the cause of misery and death to millions through all the centuries of its existence. It has given a few a monopoly over the soil of this earth, which was made for the human race; and thereby has consigned the happiness and lives of the many to the caprice or selfish tyranny of the few. Men have been forced by landlordism to life-long slavery, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of others. Humane men, therefore, seeing the evils of the accursed system, have cried out for the destruction of landlordism. Such a cry cannot and will not be vain. Landlordism, or private property in land, is unjust, and must be swept away. But though landlordism has restricted the spirit of progress in man, and prevented the development of natural wealth; it . must be remembered that its abolition would be only half a remedy. Abolished it must be; but its abolition will not alone suffice as a foundation for national prosperity. There are many who believe that if private property in land were abolished, we would then be on the road to wealth and happiness. But land nationali­ sation would only be a means towards the first condition of wealth, viz., increased pro­ duction. It would not accomplish the second condition, viz., equilibrium of occupa­ tions. Were the land owned by the State, we would then have co-operation in labour, aided by scientific machinery, as the suitable means of getting the greatest produce from the land, We would then expect increased production from the land. But with­ out equilibrium of occupations there would be the same life and death struggle as now. Were the land possessed by the State there would be increased production ; but what would that avail if competition forced down the prices of that produce to a low degree. Land must be nationalised, as the first condition towards increased production ; it must be followed by equilibrium of occupations. If State ownership be not of itself the whole remedy, how much less the ownership �called “ Peasant Proprietary,’’ You will not abolish the evils of landlordism by creating an army of landlords. You will not destroy a great evil, says Henry George, by chopping it up into small pieces. To talk of “ peasant proprietary ” bringing any appre­ ciable happiness to the cultivators of the soil is to talk nonsense. It is said existing rents are too high. But suppose all the rent of the United Kingdom were abolished, what perceptible benefit would it be to any individual in the United Kingdom? The rental of the land of the “ United Kingdom ” is about ^67,000,000. Wererent abolished, it would be equivalent to a donation of less than £2 for every one of the population. “ Well, you say that itself would be something.” Yes, indeed; it would procure for each a suit of clothes, or some trifling playtoy. It may be said that present high rents are the cause of great poverty ; but you will not introduce an era of blessedness or tolerable prosperity by merely reducing them, or even abolishing them. In our present social condition a few pounds is a matter almost of Life or Death for many ; but if the life of'man is to be anything beyond the damnable inane anarchy of to-day, a few pounds will be a matter ®f indifference. The present cultivators of the soil may desire to have the land sub-divided and allotted to them, to take their stand on it, and call it their own ; but there are more people in the British Isles besides the cultivators of the soil. To-day the majority when they rise in the morning cannot point to any spot of earth, and say, “ Here can I rest unsubjected to the caprice of any one man to drive me forth a wanderer.” Were land allotted even in minute sub-divisions to individuals the same could not be said. The entire abolition of private property is necessary for the first condition of wealth. To sub-divide land would be a means of preventing co-operation, and far from introducing wealth, would probably be not a means towards a greater increase of production than we have at pre­ sent. But whether there would be increased or decreased production would not be a matter of much moment as long as our present anarchy of labour existed. The worst evils of humanity are associated with landlordism. These evils will not be abolished by instituting the system of landlordism on a small scale, or on any scale of it. The improvidence, recklessness, and poverty have been a necessary outcome of the system; and the effects will not be removed till the cause is removed. III. Overproduction.—-Many remarkable cries have been raised since the creation of the world, but this cry of “ Overproduction ” seems to be the most remarkable. I do not. see how any man of common intelligence would say there was such a thing as overproduction. “You have produced too much,” they say; “the supply is greater than the demand.” Well, I can only say with Carlyle “ That is a novelty in this in­ temperate earth, with its nine hundred millions of bare backs ! ” Good heavens ! what shall we say of the audacity of the man who stands up and declares too much has been produced. “ The supply is greater than the demand.” Indeed ! And will you tell me at what time since the creation of Adam was there a greater demand for all the com­ modities which this world can supply ? Millions of bare backs, shoeless feet, hatless heads, and empty stomachs ; and still the cry is “ there is too much produced.” We who are workers call God to witness that we cannot lay our hands upon one-twentieth of what we demand. A supply to satisfy us may be existing on the earth, but gods and demons forbid us to touch it. There are millions of commodities hanging up in the shops, and no one buys them. Very true. But if people came and bought as fast as you could take them down, you would not say then that there was “overproduction.” People say there is overpro­ duction when commodities cannot be sold. But why cannot they be sold ? Evidently because those who would buy them have no money. And now the ultimate question, why the would-be buyers have no money, is the very question.we are trying to solve, and certainly will not be solved by saying that overproduction is the cause of poverty and no demand; when the fact is that there was never in the world’s history a time when workers required more if they could only obtain it. There are millions of com­ modities, I say, hanging up in shops and we cannot obtain them. We have no means of obtaining them. Give us the means of obtaining them and then there will not be overproduction. Grant us the means of producing more, and then we will have more to give in exchange for all these commodities rotting on shelves. Increased production on the part of every one is the first condition of wealth ; what absurdity then to say there is overproduction. For such a ravenous, covetous animal as man there could never be such a thing as overproduction. And you would remedy what you call overproduction by compelling workers to cease their producing for some time until we all get naked and hungry, and then, you say there will be a universal demand for all kinds of commodities. But if I cannot obtain one-hundreth of what I want now, how will I obtain all what I want by ceasing to produce ? The evil lies not with overproduction ; it lies in the fact that there is not universal production—equilibrating production on each individual’s part. �8 . IV. 1. REE I rade.—What does Free Trade mean ? It means free and unrestricted importation of goods. Free Trade has been condemned as the cause of poverty and depression of trade. The various industries of the “ United Kingdom ’• have had to compete with foreign produce. Such competition has had the effect of decreasing prices here, and creating overflowing markets. On such grounds has Free Trade been condemned. But suppose we returned to either partial or complete prohibition, how would the two great evils of deficient production, and anarchy of occupations be remedied ? To institute protection or prohibition either partially or wholly would be useless unless the industries were organised. The two essential remedies of increased production on the part of all and equilibrium of occupations, must be instituted first; all other remedies will be merely subsidiary. Absolute Free Trade has its evils just as landlordism has its evils. But the abolition of ,fee Jrade or landlordism would be of themselves only half remedies. No one can ration­ ally deny that absolute Free Trade may ruin a country. Were the sole industry of the United Kingdom orange-growing, and had it to compete with Spain, it is evident our orange-growmg would be useless. The natural advantages of one country may render some of its industries capable of destroying similar industries in other less favoured countries. Absolute Free Trade has not the advantages claimed for it. Its advocates point to the extension of our industries as a result of Free Trade. They point also to cheapened prices and say it has brought luxuries within the reach o’f all. But if prices of commodities have been cheapened, labour has also been cheapened, and consequently its good effects have been counteracted. As to the extension of industries, they have been forced into existence by pressure of competition. Absolute Free Trade cannot continue. It would be antagonistic to the equilibrium of occupations. We will retain what is lawful of tree Trade; we will abolish what is detrimental. We must have free what we cannot produce; we must prohibit what we can produce in abundance. V. Non-Co-Operation.—There are some who say the poverty of the people can be remedied by co-operation among the people themselves. No one will deny that co­ operation is the only means of getting the highest production from labour ; but it must be remembered that there are two conditions for wealth and prosperity, viz :—-Increased production and equilibrium of occupations. With co-operation, increased production would come, but not equilibrium of occupations. Competition would still be in exist­ ence, and would be at a higher rate than now. The fact that there is not general co­ operation at present does not account for the universal poverty ; for with co-operation, the competition of the various trades would tend towards their destruction. . V?' Capitalism.—The Socialists of to-day cry out for the abolition of capitalists. Capitalists have tyrannised over the workers; have given them wages barely able to sustain life ; these have been the evils of capitalism. But capitalism is not universal; and yet poverty is universal. Were the existing system of capitalism swept away, and the operatives themselves formed into co-operative communities, by each one contri­ buting a share of capital, I say even that would be no safeguard against competition and consequent depression. Co-operative societies have flourished ; but that has been because of their limited number : if the whole British Isles were formed into co-opera­ tive communities there would still be competition. Co-operation truly means increased production, and consequently increase of wealth ; but it in nowise means just distribution of wealth. With co-operative communities alone men may work as long and laboriously as now, and still reap very little benefits of it. VII. Intemperance, Improvidence, Want of Education.—It is said the evils of intem­ perance and improvidence have kept portions of the masses in a condition bordering on absolute starvation. The amount we spend in intoxicating drinks yearly in the British Isles is /126,000,000. It is about ^3 per head of the population. Do you believe that by rooting out intemperance, and thereby saving to everyone that ^3, you will per­ ceptibly increase the welfare of the people ? Three pounds granted to each individual in the year is only a matter of a plain loaf or a sweet one occasionally. We claim for every individual a life embracing all the advantages which modem civilisation can bestow. Do we possess that now; or are we in any slight degree approaching it ? Intemperance must be destroyed as one cf the many evils of life ; but its destruction must be accompanied by intelligent scientific organisation of mankind. The one will not suffice without the other. The want of technical education among our industrial classes has been assigned as one of the causes of our chronic poverty. We are said to be far behind some of the Continental countries. Truly. Germany was the first European country to recognise the advantage of technical training ; and, as a consequence, she has made more progress than any other country in manufacturing. But at the same time there are two techni- �9 callj' trained men in Germany for every one that can find employment suited to his training. All these so-called remedies are useless without equilibrium of occupations. You may train workmen to the highest degree in their profession but unless the number trained in each profession be regulated by the demand for them you will have com­ petition among the members of these professions, and consequent low wages. Educa­ tion alone therefore is no remedy. HOW APPLY THE REMEDY. Who is to apply the remedy? Who is to compel the unwilling to work; locate isolated workers into co-operation; and determine the equilibrium of occupations ? Evidently such work is the work of a government. At first sight there may appear difficulties in the way of applying the remedy. But why should there be a difficulty in applying a remedy if that remedy be proved to be for the benefit of the people. The first duty of the government would be to divide the population into industrial communities, so that each community may be capable of being centres for factories. The next duty would be to determine approximately the amount of every saleable commodity for which there would be a demand in every com­ munity. Let us suppose one of these industrial divisions to consist of 10,000 persons. We can determine approximately the number of shoes for these 10,000 persons to be 50,000 pairs in the year ; the number of hats 40,000; the number of loaves of bread 30,000. per week. That being determined for such a community, we see that if one shoemaker could make 1,000 pairs of shoes in a year, then 50 shoemakers would be re­ quired for such a community. More shoemakers than 50 in that community would be an injury to each other. So if one hatter could make 1,000 hats in a year, then 40 hatters would be required for the same community. And if one baker could bake 3,000 loaves in a week, then 10 bakers would be required. But you say, " What would the remaining 9,900 persons be doing?” Have we not wants enough to keep these 9,900 employed, even supposing an occupation to be allotted to each man. There are about 12,000 different occupations in the British Isles ; every man needs a little of the service of each. Given the amount required to be produced ; and also the amount each person is capable of producing, it is only a problem of arith­ metic to find how many workers are required in each occupation, so as to create an equilibrium of supply and demand. The population of the British Isles is about 35,000,000 ; the amount of every commodity utilised in daily use by such a population can be determined. The number to be employed in each occupation can be determined. We look forward to the development of science, and the means of shortening human labour, or, at least, the means of getting the greatest possible produce from a man’s labour, as the principal means of increasing the welfare of man. You may object : In case machinery and science should be so developed, that comparatively few would be able by working all day to supply all the necessaries required by the population, multi­ tudes would have no occupation; for the very reason, you say, that machinery, and all means of high production, would tend, as it has tended in the past, to throw persons out of employment. Granting that such a high rate of production may arise, and that comparatively few could supply multitudes, it would not follow, that equilibrium of occupations would be destroyed. If comparatively few, working ten hours a day could supply ten times their own number, then by reducing the time of labour down to one hour a day, both suppliers and supplied would have their share of work. The approxi­ mate amount of commodities of every description required for the population being determined ; the numbers to be employed in each occupation, based on the resources of scientific research being determined ; the next duty of the State would be to organise the factories already existing, and to institute others in localities naturally adapted to such factories. In order that the State may institute and organise factories to the best advantage, it will be necessary for the State to be the owner of all lands and buildings. Land must therefore be nationalised. Society must be nationalised. Private individuals could not be left in possession of either buildings or land ; because the tenants would have to pay rent to the owners ; and the payment of rent or interest to any private indi­ vidual is another name for tyranny and robbery. The State must become the owner of all lands, railways, ships, buildings, and all means of distribution and exchange. Com­ pensation must be given for all these. How much compensation should be given ; or whether any should be given for land, are debatable questions; but those who are desirous that our present system of anarchy and poverty should cease, will not dispute about reasonable compensation. Following, however, computations already made, the land value of the United Kingdom has been estimated at £,2,000,000,000 ; the railways �JO anyuA aqy pun ‘iiupnpojd ut paXoyduia oje uopuyndod yynpE jno jo qyjnoj-auo ynoqv XyUQ qjOJtUOO UI OAty oy yyB ayqBUO pynOAX BUO-XyuOMy BAOqB UBXH XjOAB JOJ Xnp B qjOAX sjnoq oaxj uEqy ssay ‘paiyddn Xyjadojd ojoax Xjaurqaura jt ynqy payujysuomap uaaq suq yj ■yuBayiuSisuT ysouqB pajaptsuoa aq pyno.vx yunoitre jBqy ‘Xyaiaog pasTjEuopBjq jo uoijbs -iueHjo aqj japup ‘uoiyByndod aqj jo pBaq jad ogj you st jt ynq 'tuns aSusy e sjuaddr jj ooo'ooo'ooo'zy jb pajEunysa uaaq snq ,, mopSuyx pajiup ,, aqj jo strops puBy aqj jo snjBA sqx i uoajaqy SuiqyXjaAa pun 'saurpytnq ‘puBy aqj yyn assqajnd ajBjg aqj pynoa ‘qsB noX ‘.xxoq puy ’diqsjauAxo aqj sauinssB ajEjg aqj uaqAx pajBSuaduioa aq ajojajaqy jsntu yuasajd jb Xyjadojd ssassod oqA\ asoqj, •aSuEqaxa puB ‘uoijnqyjjsip 'uopanpojd jo stream aqj yyn ptre 'sdyqs ‘sXuAxyiBj 'sSuipyinq 'spirey yyn jo jouaxo aqj aq yynqs ajEjg aqj ynqj stream jnqj, •pasqEUOijBU aq jsnm Xjaiaog -pasiyEuopBU aq jsnui ptreq <; osjb ujbj duaqa b je jnoqny jnoX jo aanpojd aqj yyas oj noX syaduioa jnqj uoijtjadmoa you ji st ‘dnaqa sayaijjn asaqy ya8 noX jnqy jubjS uoAxy ‘Suiqjoyo pnq ptre pooj pnq pire ! sa^ i Suiqjoya ptre pooj deaqa sn joj ajnaojd uoijtyadmoa you ssoq <; Sutqj yutayauaq b uotjpadmoa yon st yng •uopanp -oid pasBOJOUT ujojj poAtjap aq yyiAt syyauaq ou sasnaa uoiyiyadmoa ypupy 'ojej jsoaxoj jtaqy je uauiqjOAx jo so^eax aqy ^utdaaq jo nyqudna st uoppaduiOQ -auiES aqy ureuraj SBAtjBjado jo sbSeax aqy pun ‘asuajaut yyps Xbui uotjanpojd jo bjej aqy ynq ! anjy Xja7\ I XrpyBOAX you are saApnjado aqy yyps pun ‘aanpojd oy uiaqy adoq jbao pynoa sax sb qanui sb aanpojd jo junoure snouijoua ub SuipyaiX are sotjojobj jno yuqy anjy you yi st ynq SNOLLoafao •pasqBOj aq pynoAx Suiaq-yyaAX yntaos pun qyyBOAx jo suoijtpuoa aqy ‘puBtuap ajEuipjo-oa b pun uotyanpojd pasEajatq qyjAt aauayq ‘uotyanpojd jo snydjns ajaqy ajaqAx Xyuo sysixa uoppadtuop •uoppadtuoa joj uiooj ou aq pynoAx ajaqj 'Supsixa Xjysnput jo qauujq Xue ut snydjns ou ‘joj ! ysixa you pynoAx uotypadtuoa suoiyud -noao jo mnijqqinba qyq\\ •pa^uBqaxa Xytpnaj aq you Xbui paonpo.rd sSutqy aqy qSnoqy ‘XjjaAod ou ‘Supyuads Xyyayjys 'aq ubo ajaqy ‘Sutanpojd auoXjaAa qjiAX. qjB joj qjyuaAX jo asBOJauT joj uopypuoa ysjy aqy st qatqAx ‘yyB Xq uopanpojd pasuajaur aq pynoAx ajaqjp •jBaddBsrp pynoAx XyjaAod aynnyadjad puuayBurSpo qaiqAX saauEjsmnajia aqy ! ystxa pynoAx qyjBaAt joj Xjnssaaau sjb qaiqAX suoptpuoa aqy ‘jnoquy jo uopESiUExtio ub qans qji/W ■sayapjB ayqBajBS aqy jo uoyyonpojd aqy uo papuadxa jnoqny jo anyn.x ayqEjinba aqy Xq pautmjajayx aq yyiAx saatjd ‘suopnd -noao jo tumjqyyTnba SutqsiyqBjsa uopyjadtuoa Xq pauyuijayap oje saapd ‘yuasajd yy auioq je sapryuunb yuaraqjns ui paanpojd aq trea qaiqAX sapipotutuoa jo uopEyjoduq aqy ysuyB§B uoyyiqTqojd aq osyB ysnut ajaqy ynq iXjyunca stqy ur aanpojd youuna sax qaiqAX saprpotutuoa asoqy ut apBJj, as-ij ayaydmoa aq ysnui ajaqq purod ysaAxoy syi oy jnoquy jo anyBA aqy jo UMop buiajoj b puu uoryiyadmoo aq XyrjEssaaau pynoAx ajaqy ‘ysixa pyno.vx apBjj, aajq; aynyosqu sb Suoy sb yng •ayqissoduii st yy oy ujnyaj oy pun ‘uoiyaayojg dn uoaiS aAtq oax : uoiyaayojj suuam yuqy ‘pres aq Xeui yy •payjodtui Suiaq tuojj payyqiqojd Xyyayjys aq pynoqs uiopSuiyy payiupy aqy joj sappuBnb aynnbapE ut paanpojd Suiaq jo ayqEdEO ayaiyjE Xuy -suopEdnaao jo umTjqyyinba paqsiyqBysa aqy qyiAX ajajjayui oy you sb os payuynSaj aq pynoqs syjodun aqj, ■qyynaAx jo uopipuoa ysjg aqy si tyaiqAx ‘uopanpojd jo yunoure yuajS ynqy aAuq you pynoAx sax Xjosynauioa you ojoax jnoqny ji ‘jaqyouB jo uopanpojd aqy uo spuadayx uopanpojd s.ubui auo joj punuiap aqy sb joj ! yyn uo Xjosyn'dtuoa aq pynoAx jnoqnp •aauaSiyyayui pajinboB ptre yujujuu sjunpiAipur yuqy oy SuipjoaaB aynyg aqy Xq pauiuijayap aq pynoAx jEnpiAtpuT qana oy payyoyyu uopudnaao aqjp ’ayByg aqy uiojj yuatuyuioddu stq aAiaaaj pynoAx {EnpiAiput XjaAvr -jnoquy jo jaXoydma puu ystyHyidEa aqy aq pynoAx aynyg aqg ■paqsqqEysa aauo jnoqny jo tunijqqrnba aqy qjnysip oy payytuijad aq pynoa sjoynynaads jo sjojnyuoApu ajBAijd oy<y ’jnoquy jo yojyuoa aroqAx aqy oAEty pynoqs ayBjg aqj, •uiaqy pred aq oy uopusuadtuoa joj ayyyiy e ytEAX pynoqs sjouaxo saAyasmaqy yyua oq.xx asoqy ysqy ysnf Xyuo st yt ‘paAJBys Xaqy ayiqAx paqjOAx OAnq oqA\ suoqyttu jo qjo.xx aqy uaaq SBq ruopbtity paytupy aqy ut Xyjadojd aqy sb ! payaayja aq paau uuoy oyq asEqajnd ,sjboX jo jaqmnu b Xq jouaxo aqy auiooaq pynoa ayuyg aqj, •yuBogiuSisut sb tuns aqy jo uoiyejapisuoa aqy ayEdiapuB j paynaoApu OABq J yuamujaAog yuioog aqy japun ynq ! yunoure bSjbj b sjuaddu ynqy saauEysmnajya yuasajd jno uj -uopuyndod aqy jo auoXjaAa joj obiy ynaqn aq pynoAx ajnqs s.auo qoua 'uoiyuynoyBO aAoqu aqy ^uiAioyyog • Xyjadojd uouiuioa aqy jo uoissassod spjEAxoy ajuqs yunba ue aynquyuoa pynoAx auo qanyq pi jo sjouaxo aqy atuoaaq oy ojb aydoad aqy ysqy suuam Xyjadojd siqy yyB jo jouaxo aqy atuoaaq oy st ayuyg aqy Xes oj; -ooo'ooo'oo&bj jo yuyoy e Suiqum ! ooo'ooo‘oz(>-1/ sXurpyinq aqy ! ooo‘ooo'or7 sdiqs aqy : ooo‘ooo‘oo67 b st or �sjiao puB auiua aqj pB jo asnua ajBUipjn aqj uaaq snq XjjaAod jBqj aas ubo uaui jbuoijbj pB uaqA\ jug [ paapuj 'auiija §upjiuiuioa uiojj ajdoad juaAajd uopBjnqijj pun Xjjbaoj istnrepxa apaasE snoidaqj, ‘XjjaAod jnq asp outqjou aAjasap ‘Xjasiui oj sSupq uBinnq uuiapuoa oj sb juejXj b qans si asjaAtug siqj jo jojebjq aqj jnqj OAatpq oqM asoqj I jsbj jnqj sb uopjassB snouiaqdsEjq b qans oj Xjdai on aqBui j -asjaAiug aqj jo jojnajp aqj Xq pautEyjo si ji jnqj pun ! uopnjiABJ^ jo axej aqj sb jsixa Xpjns -saaau sb jsniu XjjaAod jesjoaiuu Suijsixa aqj jBqj OAatpq oqAx suosjad oje ajaqj Mouq j aqj jo os quiqj oqAx suosjad ajn ajaqj Axouq j ; ppoAx aqj ui XjjaAod on aq pjnoa ajaqj jnqj ajqtssoduii si ji Xbs oj uBaui noX o<j i ajqissoduii si ji Xbs noX oq 'uiii] joj aauBqa ou si ajaqj pps jnq ! aounjouSt pun ‘XjaSpnjp ‘XjjaAod uiojj jpsunq UAopaj oj s§uoj ubui qang 'sjpqj oj joijbjui si’ ajp siq Xpunjan jnqj spaj jnq ‘sjeuiiue jbuoijejji aqj aAoqn st aq Xjijebj ui jnqj SA\ouq ! ajp jo apoui jajqou auios joj sSuoj XjaSpnjp Xynp siq jb Xeaxe Suippojd’ ueui qang -ajiijEU jo suopBJidsE jnjMBj aqj Suispnaj uiojj uiiq pajuaA -aid jnqj" uiajsXs jniaos aqj pasjna jou SBq ‘aq oj jqSno ajp UBiunq jnq-w jo Supaaj jseoj aqj ‘ssauajqou jo jauijsui jseoj aqj uiiq in SuiAEq ‘oqAx ubui b ajaqj sj ‘tuajsXs jnqj Xq spua asaqj Suiuibjje’ uiojj pajuaXaid si jaX pun ‘ajp UBtnnq ajoui b pnaj oj SuiSuoj pun ‘jajqou Jouiuioaaq jo snojisap si ubui b jBqj ‘joej aqj st ‘Xbs j ‘tuajsXs Xue jo uoijeu -uiapuoa jsojbbjS aqj, ‘pauiBjjBun pps uopiqtUE jnoX jo jaafqo aqj jnq Xjoixue qjiAX jno ujoax oabjS aqj oj oS pun ‘qjpaq JnoX ‘Xauoui jnoX ‘ajp apqM jnoX aayuans Xbui noX : pautBjjB aq oj pua auios 'ajp jo juauiaouauiuioa aqj ui noX ajojaq jnd Xbui noy ■uotjiquiB siq aspnajjouueo ‘juaiuaauEApE joj joSeo pun ‘qjOM oj snoixun puB SuipiM st oqkx ubui b jnqj jobj aqj st uopipuoa pepos juasajd jno jo sjiao jsajBajg aqj jo auo •aoijsnfui pun uopjojxa §uispoBjd jnoqjtM. oaij pjnoa Xaqj ajaqAx uop -rsod b ui saApsuiaqj'puy uaqj ppiOM ‘ujnjaj ui jnoqnj qanui SuiaiS jnoqjiAV pajjoddns ja8 oj oSbubiu oqAx sjojaop ‘sjoXaxej ‘sjuBqojaui jo sjsoq aqj ‘paqsyqsjsa Suraq suop -Bdnoao jo tunijqpinbg -asBaa jsnui uiajsXs b qang ‘sjaqjo jo jnoqB[ aqj Xq pajjo’d -dns saApsuiaqj jaS oj oSbubui juajopui aqj puB ! Xjsauoq jbao spBAajd Suiuuna ! ajasnui sjanbuoa uiEjg gjOM siq jo sjinjj aqj jo uiiq qoj oj jaqjouB jo jqSp aqj jou jnq •. qjoAx oj ubui Xja/a jo jq3p aqj aSpapxouqaE a,\\ (PjqnuiuBp jou ji si ‘sjaqjo jo aoun -uajuiBin aqj joj jjo.xx oj auios sutnapuoa qaiqAX uiajsXs jBqj puy gjOAx oj uEiu Xjoab jo Xjnp pun jqSiJ aqj aSpapxouipB oax ! ijjoaa jsnui uaui ppoAX aqj jo pua aqj pig •uopipuoa jBiaos juasajd jno ui ubui Xub joj ssau -iddeq ou si ajaqj pjOAx auo uj ’SupjaS jo aauBqa Xub aq Xbui ajaqj jaAajuqAx joj jaqjo qaua uaaMjaq ajquiBjas suouoabj b ‘bjejjeai b ajq puy ptA\ uaui asaqj—pjBAtuo uiaqj saSjn jnq 'sjjas sb soaij Jtaqj jno §Bjp oj uiaqj jiuuad jou jjiai ssajSojd joj sjoupsut asoqM asoqg -saajoj oiubSjo jo ssbui ojoui b jpsuiiq ubui .‘ XjaSpnjp jBaiujojnE ajaiu b ! Xjiubui ub ajojajaqj uiaqj oj st ajig 'ajy uiBjsns oj qSnoua uibS ubo Xaqj ji paysijBs ajB Xaqj ‘qjjBOAx oj SutJidsB uiojj jbj juqj ‘paqsnja os ojb sbssbui aqg ’ojejjeax b pun Xjiubui ub qjoqsi juasajd jb ajiq -SutXofua jo ajqBdBO si ubui saijnxnj jo saSejUBApu aqj pu sueoui qatqAA ! ajnstaj puB qjjBBM Suijq pjno.vv paqojaqs OABq oa\ qaiqAi uiajsXs aqg 'ACESJALSH HHX JO S3f)VJLNVAaV •uitms jo quts jaqjta jsnui aq uiiq uodn jnaq oj satuoa uopijadiuoa uaqAt jnq : uoijanpojd-japun jo uopanpojd-jaAO qjtM ‘Xuiouoaa ou jo Xuiouoaa qjiAi ‘Xjjsnpui ou jo Xjjsnpui qjtAX aauajstxa ub jno aqa Xbui ubui y Suojjs aqj Xq uodn pajduiBJj pun UAtop paqsnja aq oj qnaAx aqj pun ‘qjOAx uiojj jyauaq apjq dnaj oj ‘japjnq >[jom oj ‘jaSuoj qjOAx oj uaui sjaduioa jBqj uoppaduioa si ji aas jou saop oqM ‘ uopijaduioo jo Jia9 aqj sojouSi oqA\ ubui §uiquiqj Xub ajaqj sj 'Xuiouooa puB Xjjsnput jo sjaajja aqj SutXjipnu jo ajqBdBO st qatqAx ‘uoppaduioa jsuibSe suoioa jiaqj osibj oqA\ ojb ajaqj A\aj Axoq juq : qjjBOAx jo sjuauiaja bje asaqj jnqj Xpsnf SuiAaipq ‘Xuioucaa pun 'uopanpojd ‘Xjjsnpui joj jno Xja ajdoag ‘asp Surqjauios jo paau si ajaqj aas jou saop auoXjaAa jnq ! jBqj jo paau aqj saas auoXjaAg -sassnp SuiqjOM aqj Suouib Xtuouoaa pun Xjjsnpui jo sjiqnq ajouiojd pun asnajaui oj si XjjaAog joj jubax oax Xpauiaj Xjuo aqj jBqj pins si jj ■ssauisnq jo qauBjq ojbuSoo auios ojui pasiuB§jo aq pjnoa sjaqBuiqajBAx siydjns aqj pasnaja -ap puBUiap aqj ji ubasj -sjBq jo sotXjs axbu joj puEuiap snonupuoa b axou si ajaqj sb auiBs aqj jsnC saqajBAx ui suoijuoaui axbu jo ‘sajXjs axou joj puniuap jubjsuoo b aq Pjuoax ajaqj Xjiunuiuioa XqjpaAx e ui ‘auip a]qBjaptsuoa b sjsbj jBqj apijjB ub st qajBAx b qSnoqg ’uiaqj joj juauiXojduia Xub aq jou ppoAx aiaqj Xpuanbasuoa puB ‘sjayBtuqajBAx joj puBUiap jaqjjnj aq jou pjnoAx ajaqj ‘saqajBAx Xes ‘sapijjB uiBjjaa qjiAx patjddns auiooaq pjnoAx pE ajaqAx Xjiuntuinoa XqqBOAX Xjoa b ui JBqj osje panXin aq Xbui jj •XjautqoEui jadojd Suisn puB ‘paXojduia ajaAx qjOAx oj ajqB suosjad pB ji aq pjnoAx jnoqBj pnuuu aqj jo junouiu aqi jnajg A\oq : XjauiqaBui jouajui uiojj paAijap si auiooui jboj§ JBqj, ’jBaX-B ooo‘ooo‘oo£‘iy jb pajEptapa st jnoqEj jpqj ii ♦ �12 world, what then can be said in its favour ? Poverty has existed now for some hundreds and thousands of years ; but that is no proof that it is impossible to remove it. Poverty has existed for centuries, not because of any laws of the Creator, but because of the laws of men—because of Might against Right. The day has now come when the few shall not trample the many ; when Might and Right shall be on the same side. A nobler life than the present is possible for every man; I have shown it to be possible. No laws of God or the Devil prevent it being possible ; it is man himself that renders it impossible. The human race want organisation of labour, equilibrium of occupations. The era that introduces that, will be a blessed one. Then the time, money, and energy a man will expend will not be spent in vain ; he will gain some reward for his labour. If his ambition be reasonable he will have the satisfaction of seeing it gratified. The inhuman feline scramble for wealth will then cease. The evil deeds which men commit in order to attain ends they cannot attain by fair means will no longer be necessary. Men will not then be afraid to live; self-destruction will not be necessary to end the miseries which are the companions of poverty. Men too will become more human; more God-like; less brutal: less demon-like. Incessant drudgery, which deforms the body and leaves no opportunity for intellectual culture or enjoyment will vanish into the past. Society then will deserve the name. Each human being brought into this world will be deemed a blessing, not a curse. A bright era of intelligence will take the place of stupidity and ignorance. Men will realise that we cannot live without society ; that the more intelligent a man is, the better for his neighbour. “ It is as reala loss," says Emerson, “ that others should be low, as that we should be low; for we must have society." WHO IS TO APPLY THE REMEDY ? Here let us ask the question : How is it that although schemes for the welfare of mankind have been propounded, have been demonstrated to be for the good of the people, have been fought for, still they are unaccomplished ? The masses through all ages have wished to be emancipated from their slavery ; there have been brave men through all ages who have struggled for their redemption ; yet their redemption has not been realised. How comes it ? Well, the reasons are clear. The people of a country are compelled to be subject to the laws of the country. The laws for the masses of mankind have through centuries been made by the few who have made them in their own interest. From the dawn of history the few who have managed to get possession of the wealth and power have made laws to degrade others in order to elevate themselves. The laws were not made to benefit the people, because those who made the laws did not represent the people. But you say we have changed all that now; the lawmakers now represent the people— at least the people give them the opportunity of making laws. Perfectly true. But though the masses have the power of electing persons to represent them in national assemblies, of what use is that if the people who are to decide for or against Reform are so ignorant concerning social evils and social remedies that they are unable to knowtbe merits or demerits of the remedies proposed. One-half of the people of a country are generally opposed in their opinions on social questions to the other half. Not till the majority of the people are freed from hallucinations ; not till they come to understand thoroughly the real causes of human poverty, and the futility of the so-called remedies of to-day, can you expect any more blessed era than the one we live in. The people must be educated. Till that is accomplished, nothing is accomplished. It is folly to suppose that because people are taught to read, they will read, or will be capable of seeking out for themselves a solution t® the problem of human misery. It is true the masses are able to read: it is in nowise true that they are able to think. For the thousand men says Ruskin, who can read and speak, you will find one who can think. The masses are ignorant and indifferent. If there is to be a nobler life for them their ignorance and indifference must vanish. "Why are the masses," says Emerson, " from the dawn of history down, food for knives and powder "? The heirloom of the masses from the dawn of history down, has been poverty and misery ; and they have grown so accustomed to it that they take it for granted that poverty must exist in the world. They have no hope beyond the present. Their only desire is to obtain sufficient to keep them alive. We can account for such a low standard of human progress ; for anyone who looks around him, and sees the cruel wrongs and sufferings that men endure without uttering a word of complaint, will also see that poverty and misery are looked upon as a thing which must necessarily be, and for which there is no remedy. When the ignorance of the people will pass away, their indifference will pass away. They must be educated : in that lies the hope of better things. They must be taught �13 that there is a remedy for poverty, They must be made to know what that remedy is. Alas ! what a world of labour lies open there before all earnest men. One of the many reasons which have kept, and are still keeping nations in a state of slavery, has been the absence of organised union. They who fight for nobler aims must fight in unison. And not a union of sentiments alone will win the battle ; but steady, wise co-operation. Can you point to any nation where the people as a whole are acting in real unison for their common good ? No. The masses condemned to toil for mere subsistence, either in the dingy lanes of crowded cities, or on the lone wastes of mountain land, have no time or energy to think of remedies for social evils even if they would. Do I then expect from these downtrodden masses the commencement of a new era? No; but I look forward to those select few to whom the favour of Nature and Human Destiny have given souls capable of feeling for the degradation of their fellow­ men, and clear-sighted intelligence to see wherein lies the cause of our miseries. I look forward to those noble and courageous few who have endured the worst hardships of life, have triumphed over them, and are determined to lead a nobler existence or die. I look not to the things called “ Governments ” for the advancement of a nation, but to the nation itself. “What intellect,” says Carlyle, “can regulate the affairs of these millions of labouring men ? No one—great and greatest intellect can do it. What can ? Only these millions of ordinary intellects, once awakened into action ; these well presided over may do it.” By each individual getting a clear idea of what he is to do, and what must be done—only by that means can a nation prosper. But how can the people be educated ? Let us learn from the past. Men have laboured in the past, and have written books to point out to mankind a pathway from their slavery, but their efforts have been vain ; they have passed away unknown to the working millions. Even to-day movements are on foot for the regeneration of the human race ; but the nature of these movements are known only to those immediately connected with them. It is not sufficient to scatter noble opinions broadcast; there are barren soils for them to fall on. It is in the real contact of mind with mind that the dormant intelligence rouses itself into action. Men come together in the market place to buy and sell the scanty produce of each others' labour; but they must also come together in order to elevate human existence. Looking forward earnestly to the advent of a more human existence, and asking myself the grounds of my hope, I again appeal to those noble few in whom the spirit of Right and Justice must make itself known against oppression and injustice. Ye courageous Few! my hope rests upon you. Organize! organize! organize your fellow­ men. They are ignorant, and know not the way ; you must point it out to them. The poor two-footed slave far away on his mountain patch knows nothing of you or of your thoughts till you speak. Hide not, I say, the light that has been given you. Gather together your fellow-men in the thoroughfares and there teach them that a nobler life than a life of slavery is possible for every man. The doctrines which have caught men’s hearts, and which they have followed for centuries, were so preached. Teach them there is a remedy for all the miseries of our present existence ; that they themselves are to apply it. Is there a man who shall dare to say we are well enough ? For the base, worthless, indifferent you must have pity. You may have enemies, as all noble men have had since the creation of the world. But fear not; the spirit of a nobler existence is abroad, and the time of man’s redemption is at hand. The institutions of the past have failed to bring social happiness to mankind. They must change. There are some who cannot foresee the good a change may bring them ; but fear they may lose by it. These will be your enemies. But venture forward ; you shall have the many millions on your side. You may make sacrifices, but you should remember that there is but one life given you, and no chance for you for evermore after that. The tomb shall close over you, and your chance of leading a noble life and of causing others to lead it shall have passed away for ever. Is life worth living at present ? “ Life is an ecstasy” says Emerson; but alas how few there are who can say likewise. Is it worth living a life of monotonous drudgery ? There is no form of life worth living at the present moment if it be not in combatting with all the energy that is in you against the tyrannical wrongs, the insane bedlam delu­ sions of our age. No Demon-God is ruling over and condemning you to misery and scorn. If we are in misery it is because of our own unwisdom. Then why are we unwise ? If the life of man can be elevated why not attempt it ? This beautiful earth was made for us, and shall we be condemned to drag out our existence in some obscure corner without any chance of beholding the fairest portions of it? The wonders of creation and the knowledge and secrets gained by generations are unknown to the mass of men : they are born and they die as the lower animals. Let us then urge forward, fearing not for the cause that has Justice and the masses of men on its side, heeding not �M the opposition of those who foolishly fear a change, and be determined that we mus; have a better life, or die nobly struggling for it. Let us not fear: we shall not be alone the whole civilized world has risen against tyranny, oppression, and slavery. When all men shall know each others efforts, and shall be bound together in one common brother­ hood, to demand freedom it shall not be denied them. SUMMARY. Chap. I.—The feelings of man are easily aroused; he will rise up in resentment against an angry look er word. But why not arise with noble indignation and with earnest endeavour strive to throw off the yoke of poverty that outrages all the dearest instincts of man ? Chap. II.—Why are we poor ? We are poor because, first, we do not produce enough : second, the demand for the products of labour is not co-ordinate with production itself. Chap. III.—How, then, can we increase the produce of labour ? By co-operation ; bv the establishment of factories; by the highest adaptation of scientific machinery ; by compulsory labour. Chap. IV—How maintain a co-ordinate demand for the produce of labour? By establishing equilibrium of occupation ; by having as many workers in an occupation and no more than the wants of the community necessitate. Chap. V.—What are the false remedies for our universal poverty? Diminution of population, destruction of landlordism, restriction of production, protection, co-opera­ tion, abolition of capitalism, education, temperance, providence. To diminish population by emigration or other means, and still leave occupations disorganised, will not cause any decrease in the universal poverty. The United Kingdom seems to be over-populated because the workers are not organised. In a community either populous or otherwise, without equilibrium or organisation of occupa­ tions, the great monster of Competition will exist. So with the other false remedies, which are no remedies because such phenomena as over-population, over-production, intemperance, improvidence are the effects of poverty and the disorganisation of occupations ; while the abolition of landlordism, free trade, and capitalism would be only half-remedies. HOW APPLY THE REMEDY. Chap. VI.—The State would (ist) determine approximately the amount of every saleable commodity necessary for the population. (2nd) It should determine the number of workers to be employed in each industry, so as to produce the amount required, and no more. (3rd) The occupations so organised should be carried on co-operatively, totally under State supervision, compulsorily. The State must be the owner of all lands, conveyances, means of transit, of distribution and exchange. Everything tending to destroy equi­ librium of occupations should be prohibited. OBJECTIONS. Chap. VII.—Is not our production as high as we could expect ? Does not competition bring cheap articles within the reach of all ? How is it possible for the State to buy up such immense property as the land, railways, ships, buildings ? At the high rate of produc­ tion proposed, would not some industries in a short time produce so much that there would be no further use for them ? Would not increased habits of industry, thrift, and temperance remove poverty ? ADVANTAGES OF THE REMEDY. Chap. VIII.—Life would cease to be an inanity and a warfare. To become rich it would not be necessary for one to prey on another. A man’s ambition would be realised. Inhuman strife and dark deeds would be unknown. Man will become more god­ like, less demon-like. WHO IS TO APPLY THE REMEDY ? Chap, IX.—The people must apply the remedy, The people must be educated, must be made to understand there is a remedy for poverty ; that they themselves are to apply the remedy. They must be taught that poverty is the worst crime in the world ; that they are many, their oppressors few. They must know that henceforth their watchwords must be “ Union ! ” “ Organisation ' ” You whom nature has gifted with a love of. justice and nobleness, be you in the vanguard, and in social circle or public thorough­ fare, by word and action, proclaim the doctrine of man's social redemption ! �OBJECT. The Establishment of a Free Condition of Society based on the prin­ ciple of Political Equality, with Equal Social Rights for all and the complete Emancipation of Labour. PROGRAMME. 1. All Officers or Administrators to be elected by Equal Direct Adult Suffrage, and to be paid by the Community._ 2. Legislation by the People, in such wise that no project of Law shall become legally binding till accepted by the Majority of the People. 3. The Abolition of a Standing Army, and the Establishment of a National Citizen Force; the People to decide on Peace or War. 4. All Education, higher no less than elementary, to be Free, Com­ pulsory, Secular, and Industrial for all alike. 5. The Administration of Justice to be Free and Gratuitous for all Members of Society. 6. The Land with all the Mines, Railways and other Means of Tran­ sit, to be declared and treated as Collective or Common Property. 7. Ireland and all other parts of the Empire to have Legislative Independence. 8. The Production of Wealth to be regulated by Society in the com­ mon interest of all its Members. 9. The Means of Production, Distribution and Exchange to be declared and treated as Collective or Common Property. As measures called for to palliate the evils of our existing society the Social-Democratic Federation urges for immediate adoption The Compulsory Construction of healthy artizan’s and agricultura labourers’ dwellings in proportion to the population, such dwellings to be let at rents to cover the cost of construction and maintenance alone. Free Compulsory Education for all classes, together with the provision of at least one wholesome meal a day in each school. Eight Hours or less to be the normal working day in all trades. Cumulative Taxation upon all incomes above a fixed minimum not exceeding ^300 a year. State Appropriation of Railways, with or without compensation. The establishment of National Banks, which shall absorb all private institutions that derive a profit from operations in money or credit. Rapid Extinction of the National Debt. Nationalisation of the Land, and organisation cf agricultural and industrial armies under State control on Co-operative principles. As means for the peaceable attainment of these objects the SocialDemocratic Federation advocates : Adult Suffrage. Annual Parliaments. Proportional Represen­ Payment of Members ; and Official Expenses of Election out of the Rates. Abolition of the House of Lords and all Hereditary Authorities. Disestablishment and Disendowment of all State Churches. tation. Membership of Branches of the Federation is open to all who agree with its objects, and subscribe One Penny per week. Those ready to form Branches should communicate with the Secretary, Social-Democratic Federation, Bridge House, Blackfriars, E.G. �Socialism and Soldiering ; with some comments on the Army Enlistment Fraud. By George Bateman (Late 23rd Regi­ ment), with Portrait. With an introduction by H. H. Champion (Late Royal Artillery). Price One Penny. The Working Man’s Programme (Arbeiter Pro- gramm). By Ferdinand Lassalle. Translated from the German by Edward Peters. Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d. The Robbery of the Poor. Demy 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d. By W. H. P. Campbell. The Appeal to the Young. By Prince Peter Kropotkin. Translated from the French by H. M. Hyndman and reprinted from Justice. Royal 8-vo., 16-pp. Price one penny. The most eloquent and noble appeal to the generous emotions ever penned bv a scientific man. Its author has just suffered five years' imprisonment at the hands of the French Republic for advocating the cause of the workers Wage-Labour and Capital. From the German of Karl Marx translated by J. L. Joynes and reprinted from Justice. New and cheaper edition, Royal 8-vo., price id. By Edward Carpenter.—Social Progress and Indi­ The Man with the Red Flag: B eing John Burns’ vidual Effort ; Desirable Mansions ; and Co-operative Production. One penny each. I ’Ik 14 Speech at the Old Bailey, when tried for Seditious Conspiracy, on April gth, 1886. (From the Verbatim Notes of the official short­ hand reporter.) With Portrait. Price threepence. The Socialist Catechism. with additions from Justice. By J. L. Joynes. Reprinted Demy 8-vo., price id. 20th thousand. Socialism and Slavery. By H. M. Hyndman, (in reply to Mr. Herbert Spencer’s article on “ The Coming Slavery.”) New Edition, with portrait. 16 pp. Royal 8-vo., price one penny. The Emigration Fraud Exposed. By What an Eight Hours Bill Means. By T. Mann H. M. Hyndman. With a Portrait of the Author. Reprinted by per­ mission from the Nineteenth for February, 1885. Crown 8-vo., price one penny. (Amalgamated Engineers). New edition with portrait. Thousand. Price one penny. Socialism and the Worker. By F. A. Sixth Sorge. Price id. An explanation in the simplest language of tne main idea of Socialism. The Chicago Riots and the Class War in the United States. By H. M. Hyndman. Reprinted from Time, June, 1886. Price one penny. International Trade Union Congress, t August, 1886. Report by Adolphe Smith. Price Three-Halfpence. held at Paris, 24-pp., Royal 8-vo. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The nationalisation of society Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource L'Auton, J. Theodore Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 14, [2] p. ; 27 cm. Notes: Publisher's list and information on the Social-Democratic Programme on unnumbered pages at the end. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Modern Press Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G4980 Subject The topic of the resource Socialism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The nationalisation of society), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Nationalisation Socialism