2
10
25
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ca9dc2235e36314834838a1e9bd6bc9a.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=hp%7E5J5BcLvDPyNXtbxRZ7XGDZgufJElf4uqYgO1LmovJGlrNYkWGkfgEA-vc-nsfTySo2pib04MF-xdBVtUrsj6guW%7ECvhGIFt2BNguZtMIdxfpQcadwk4p14MYNL3a873frMAMwW%7E9TcpllQt7NPMgeeg9tdaxjWWB0X%7ErTK0YJpCjddHebZvnl6LAqX-YXyDeDkYQl4a7NUf417eQdgAUI0lPEAHuFvn2iK9pyM4C9OuRzf1cBG%7EOgDlyOVAUYilAOjjm8xCFrN41q4msK9YYrcM3bhzKDIbxz10pC4FOP%7EHwqcI3dR-d43jEkZTvjVfG5UNKab1U%7EcktY0ybo2Q__&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 & 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/b17e54a0ca78b8e5523efa4ba566a1ba.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=ZfsZz0EvSaGfNQbL3cs1keiEqSiMQ0w-GW0HGAsIpznj-pb-ddtDHm0HLNLi44iC-CrbWQGLTQGpnZX9rBIQ2F1fuzN-kHvUw%7EOkFrFQTI8BIzR2R5L94%7ES7l5G3ZRHAqhhXyeZClBmLP5L3gSTehHhLwEOzjCcKR2Z9UYGEUfDUIe39AauqzlHtBKu1wM9fIo2PJYtDVh4DoenHwoteAAZj3vWBR5Cwg2Uu4Q8t22BLPkEWFLTzmPHVVR-T4mDYmgeMkW9-KiyexqVArY44SIRL-OTqK%7EF%7E0TG90OyhXcI2TReWR5qkAto6QIElWWY0RQ9rnsFicUKi-vm%7EiK2D%7EQ__&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 & 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/9430b80127c6293781407ff8cd2c6c07.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=YTK8abEPgZx4DSnBucq3ecg6zh40RHcuYWorrT%7EZrZlea26gzVXZgnOlsW--K1Ng7NlgCqQWLn6YgQgInrVDSwGWFkyXa%7ENTqlE6I8lZAF51Y5WMLDHBETW4oz9k4jIJIo5aTjmBPNWZQQzXh6Or0o%7EFXPtMLcLUNm69JgfTGy6-UCPQIMIeAWShdLQHNQnulRsJCN1iLMcnlhtOB7xTvhc71yF5SoZnKPE44DpdKkQ3hzb7RnlIn9wN9X4Dn0b76AKBUL7e3atD22GYXwShNrhYWj-tOWS9BZkO40vVMqdJdB-iisEmWXE0Ao2S3uPYq3ed53Kwo-xHDkoL8sIBjA__&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 & 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/28a01b9a8c58a74a237258bbe9d3e3a8.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=I07qHzAZr3RseicPXZ3gSQtW-DMF7XOd9nJEtecvFAh8q3X7pV8god%7EM5ptYoh2IucOtUBmTXvcX7xxgoRO8OzooIHh4Ni8%7EO6wnZdglGgQpgWBj4isnCYkkO9QUflvb41gY6IWFU8-C1t3K2H4GqN%7ECvRZk3RhY0nRYVyl%7EbBK3x4rKeJ7kVKGFp2IT%7EW7%7E5hn%7EF7ThBHT6l7sH6bd79JzyCMksQHPJX283UZrZfyhLVyp501%7EfUz2wMuCQzYRxhy15bsiQz43bbJaTKwsQkpG-8dfnYhCBnw2I4mQNiNxPV7NzLfKmFwqXJ6v14MWxMHOHTPf2O8o%7EXntaq4PwPg__&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 & 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/64948264688ba2b0d7e751f52e7d586c.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=oPeqszCbDGgI05yVN9lPApG37SFcCRumaFQgCCkpbwJ-vHKqOzVn6s5uP44H0rwaNP7DjOz9GboGwPHjL476Oi9-1oxcO7Uv6Uvp8Gom5EgqweArucCuq75AdoJ-Bls72MWc9hJRpz9NOOiQcj84UrDreXwuW5-yHDpM0lxnqG6k4XQX8uS1wGJLofejFkTkgOxbNwuc8l4u34L%7EjV-ROTZARnaCapBbx9pt8q%7ESvZ2j5qHn7pTgB2-eLKpLLsO%7EH600cfI-Myb3LeINe%7EWvaJ-tDt9CbAT7jFLSciHTiu7FfOFVo1PBe6uFOIdKgEZM0zyFmMD%7EcwbB1QNN2SBwIg__&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 & 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/608de521cb5991c71bd97c8d6b0a49c6.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=jK58tr0JcbOvbFjj8ofiSUhwS1fKszH57dJ-5tlmgnZzNGZ1Z7zqomRItG2RTZpc89NZWJyVJSK%7Em1jR%7ECqmd3%7EG9T8BGnSqKjvvFTxg3DY0YkxSkOMHoP54YK7aUyZk2mVThyrRexWGyMzmEAkNucTvGJkBR4Ge0e2sYrqZGJruqJChRQEPG3XuX3E1aMn9C%7EqFgJI0nEnI6974ocSvSmXBoINSppl-OJkYmHtVw-2IEg-SFh748F25LuSefMspmEFIKPgR7kH%7EJf4iYVF6e4ki9zgY9jQEpTqV6K%7E7og-vjnuMvlMRjOeEAOdBCdecAoB7hsxJI4z3wdlDY0Jshg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
be99d0910501fa37475a11c54633344b
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
ROYAL PAUPERS
A Radical’s Contribution
TO
THE
JUBILEE.
SHOWING
What Royalty does for the People
AND
What the People do for Royalty.
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
-------- ---------------
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
'•
■•
4
4
4
4
4
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1887.
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�ROYAL PAUPERS.
-----------♦-----------
“ Our most gracious Sovereign Lady, Queen Vic
toria,” as the Prayer Book styles her, has occupied
the throne for nearly half a century, and as she is
blessed with good health and a sound constitution,
she may enjoy that exalted position for another
fifteen or twenty years, and perhaps prevent her
bald-headed eldest son from acceding to the illus
trious dignity of King of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, and Emperor of India.
Whether she does or does not linger on this mortal
stage, and whether the Prince of Wales will or will
not live long enough to succeed her, is a matter of
trifling importance to anyone but themselves and
their families. The nation will have to support “ the
honor and dignity of the throne,” whoever fills it,
without the least abatement of expense; unless,
indeed, the democratic spirit of the age should ques
tion the utility of all “ the pride, pomp, and circum
stance ” of royalty, and either abolish it altogether or
seriously diminish its cost.
This being the fiftieth year of Her Majesty's reign,
the hearts of all the flunkeys in the nation are stirred
to their depths. There is quite an epidemic of
loyalty. Preparations are being made on all sides
�4
to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee. Busybodies
are meeting, discussing, and projecting. All
sorts of schemes are mooted, but the vital essence of
every one is—Cash ! The arts of beggary are devel
oped on the most magnificent scale, without regard
to the Vagrancy Act; and titled ladies, parsons’
wives, and Primrose Dames, condescend to solicit
pennies from sempstresses and charwomen. The
Prince of Wales, meanwhile, is devoting his genius
and energies to floating the Imperial Institute, which
promises to be a signal failure, unless the Chancellor
of the Exchequer comes to its assistance, because the
royal whim of fixing it in a fashionable quarter, in
stead of in the commercial centre of London, is a
barrier to its success.
How much of the money drained from British
pockets by such means will be spent on really useful
objects ? It may be safely predicted that a consider
able portion will flow into the pockets of the wire
pullers, but will any appreciable amount go to benefit
all classes of the community ? Will there, in parti
cular, be any advantage to the masses of the working
people, whose laborious lives contribute more to the
greatness and prosperity of the state than all the
titled idlers, whether scions of royalty or members of
the aristocracy, who live like gilded flies “basking in
the sunshine of a Court ” ? Time will prove, but
unless we are very much mistaken, the Jubilee will
be just as advantageous to the people as loyal move
ments have ever been.
It is a sign of the wholesome democratic spirit
which is beginning1 to animate the nation, that a few
�5
towns have absolutely refused to trouble their heads,
and still less to tax their pockets, with regard to the
Jubilee. But the most cheerful indication comes
from Wexford. The municipal council of that his
toric Irish city has ventured to make the following
sensible suggestion:
“ If the ministers of the Crown wanted to govern this
country in a quiet and peaceable manner, and not by fire and
sword, they would advise her Majesty to send to the starving
poor of this country, to relieve their distress, the half of that
eight millions which she has lying in the Funds, and which she
has received from the ratepayers. By this means they would
require no Coercion measure, but would make this one of the
most happy, peaceable, and law-abiding countries in the
world.”
This spirited though courteous suggestion implies
that Royalty has done less for the People than the
People have done for Royalty, that the balance of
profit is not on the national side of the account, and
that gratitude is not due by those who confer bene
fits, but by those who receive them.
During the present reign, the Royal family has
obtained from the nation nearly twenty-four million
pounds. What has the nation received in exchange
for that enormous sum ? I do not propose to reckon
in this place the value of the normal functions of
Royalty, as I intend to estimate it when I have calcu
lated the annual cost of the institution. I simply
inquire, at present, what special advantage has
accrued to us from her Majesty, and not another per
son, having worn the crown for the last fifty years.
Ireland may be dismissed from the inquiry at
once. She has no opportunity of gazing on the
Queen’s classical features, or even of being splashed
�6
with the mud of her carriage wheels; and, on the
other hand, the statistics of Ireland’s fifty years’ his
tory show that 1,225,000 of her children have died of
famine, while 3,650,000 have been evicted by the
landlords, and 4,186,000 have emigrated to foreign
lands.
There has, however, been considerable progress in
Great Britain. Our national wealth has immensely
increased, but Royalty has only assisted in spending
it. Science has advanced by gigantic strides, but
Royalty has not enriched it by any brilliant disco
veries ; for since George the Fourth devised a shoe
buckle, the inventive genius of the House of Bruns
wick has lain exhausted and fallow. Our commerce
has extended to every coast, and our ships cover
every sea; but the Prince of Wales’s trip to India,
at our expense, is the only nautical achievement of
his distinguished family, unless we reckon the Duke
of Edinburgh’s quarter-deck performances, and Prince
Lieningen’s exploit in sinking the Mistletoe. Our
people are better educated, but Royalty has not
instructed them. Our newspapers have multiplied
tenfold, but Royalty is only concerned with the Oourt
Circular. The development of the printing press has
placed cheap books in the poorest hands, and our
literature may hold its own against the world. But
what contributions do we owe to Royalty ? Her
Majesty has published two volumes of Leaves from
her j ournal, which had an immense sale, and are now
forgotten. They chronicle the smallest talk, and
express the most commonplace sentiments, the prin
cipal objects on which the Royal author loved to
�7
expatiate being the greatness and goodness of Prince
Albert and the legs and fidelity of John Brown.
Thousands of ladies, and probably thousands of
school-girls, could have turned out a better book.
And when we recollect that the Queers diary was
prepared for the press by the skilful hand of Sir
Arthur Helps, we may be pardoned for wondering
into what depths of inanity he cast his lines to fish
up such miraculous dulness. The only son her
Majesty has lost, and whose expenses the nation has
saved, was “ studious,” as that word is understood
in royal circles; but his speeches, although they were
furbished up by older and abler hands, will never
figure in any collections of eloquence, and it is
doubtful whether a lengthy life would have enabled
him to shine at Penny Readings without the advan
tage of his name. The Prince of Wales’s sons have
also put two big volumes on Mudie’s shelves (it
would be too much to say into circulation), yet their
travelling tutor acted as their literary showman; and
what parts of the exhibition were his and what theirs,
God alone knoweth except themselves.
It is not one of the stipulated functions of a
Queen, but it is reasonably expected, that she should
produce an heir to the throne. Her Majesty, in
obedience to the primal commandment, “Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth,” which is
seldom neglected in royal families, has borne the
desired heir, and many other children to take his
place if he or his offspring should come to an untimely
end. Her progeny is, indeed, remarkably numerous,
if we reckon all the branches, and if they breed like
�8
wise it will ultimately become a serious question
whether they or we shall inhabit England. As it is,
everyone of them is kept by the nation, for Her
Majesty, although fabulously rich, or as Johnson said,
“ wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice,” is never
theless too poor to maintain her own children. We
support them, and in the most extravagant fashion.
Yet they have absolutely no public duties to perform.
The Queen's duties are not onerous, and still less
necessary, but they are real however light. Her
offspring and relatives, however, do nothing for their
pensions. They never did anything, and never expect
to do anything. They are the recipients of public
charity, which does not change its essence because it
is administered by special Acts of Parliament. Dr.
Findlater defines a pauper as “ a poor person : one
supported by charity or some public provision.” Does
not this exactly apply to all our Royal pensioners ? Am
I not strictly justified in calling them Royal Paupers ?
There are paupers in palaces as well as in workhouses,
and in many, if not most cases, the latter are the
more honorable. Thousands of men who have worked
hard in their younger days far scanty wages, hundreds
who have paid rates and taxes to support the state
burdens, have eked out the sombre end of their lives
in the Union, and have been buried in a parish egg
box. They were called paupers, and so they were,
for there is no disputing the fact. But are not they
worse paupers who have never worked at all, who live
on other people from the cradle to the grave, who add
impudence to their dependence, and glory in their
degradation ?
�9
Why should the people fling up their caps and
rend the air with their shouts ? They owe Royalty
nothing, and they have no particular occasion for
gladness. It is, however, perfectly natural that the
Queen and her family should rejoice over her Jubilee.
Fifty years of unearned prosperity is something to
be grateful for, and if the members and dependents
of the House of Brunswick wish to join in a chorus of
thanksgiving, by all means let them do so; but let
them also, out of their well-filled purses, defray the
expenses of the concert.
Let us now estimate the annual cost of these Royal
Paupers, and of the Royal Mother of most of the
brood; in other words, let us reckon the yearly
amount which John Bull pays for the political luxury
of a throne.
When Her Majesty came to the throne, in June,
1837, it was ordered by the House of Commons
ee that the accounts of income and expenditure of the
Civil List from the 1st January to the 31st December,
1836, with an estimate of the probable future charges
of the Civil List of her Majesty, be referred to a
Select Committee of 21 members/'’ Those gentlemen
went to work with great simplicity. They ascer
tained what it cost King William to support “ the
honor and dignity of the Crown” during the last,
year of his reign, and they recommended that Queen
Victoria should be enabled to spend as much money
and a little more, for they put the cost of the various
branches of the Civil List into round figures, and
always to her advantage. One ’of King William/s
bills was £11,381 for “ upholsterers and cabinet-
�1G
makers/'’ but they surely could not have imagined
that her Majesty could require nearly twelve thou
sand pounds* worth of furniture every year. Nor
could they really have thought that she would spend
£3,345 a year on horses, or £4,825 a year on carriages.
Probably they felt that the subject was too sacred for
criticism. At any rate, they speedily produced an
estimate of £385,000 per annum as the amount
necessary “ for the support of her Majesty's house
hold, and of the honor and dignity of the Crown of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.”
The Civil List was settled at this figure by an Act of
Parliament, which received the Royal Assent on
December 23, 1837. No doubt Her Majesty signed
that precious document with the most cordial
satisfaction.
In February, 1840, Her Majesty married. Her
husband, of course, was imported from Germany.
The Queen was anxious that he should be hand
somely supported by Englishmen, Irishmen, and
Scotchmen. A desperate effort was made to procure
him an allowance of £50,000 a-year; but through
the patriotic exertions of a band of Radicals, headed
by Joseph Hume, the sum was reduced to £30,000.
On that paltry income Prince Albert had to live. It
was a severe lesson in economy, but his German
training enabled him to pass through the ordeal, and
in time he increased his scanty income by other
emoluments. He took £6,000 a-year as FieldMarshal; £2,695 a-year as Colonel of the Grenadier
Guards ; £238 a-year as Colonel-in-Chief of the Rifle
Brigade; £1,000 a-year or so in the shape of per-
�11
quisites as Grand Ranger of Windsor Great Park;
£500 a-year or so as Grand Ranger of the Home
Park; and £1,120 a-year as Governor and Constable
of Windsor Castle. Besides these posts, he filled
some which were honorary, and some whose value
was a secret to common mortals. When the lucky
German prince died he left a very large fortune, but
how much he contrived to amass is unknown, for his
will has never been proved.
Returning to the Civil List, we find it divided up
as follows :—Her Majesty's Privy Purse, £60,000;
Household Salaries, £131,260; Tradesmen's Bills,
£172,500; Royal Bounty and Special Services,
£9,000 ; Alms and Charity, £4,200 ; Unappropriated
Money, £8,040—Total, £385,000.
The £60,000 of Privy Purse money the Queen
spends as she pleases. She can say like Shylock,
“'Tis mine, and I will have it." The £8,040 of
Unappropriated Money appears to have been thrown
in to make up a round rum, or perhaps to provide the
Queen with pin-money, so that she might not go abroad
without small change in her pocket. The £13,200
for Bounty and Alms is supposed to be spent on
deserving objects of charity. How much of it is
spent we know not. But the fact that the sum is
voted for that purpose is calculated to lessen our
appreciation of Royal benevolence. When the ladies
get hold of the morning papers, and see by the Daily
Telegraph, or some other loyal newspaper, that Her
Majesty has sent so much to this charity, and so much
to that, they exclaim, “ What a dear good lady the
Queen is to be sure." They never suspect that her
�12
Majesty’s charity is exercised with other people’s
money. The poorest and the most penurious might
be charitable on the same easy conditions.
According to the Civil List Act, the other sums
were to be rigorously spent in maintaining the Royal
dignity; indeed, a clause was inserted to prevent
savings, except of trifling amount, from being carried
from one category to another. Yet it is well-known
that many sinecure offices in the Royal Household
have been abolished, while large reductions have been
made in the Household expenditure. Who benefits
by these savings ? Can any person do so but the
Queen ? Would she allow them to be appropriated
by others ? But if she “ pockets the difference ” it
is in violation of the Act. Whatever reductions are
made, so much less is admitted to be necessary for
the purposes specified by law, and it is the sovereign
who makes the admission.
Surely, then, these
savings, these reductions in the expenditure on
maintaining “ the honor and dignity of the Crown,”
should accrue to the State, and not swell the private
income of a fabulously rich old lady.
We shall peep into the Royal Household presently.
Before doing so, however, we must see the full extent
of the Queen’s resources. Besides what she derives
from the Prince Consort’s will, she has the income
accruing from the Nield legacy. Mr. J. C. Yield
died in 1852, and not knowing a more proper object
of charity, he left his poor Queen the sum of £250,000,
in addition to real estate. Her Majesty is reported
to have invested heavily in the Funds. She has also
private estates in England and Scotland, to say
�13
nothing of her estates in Germany. They are
returned as 37,643 acres, at an annual rental of
£27,995. Finally, there is the splendid revenue of
the Duchy of Lancaster, which, in 1886, amounted
to £45,000.
Being so enormously wealthy, her Majesty might,
taste the luxury of contributing, however slightly,
to the expenses of government. She voluntarily
undertook to do so in 1842, but never appears to
have kept her word. When Sir Robert Peel intro
duced his Income Tax Bill, in August of that year,
he made the following announcement:
“ I may take this opportunity of making a communication
which, I am confident, will be received by the House with
great satisfaction. When in an interview with her Majesty,
a short time since, I intimated that her Majesty’s servants
thought that the financial difficulties of the country were
such that it was desirable, for the public interest, to submit,
all the income of this country to a charge of £3 per cent.,
her Majesty, prompted by those feelings of deep and affec
tionate interest which she has always shown for the welfare
and happiness of her people, observed to me that if the
necessities of the country were such that, in time of peace,
it was necessary to impose a charge of £3 per cent, on income,
it was her own voluntary determination that her own
income should be subject to a similar deduction.”
There is no positive proof, but there is negative
proof, that this “ voluntary determination” was not
carried out. Mr. C. E. Macqueen, secretary of the
Financial Reform Association, wrote to Mr. J.
Wilson, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on
December 1, 1855, inquiring “ whether her Majesty
and the Royal Consort contribute their respective
quotas to the income and property tax.’'’ Mr. Wilson
replied that it was contrary to practice to answer
�14
such inquiries. He was technically right, but his
official reserve would scarcely have prevented his
making the statement, if it could be made, that Her
Majesty had paid the tax in accordance with her
promise. So much for the Queen’s “ deep and affec
tionate interest in the welfare and happiness of her
people.”
It should be added that the Royal estates escape
all Probate Duty, and that none of the Royal Family
have to pay Legacy and Succession Duties. Every
thing is arranged by a loyal nation for their comfort
and profit.
But, strange as it may sound, we have not yet done
with the cost of a Queen. There is a long list of
further expenses which, for the sake of convenience,
and that the reader may get a bird’s-eye view of
them, I print in a tabular form. The figures given
are for the year 1884-5.
Pensions granted by hei’ Majesty
.............. £24,072
Royal Palaces, occupied wholly or partially by
her Majesty ..............................................
15,466
Royal Palaces, not occupied by her Majesty ...
19,783
Royal Yachts, etc.................................................
39,732
Royal Escort (Household Troops, etc.)..............
31,150
£130,203
Here we have £130,203 expended by or on the
Sovereign, in addition to the Civil List of £385,000
and the revenue of £45,000 from the Duchy of Lan
caster. This makes a grand total of £560,203.
What a sum to lavish on the pride and luxury of
one person ! The President of the United States
only receives £10,000 a year. It is evident, there
�15
fore, unless there is no truth in Cocker, that the
people of this old country fancy a Queen is worth
fifty-six Presidents. The Yankees, however, have
a very different opinion: they laugh at John Bull for
lavishing so much wealth on a single human being,
and facetiously ask him why he complains of bad
trade and hard times when he can afford to fool away
his money in that fashion.
Now, let us turn our profane gaze into the sacred
arcana of the Boyal Household, ft is a pity that
such a glorious Flunkey's Paradise cannot be accu
rately and graphically described by a master hand.
What a wonderful picture of sinecure sloth and
corruption it would be to posterity ! Some writer,
with the pen of a Dickens steeped in the gall of a
Carlyle, should have a carte blanche commission for
the task. He should have unlimited opportunity to
study the ins and outs of the establishment, and the
lives of its officers and servants; and he should be
free to write exactly what he saw and heard, as well
as his own reflections on the matter. Were that
done, there would be at least one imperishable
monument of “ low ambition and the pride of kings."
There is no accessible account of the detailed ex
penditure in this Flunkey's Paradise at present, but
we have a full account of the expenditure in 1836,
on which the amount necessary for Tradesmen's
Bills was calculated. In the Lord Chamberlain's
department there is a bill of £11,381 for “uphols
terers and cabinetmakers," and another of £4,119
for “ locksmiths, ironmongers, and armorers." £284
is paid to sempstresses, so there must be a deal of
�16
shirt-making and mending. The washing bill is
£3,014, and £479 is paid for soap. Doctors and
chemists receive £1,951 for attending and physicing
the flunkeys. Turning to the Lord Steward’s De
partment, we find £2,050 worth of bread consumed,
and £4,976 worth of butter, bacon, eggs, and cheese.
The butcher’s bill comes to £9,472, and the amount
is so great that one wonders there is not a royal
slaughter-house. The flunkeys and the cats con
sumed £1,478 worth of milk and cream, and perhaps
the cats helped the flunkeys to devour the £1,979
Worth of fish. Groceries come to £4,644, fruit and
confectionery to £1,741, wines to £4,850, liqueurs,
etc., to £1,843, and ale and beer to £2,811. Ifthere
is as much boozing now in the Royal Household, it
is high time that Sir Wilfrid Lawson turned his
attention to the subject. The New River Water
Company would supply Buckingham Palace, at least,
with a sufficiency of guzzle at a much cheaper rate.
The nation would gain by the change, and if the
superior flunkeys’ noses were compulsorily toned
down, it might not be very much to their disadvan
tage either.
The Household Salaries are allotted to hundreds
of flunkeys, from the Lord Chamberlain to the
lowest groom or porter. All the chief officials are
lords and ladies. These have to be in immediate
attendance, and Royalty could not tolerate the con
tiguity of plebeians. Pah I an ounce of civet, good
apothecary !
Chief of the flunkeys is the Lord Chamberlain.
This nobleman’s salary is £2,000 a year. He is the
�17
master of the ceremonies, and has to be perfect in
the punctilios of etiquette. Besides looking after
the other flunkeys, he oversees the removal of beds
and wardrobes, and superintends the revels, corona
tions, marriages, and funerals. Lest these onerous
duties should impair his health, he has a Vice
Chamberlain, who is also a nobleman, to assist him at
a salary of £924 a year. Undei’ these gentlemen
there is an Examiner of Plays. This person is paid
£400 a year, besides fees, to decide what plays shall
be placed on the stage. He is also authorised to
strike out from the plays he condescends to license
everything likely to contaminate the public morals,
or bring the Church and State into disrespect. This
official is almighty and irresponsible. There is no
appeal against his fiat. Thirty-five millions of people
have to be satisfied with what he permits them. He
is the despot of the drama; they are his slaves; and
they pay him "several hundreds a year by way of gild
ing their fetters. The result is precisely what might
be expected. While the most vulgar farces and the
most suggestive opera, bouffe are licensed for the pub
lic delectation, some of the noblest masterpieces of
continental dramatic literature are tabooed, because
they deal with profound problems of life and thought
in a manner that might affront the susceptibilities of
Bumble and Mrs. Grundy. Even Shelley's Cenci was
prohibited, and the Shelley Society was obliged to
circumvent the Examiner of Plays by resorting to a
“ private performance." No matter that the loftiest
names in current English literature were associated
with the production of this magnificent play; the
�18
authority of Robert Browning and Algernon Swin
burne was overshadowed by that of the autocrat of
the Lord Chamberlain’s office, who has no standing
in the republic of letters, whose very name is un
known to the multitude of playgoers, who belongs to
the ranks of what Shelley called “ the illustrious
obscure.”
Among the female flunkeys, if I may be allowed
the appellation, are the Mistress of the Robes, with
£500 a year, and eight Ladies of the Bedchamber,
with the same salary. They are required to keep
Her Majesty company for a fortnight, three times in
the course of each year, and when in attendance they
dine at the Royal table. There are also eight Bed
chamber women, at £300 a year each, to serve in
rotation; and eight Maids of Honor, at the same
salary, who reside with Her Majesty in couples, for
four weeks at a time. It was remarked, in the days
of Swift, that Maids of Honor was a queer title, as
they were neither the one nor the other. But let us
hope that a great improvement has taken place since
then.
There is a large Ecclesiastical staff attached to
the Royal Household, but it only costs £1,236 a year.
The smallness of the sum does not imply that clergy
men are cheap, but that many will gladly officiate for
little or nothing at Court, as such appointments are
always considered stepping-stones to valuable pre
ferments.
More than twice as much is expended on the
mortal bodies of the Royal Household as on their
immortal souls. £2,700 a year is paid to Court
�19
physicians, surgeons, apothecaries, and chiropodists,
some receiving salaries, and others fees when in
attendance.
The salaries of the Kitchen Department amount to
no less than £9,983 a year, enough to excite the
wonder of Lucullus. We have no space to recite the
interminable list of menials. Suffice it to say that
the wine-taster has a salary of £500, the chief con
fectioner £300, the chief cook £700, and three
master cooks £350 each. There are also three
well-paid yeomen in charge of the Royal plate,
the value of which is reckoned at two millions
sterling.
Lowest of all in the scale of payment is the Poet
Laureate. His post is a survival of Feudalism. The
Court used to keep a dwarf and a jester, but these
have been discarded, and only the versifier is retained.
His duty is to grind out loyal odes whenever a
member of the Royal family is born, marries, or dies.
A more wretched office could scarcely be conceived.
Yet it is held by Lord Tennyson, who bestows the ex
crements of his genius on the Court. His latest Jubilee
Ode might have been composed by a printer’s devil,
whose brains were muddled by two poems of Walt
Whitman and Martin Tupper set in alternate lines.
The salary of the Laureateship is £100 a year. Seven
hundred a year to the chief cook, and one hundred a
year to the poet! Such are the respective values of
cooking and poetry in the Royal estimation. When
Gibbon presented the second volume of his immortal
histoiy to George the Third, the farmer-king could
only exclaim, “ What, another big book, Mr.
�20
Gibbon ? ” The House of Brunswick has thus been
consistent in its appreciation of literature.
Having taken a rapid look at the Court Flunkeys,
let us come to the great brood of Royal Paupers.
Such a poverty-stricken woman as the Queen cannot
be expected to maintain her children; they are there
fore supported by the State on a scale commensurate
with the Civil List.
The Princess Royal, who is the wife of the Crown
Prince of Germany, receives £8,000 a year. When
she married the nation voted her a dowry of £40,000,
and £5,000 was devoted to fitting up the Chapel
Royal for the wedding.
The Prince of Wales has a pension of £40,000 a
year. He takes £1,350 for the colonelcy of the Tenth
Hussars, a purely sinecure office. Probably the regi
ment would not recognise him if they saw him in
uniform. He lives rent free in Marlborough House,
on which £2,120 was spent in repairs in 1884-5, and
there is a somewhat similar bill every year. The
revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall swell the Prince’s
income by £64,641. Those were the figures in the
year just referred to. During his minority the
revenues of the Duchy accumulated to the amount of
£601,721. A third of this sum was invested in the
purchase of his Sandringham estate, and the rest in
other ways. Returns show that the Prince has
8,079 acres in Norfolk, and 6,810 in Aberdeenshire,
the rental being given at the extremely low figure of
£9,727.
When the Prince of Wales married, the nation
voted him an extra grant of £23,455, and as he was
�21
too poor to support a wife £10,000 a year was secured
to her from the national purse, with a further pro
mise of its being made £30,000 if she survives her
husband. When the Prince visited India, in 1875,
he was allowed £142,000 for the expenses of the
trip, £60,000 being pocket money, for the exercise of
generosity. The presents he gave we paid for; the
presents he received are his. Evidently the Prince
of Wales has much to be thankful for, and he may
celebrate the Jubilee with the utmost cordiality.
Even if he never becomes king, he will have had a
fine old time, and his appearance shows how well it
agrees with him.
The Duke of Edinburgh was voted £15,000 a-year
on attaining his majority in 1866. When he married,
in 1874, the amount was increased to £25,000,
although a few brave and honest Radicals opposed
the additional grant to the Prince “ for marrying
the richest heiress in Europe
His wife is the Czar’s
daughter; she brought him a private fortune of
£90,000, a marriage portion of £300,000, and a life
annuity of £11,250. Being a royal pauper, the
Duke does nothing for his pension. He takes
£3,102 for his post in the navy. They give him
command of the Mediterranean Fleet in time of
peace, but in time of war his fiddling tunes might
be preferable to his shouting orders. Let us, however,
be fair. There are some who say that he handles a
fleet splendidly; yet there are others who believe
that if the Peers took a trip round the world in one
of our ironclads, under the actual command of the
Duke of Edinburgh, there would be no need to
�22
agitate for their abolition. We may add that the
Duke has a yearly allowance of £1,800 from SaxeCobourg, and on the death of his uncle, the reigning
Duke, he will inherit a fortune of £30,000 a year.
AVhen he comes into that windfall he will, perhaps,
resign the pension of £25,000 a year he draws from
us. It would be a graceful act. But, alas! the House
of Brunswick has never been noted for grace.
The Princess Christian receives £6,000 a year,
and £30,000 was voted to her on her mam'a,go, The
Princess Louise had a similar dowry, and her pension
is also £6,000 a year. The Duchess of Albany,
widow of Prince Leopold, has £6,000, the Princess
Mary £5,000, and the Princess Augusta £3,000.
The Duke of Connaught's pension is £25,000. His
military reputation was achieved in Egypt, where
Lord Wolseley officiated as his wet-nurse. He was
kept out of danger, and specially mentioned in a des
patch from the field of battle. At present he is
Commander-in-Chief in Bombay, a post whose
abolition was recommended by the Military Com
mission. He draws pay at the rate of £6,000 a year.
Sir John Gorst will ask Parliament to pass a Bill
authorising the Duke to come home to celebrate the
Jubilee without forfeiting his office. Of course the .
Bill will pass, but the cream of the joke is that we
shall have to pay the cost of his journey. The move
ments of princes are expensive. The national
exchequer trembles when they blow their noses.
Another Royal Paupei’ of the warrior caste is the
Duke of Cambridge, This Prince is the Queen’s
uncle. His pension is £12,000 a year. His salary
�23
and perquisites as Banger of St. James’s, Green, Hyde,
and Richmond Parks are estimated at over £2,000 a
year. As Field Marshal Commander-in-Chief he
takes £4,500 a year. He is also Colonel of the
Grenadier Guards at £2,132 a year. His military /
genius is renowned throughout the world, and
his noble brow is circled with the deathless laurels
he won in the Crimea. His corpulence makes him
a commanding figure, and although his sword is
not famous, his umbrella is the terror of our enemies.
It only remains to add that poverty prevents him
from maintaining a wife. The Duchess of Cambridge,
therefore, enjoys a separate pension of £6,000 a year.
Besides the Royal pensioners, there are a few of
the Queen’s relatives (Germans, of course) who
sponge on the British taxpayer. Prince Edward of
Saxe-Weimar draws £3,384 a year from the Army,
and his Dublin residence is worth another thousand.
Prince Deiningen takes £593 a year as a half-pay
Vice-Admiral. Count Gleichen receives £740 as a
retired Vice-Admiral, and £1,120 as Governor of
Windsor Castle.
There is always a make-weight, even in accounts.
Accordingly we find a lot of extra expense in the
£4,881 paid in pensions to various surviving friends
and servants of George III., George IV., William IV.,
and Queen Charlotte.
Directly and indirectly the Royal Family costs the
nation the stupendous sum of £808,316 a year. The
vastness of such an amount is difficult for ordinary
minds to realise. Let us, therefore, analyse it, and
see what it makes in detail. It would maintain
�24
10,365 families at £1 10s. a week. It represents
£2,215 every day, £92 an hour, and £1 10s. 6d. every
minute. We frequently hear it said that the payment
of Members of Parliament would be too expensive.
But £300 a year is the outside salary proposed by
Radicals; and the annual cost of the Royal Family
would suffice to pay every member of the House of
Commons that salary four times over.
Thick-and-thin loyalists sometimes urge that we
have no right to grumble at the expense of Royalty.
The sovereign, they say, accepts a Civil List in lieu
of the Royal Revenues, and the nation gains by the
contract. But this argument is unconstitutional.
The Crown Revenues are not private property; they
belong to the monarch, just as the crown does, by
virtue of Acts of Parliament, and all Acts of Parlia
ment can be modified or repealed. If the Crown
Lands, for instance, were personal estate, they could
not be alienated from the present possessor. Should
the Queen, however, turn Roman Catholic, she could
not continue to occupy the throne. The Prince of
Wales would succeed her at once, and if Tie turned
Roman Catholic, the next heir would immediately
succeed him. In each case the Crown Revenues
would change hands. It is obvious, therefore, that
those Revenues are the appanage of the Crown solely
by virtue of law ; and it necessarily follows that the
nation has the legal as well as the moral right to
settle the Civil List as it pleases.
Other Loyalists urge the spendthrift objection that
the cost of the Royal Family- is trifling when distri
buted over the entire population. Why make a fuss,
r
�25
they ask, about fivepence half-penny each ? It is less
than the price of a quart of beer, or two ounces of cheap
tobacco. True, but many mickles make a muckle. The
lavish expenditure on Royalty corrupts our national
'economy. The cost of government, the expenses of the
Army and Navy, rise higher and higher every year.
Since the Queen’s accession, indeed, they have nearly
quadrupled. A nation cannot waste its money on titled
idlers without lavishing it shamefully in other
directions.
There is another way of replying to this foolish
objection.
What good might be done with that
£808,316 a year if it were otherwise expended ! It
would maintain museums, art galleries, and public
libraries throughout the country on the most munifi
cent scale, as the following table very clearly shows.
Towns.
Per Year.
Total.
5 at £20,000 = £100,000
10,000 = 100,000
10 „
5,000 =
20 „
100,000
2,500 =
40 „
100,000
100 „
1,000 =
100,000
616 „
500 =
308,000
£808,000
This is only one illustration. The ingenious reader
will think of many more, and he can work out the
figures himself.
Now let us glance at the functions of Royalty. We
have seen its cost, and we must try to ascertain its
worth.
�26
“ The King reigns but does not govern," and
therefore “the King can do no wrong.’' These
maxims of constitutional monarchy imply that the
sovereign exercises no direct power.
Even Lord
Salisbury, who is a thorough-paced courtier, would
shrink from publicly maintaining “ the right divine
of Kings to govern wrong." The Queen rules through
her Ministers. What they resolve on is executed in
her name. But she herself has no choice in the
matter. She is nominally able to refuse her assent
to an Act which has passed both branches of the
Legislature, but the first time she ventured to exert
that cc right ” the Crown would be brought into^dangerous collision with the people. Nor can* her
Ministers act without the Consent of Parliament. The
monarchy has been gradually shorn of its perogatives,
until it has become a political fiction. We are
really living under a veiled Republic, and the sooner
the mischievous and costly disguise-is flung aside the
better for the welfare and integrity of the nation.
Calling one of her “ subjects ” to form a Ministry
is the Queen’s first function. But this involves no
wisdom or decision, for there is no choice. It is not
Her Majesty,‘but the electorate, that decides who
shall be Premier. The Queen simply summons the
acknowledged leader of whichever party triumphs at
the ballot. If the Conservatives win she calls Lord
Salisbury, if the Liberals win she calls Mr. Gladstone.
Her personal wishes count for less than those of the
humblest ratepayer, for he has a vote and she has none.
Her next business is to open and close Parliament.
This duty, however, is seldom performed. Her
�Majesty rarely emerges from her widowed seclusion,
except to give a fillip to a Tory government. For
many years after Prince Albert’s death she felt
unequal to the exertion, although she had strength
enough to participate in ghillie balls. If a washer
woman complained that she was so cut up by the
death of her husband that it was impossible to work,
and expected regular payment without sending home
any clean linen, she would quickly weary her patrons,
and find it prudent to return to the tub. Yet a
Queen can indulge in the luxury of woe for twenty
years, and her flatterers will account it a virtue.
Thomas Carlyle wrote a significant little sentence on
this subject. Acknowledging a presentation copy of
Gilchrist’s Life of William Blake, which Mrs. Gilchrist
bravely saw through the press after her husband’s
death, Carlyle wrote : “ Your own little Preface is all
that is proper—could but the Queen of these realms
have been as Queen-like in her widowhood I ”
As for the Queen’s Speech, it is a ridiculous farce.
The document is drawn up by the Ministry, and its
sentiments differ with the succession of parties.
Generally, too. it is read by proxy. Her Majesty,
therefore, neither reads it nor writes it.
It is no
more hers than mine.
When Parliament is opened or prorogued in the
Queen’s absence, the royal robes are thrown over the
royal chair, and the Lords bow in passing them,
precisely as though the sovereign sat there. The
garments do as well as the wearer. Why, then, go
to the expense of filling them out ? With all rever
ence, I make the following suggestion. Let half-a-
�dozen of our finest artists be commissioned to carve
and chase a Phidean statue in ivory and gold, tn
occupy the royal chair instead of the Queen. The
expense would be incurred once for all, and we
should know the full extent of our liability. The
present monarchical idol could then be discarded for
the cheaper substitute, which would probably be quite
as useful, and certainly quite as handsome.
Next, her Majesty signs Acts of Parliament. I
would undertake to sign them all for £50 a year, and
my handwriting is as good as the Queen’s. As a
matter of fact, it is not the Royal signature that gives
validity to statutes. During one of George the Third’s,
fits of insanity, it is said that Lord Eldon used acounterfeit of the King’s signature, which was
engraved for the purpose; yet the Acts of Parliament
thus ratified were no less operative than those which
bore the King’s autograph. Under the Common
wealth the Great Seal was broken up, and a new one
substituted. On one side was a map of England
and Ireland; on the other, the device, “ In the first
year of freedom, by God’s blessing restored.” AIL
resolutions and orders of the House were signed by
the Speaker as nominal Chief of the State. “ Mr..
Speaker ” is still the First Commoner, and why can
not his signature be attached to Acts of Parliament
instead of an hereditary official’s ? The laws of a freecountry are the expression of the people’s will, and
they depend on no individual’s concurrence for theirvalidity and force.
These are absolutely all the“ functions” of Royalty,,
though there are other reasons adduced in its favor..
�29
While we retain a throne, filled by hereditary right,
it is urged that we avoid an undignified scramble for
the highest position in the State. But what scramble
is there for the Presidency in France ? Or what
particular scramble is there for it in the United
States, where the President is elected by a kind of
plebiscite ? Whatever scramble there is, some very
good men manage to win. From Washington to
Cleveland there have been many illustrious names.
Have we had a single sovereign who could be men
tioned in the same breath with the best of them ?'
What is our boast ? George the Third, the madman
George the Fourth, the profligate; William the
Fourth, the ninny; and Victoria, whose loftiest virtue
is that, being a Queen, she has lived like an honest
woman. The single name of Lincoln outweighs a
thousand such; nay, compared with his greatness,
they are but dust in the balance.
We are further told that Society (with a capital S)
must have a head. But what' is this Society ? Does
it include the great thinkers and workers, th ez poets,
artists, philosophers, and scientists ? No; it com
prises the lazy, pampered classes, whose wealth and
titles are their only passports to esteem, whose highest
ambition is to be presented at Court and invited to
royal levees. These people are not a sign of national
health, but a sign of national disease. Let them, if
they must, pursue their idle round of foolish pleasure,
but let them elect and support their own “ head ”
without expecting the nation to countenance their
frivolity by maintaining the Head of the State as the
master or mista\ ss of their foppish ceremonies.
�Lastly, the monarchy is defended on the ground
that a State must have a figure-head. But this is a
fatal plea. When monarchy was a reality the King
stood at the helm. If the sovereign is to be an orna
mental figure under the bowsprit, why should he cost
us an admiral’s salary for painting and gilding ?
Besides, figure-heads become very expensive when
they beget little figure-heads, whose maintenance in
a proper state of decoration is a first charge on the
freightage.
There is one function which her Majesty, ever
since Prince Albert’s death, has been unconsciously
performing. She has been teaching the people that
the monarchy is not indispensable. By habituating
them to dispense with its forms and pageants, she
has shown them how unessential it is to our political
life. Without the least intention, she has been pre
paring the way for a Republic. A few timid Radi
cals, and many Liberals, may stand aghast at the
prospect, but they cannot escape the result of cen
turies of historic tendency. From the day when the
Long Parliament condemned to death ie the man
Charles Stuart,” and established a Commonwealth,
“without King or House of Lords,” the fire of
Republicanism has never been extinguished in the
heart of England. It was allayed by Cromwell, and
it almost expired under Charles the Second, but it
faintly revived under his successor, and it has
gradually strengthened ever since. It gleamed
in many an epigram of Pope, it shone in the
eloquence of Bolingbroke, it quivered in many a
line of Cowper, it kindled the young muse of Words-
�31
worth, it glowed in the songs of Burns, it coruscated
in the satire .of Byron, it flamed in the lyrics of
Shelley, it burned with a steady light in the prose of
Thomas Paine. Nor was the noble tradition lost in
the reaction after the French Revolution. For two
generations it survived in the genius of Landor, and
since his death it has inspired the genius of Swinburne.
Royalty is now moribund, and democracy is striding
to the throne. After centuries of slumber the
People are at length awake, and the noble words
of John Milton may be re-echoed in a later age.
“ Methinks 1 see in my mind a noble and puissant
nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep,
and shaking her invincible locks. Methinks I
see her as an eagle mewing her mighty youth,
and kindling her undazzled eyes at the full
midday beam, purging and unsealing her longabused sight at the fountain itself of heavenly
radiance/'’ While she was asleep the privileged
classes, from the monarch to the meanest aristocrat,
battened upon her like vampires. But their night is
over. They lurk and wait in vain for her relapse.
They fancy the daylight an illusion, yet they are~
deceived. Democracy is like the grave, it yields
nothing back; and a nation once awakened does not
sleep again until she dies. The day of her freedom
is the day of her life. For as';the dull sense of the
brute grows into full consciousness in man, s® the
rude instincts of the multitude grow into the con
scious life of a people, widening and clearing for
evermore.
�THE
Shadow of the Sword.
SECOND EDITION,
REVISED
AND
ENLARGED.
BY
Gm Wm FOOTE.
PRICE
TWOPKWOE.
PRESS OPINIONS.
“ An ably-written pamphlet, exposing the horrors of war and
the burdens imposed upon the people by the war systems of
Europe. . . . The author deserves thanks for this timely publi
cation.”—Echo.
“ A trenchant exposure of the folly of war, which everyone
should read.”—Weekly Times.
“ A wonderfully eloquent denunciation of the war fever.”—
Birmingham Owl.
“ This pamphlet presents us with some startling truths that are
well worth preserving.”—The People (Wexford).
“ Should be in the hands of all advocates of peace.”—Our
Corner.
Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
f
r.
V
jk
f
F
�
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 & 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
Royal paupers : a radical's contribution to the Jubilee, showing what royalty does for the people and what the people do for royalty
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
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
N262
Subject
The topic of the resource
Monarchy
Republicanism
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 (Royal paupers : a radical's contribution to the Jubilee, showing what royalty does for the people and what the people do for royalty), 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
Monarchy-Great Britain
NSS
Queen Victoria
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/40717b9cdc2c32f9c50fdb2a95ecb2ee.tif?Expires=1776902400&Signature=D0Lon%7EQFQtc5VTbmutB2XSs3hlg8-GE7OO-AguRl4oOauAGHZSubLXcZnqX2kE6yvXoJh4uoyoLiZrNwH4sZ4Ek7KGeLyICNTLNsb-QFjvhRV5npQhMb4imeF0dRYJkhfFcEmkZNWke%7E75EVE99tMN8Tqg2ehNfS8jkPmBC4nKB0hfimMOFoQZhXh-mePd1BEcv2cl8TqUx6DCQY6yZSl04-azLqTAxh%7E3jGu%7E28BYsD-MQY-Yu-hzI3mkxB%7E4tzUgXdKIT9z4-nRdkA5cM4xFZP9cUDd45OI8CCEfSGvP6%7EWS%7EFzjoDchTp7JqiGHKp1YmZebarqzqoEd6otRGY0w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
91a0d3b852bf44c7b01ef9ed09a87ca7
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
National Secular Society archival collection
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
National Secular Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875 - 1898
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Owned by the National Secular Society, held by Conway Hall Library and Archives
Language
A language of the resource
English
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Charles Bradlaugh, Annie Bessant
Description
An account of the resource
The four earliest surviving volumes of the National Secular Society’s Executive Committee minutes, 1875 - 1898. Two illuminated manuscripts presented to Charles Bradlaugh, 1874 and 1887.
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
Illuminated manuscript
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
NSS/7/36 Charles Bradlaugh illuminated address 1887
Description
An account of the resource
Illuminated address presented to Charles Bradlaugh MP, by the Secularists of Glasgow, 1887.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
National Secular Society
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
NSS/7/37
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/af578faa73b141d6d313bb8f13cc8a9a.jpg?Expires=1776902400&Signature=OYMRfgyr%7E9XU1%7EiklU5CgpidfH-wMdPlaTTH3pBJOPQrEpc0Ww8VlC9aWZdDcchYi3AnssFbaxSay7cb8znI928%7E%7EvypFBcDYkhVpNj1lytfa2DT%7Ec5FXjAfp-07sYqEjaSsHRhlIAHTsZYnNygRbXMj1n7pid4NZCJmbNYsdQ1gdN4rOaGvDJMdfmH-kIDogpPhc9fhG6XDOKTisO1nXfn8xjRvVe3hiOaZUrO3k6ulbX8yj5Ey9rD34Pvj56Lq9oa0Yhfe0A3VschO3jLFJwvg6Yc5nwkOp-pbO2bdJC0tImlJ8qSnVyHG-WbKbahK94quX068uHn-2fU1nHPjBA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
65bb75855f757cc7325c0953e1dcb73d
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f591d64a47942122098628245b170e14.jpg?Expires=1776902400&Signature=BoP0wG83sTjAON3th-jQDBUPdC96mlCWzmM1%7EpUUqN7jr6TlKJVxotmH0rJHMDbYj2ZdDyZIwxXmLG82RrfitUH9Zbm0SE1bPj-l8XbMo9QsLwcQyYxEnTufu%7EOcjFkROJYAzK4qP9%7ESAwNP9TYxBJkIMFbuuBeK-M5GWKIAkrdzHwcnU0pJLa4sBCeUsi4UrKXcFksfvVOGyFyBBxqHp8MHiiUOg6xtTKs%7EnaQCxIed%7EWbTifRTGxUyCjMbD4cCdO-slczhFwmCzBxHBz%7EOf8Y-dbfP7UYN-IzWvbULPhhGGwyNO8n0ygJGvIx0oX9QoCJHa2DPjS4HGjoGnyMd-g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a5baa7d1be9a233ebabd1be5b17d739a
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
Architecture and Place
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Humanist Library and Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2016
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised items from the Humanist Library and Archives telling the story of buildings and spaces occupied by the Conway Hall Ethical Society (formerly the South Place Ethical Society). Also includes several born digital items.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Subject
The topic of the resource
Architecture
Conway Hall (London, England)
South Place Chapel, Finsbury
Mansford, Frederick Herbert (1871-1946)
Language
A language of the resource
English
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
Parchment
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
Lease of 49 Theobalds Road, 16 December 1887
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Lease of 49 Theobalds Road, (16 December 1887).</p>
<ul><li>(1) Metropolitan Board of Works</li>
<li>(2) George Christopher Trout Bartley of St Margarets House, Victoria St, Westminster, Middx, esq, MP</li>
</ul><p>In consideration of expense of (2) in erecting buildings etc, (1)-(2) piece of ground on south side of Theobalds Rd, parish of St George the Martyr, Middx. (dimensions and abutments given, including east on 47 Theobalds Rd about to be leased to (2) and west on premises leased to Alfred Lanham) with house and shop erected thereon by (2).</p>
<p>Term: 80 years from 29 Sept 1882</p>
<p>Rent: first two years a peppercorn; residue £22 pa</p>
<p>Block plan of premises.</p>
<p>Endorsed: 'Part of Plot 88'</p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Unknown
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1887
Subject
The topic of the resource
Leases
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
SPES/3/1/2/11
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p>Licenced for digitisation by the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/copyright-orphan-works" target="_blank">Intellectual Property Office</a> under Orphan Works Licence <a href="https://www.orphanworkslicensing.service.gov.uk/view-register/details?owlsNumber=OWLS000075-11" target="_blank">OWLS000075-11</a>.</p>
Bartley, George Christopher Trout (1842-1910)
Theobalds Road, Holborn
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/53b25632583f1763222bc31436bcddcb.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=gOcy6FjNW2ihBndlNQTuOfxxPx0WJJ2BmtPjU8lveIbK7kbcuFnlCuSUVuN--CsWKSMQY4gPNjf8FV4EkZfSoBde2lpO3cpq2U7vx7tiU786RRoknaPDpR1revLSJEaRDHP4L3SKs5Aewss4POtvY-kmPI5vYWaEOVqee5IMJC1qXMKcj9EmyIoqtLoK8YCUrFeBvbCBjkzMDAVgFDsyyHTKyBVd5DgLjeRWXzSI1iyocQB7r1%7Eh%7Ecx1pn1X4xC1z2MinJpK%7EmIFeo-1MYcfiAwk8QQBr6S98PyXKqIKuSU1oe6zChlGfZhg%7EgRqZAXc8Lm7ChMV%7E3PqBdkjYKx5KA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3fc66693b8ec348a7fd283341a863e38
PDF Text
Text
irit
is SOCIALISM SOUND?
VERBATIM REPORT
OF
A FOUR NIGHTS’ DEBATE
BETWEEN
ANNIE BESANT and 6. I. FOOTE,
AT THE
HALL OF SCIENCE, OLD ST., LONDON, E.C.
On February ‘ nd, 9th, 16th, and 23rd, 1887.
I
REVISED BY BOTH DISPUTANTS.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT
PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 8 8 7.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY ANNIE 3ESANT AND CHARLES ERADLAUGH,
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
FIRST NIGHT.
William Morris in the Chair.
The Chairman : Ladies and gentlemen, we are met here
to-night to open an extremely interesting discussion on
what, I think, you will probably all agree with me is in
point of fact the question of the day—(cheers)—the question
which practically includes all questions, whether you call
them politics or whether you do not. And it is, further,
made more interesting by the fact that both the debaters
are skilled and practised debaters with very great talent;
and I think I may be perfectly certain that the subject
will be treated in a thoroughly serious and satisfactory
manner. As chairman, before such a debate it is clearly
my business to say as little as I possibly can; and I will
only add that the subject is so very interesting that it may
jperhaps make some rather excited at what goes on. I
hope therefore that we shall all remember that we came
here to hear the two debaters; and if we have to give
voice to our feelings on any occasion we shall do so at the
end of sentences, so as to interfere as little as possible with
the debaters’ arguments. (Hear, hear.) I have only now
to tell you the conditions under which the debate is to take
place. Annie Besant will open the debate and speak for
half an hour. Mr. Foote will then speak for half an hour.And after that Annie Besant will speak for a quarter of an
hour and Mr. Foote for a quarter of an hour, and so each
debater will have two quarters of an hour, and that will,
conclude the debate of this evening. I will now call upon
Annie Besant to open the debate on “Is Socialism Sound?”.'
.(Cheers.)
B2
�4
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
Annie Besant : Friends; in taking the affirmative of'
the question, 4‘Is Socialism Sound?”, I propose to divide
into two parts that portion of the debate which falls under
my conduct. I propose to-night to deal with the economic
basis of Socialism, and to try to show that that is sound.
I propose on this night fortnight to deal with the historical
evolution of Socialism, and to try to show that it is a ne
cessary result of the evolution of the past. In the othertwo nights of the debate it will be my duty to follow Mr.
Foote—the duty of leading it falling upon him. And I
must at the very outset ask you to bear with me duringmy first speech, in that it will be necessary to put with
extreme terseness the arguments which I must lay beforeyou. Any argument stating the economic case for Socialism,
compressed into half an hour must necessarily be very
inadequate, and I can only give you a rough outline,,
leaving you to elaborate the details for yourselves. (Hear,
hear.) And I will commence by asking you to distinguish,
in thought between that form of Socialism which has been
described as Utopian, which is thought out by the student
in seclusion, and which gives a complete scheme full of'
elaborate details on every possible point—a scheme which,
it is proposed to impose from without upon society. That
is not the form of Socialism that I defend here to-night.
Over against that is the more modern form of Socialism
which has been described as scientific Socialism, and that
form of Socialism, in common with every system that can
fairly be called scientific, is an attempt to go to the root of'
the matter; to try to understand thoroughly the causes of
the effects that we see around us; to trace back—just as a
geographer may trace a river to its source—to their real
source certain facts that we find in the society around
Us. The chief fact it deals with is the fact of poverty. It
strives to trace back poverty to its source, and having, as
ft believes, done that—having found out the cause of
poverty in modern society—scientific Socialism lays down
a fresh economic basis for society; and then, assertingthat new principle as basis, it believes that from it there
will gradually be developed a healthy social organism, not
produced from without, but growing from within, by the
action of the natural social and economic forces which are
at work in society itself. (Cheers.) And this distinction is
not invented by myself for the purposes of this debate. I will
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
5
•take Emile de Laveleye, a writer who is not a Socialist,
.although I might refer to a Socialist like Engels, who was,
I believe, the first to state this distinction clearly. ■■Writingon Socialism in the Contemporary Review, April, 1883,
Emile de Laveleye pointed out the extreme difference be
tween modern Socialism and the earlier forms in which
Socialism presented itself. He said: “Ricardo, Mill, in
fact all the representatives of orthodox science, show that
with free competition, in a country where both the popu
lation and the wealth are on the increase, the revenues of
proprietors will also steadily increase, while wages will
fall to what is strictly necessary............ Political economy
has thus furnished Socialism with a scientific basis, and
has been the means of its quitting the region of Com
munistic aspirations and Utopian schemes.” And
M. de Laveleye warns these who are against Socialism
that they must beware of “ mixing up this system
with Communistic Utopias ”. I submit that Socialism
is no longer a dream. It is a reasoned scheme
based on political economy. It proposes to change
our economic basis. It proposes to do this by rational
-and thoughtful argument, convincing the brain of man.
And those who do not appreciate this change of
position—those who merely go round the outside of the
•question, who take the old schemes and deal only with
matters of detail on every point—such have not grasped
the real centre of the question; they are simply beating
the air, and never touch the chief point with which we are
-concerned. (Cheers.) Now, many definitions of Socialism
have been given, and they cover a large amount of ground.
You may start from the wide definition of Proudhon,
“ Every aspiration for the amelioration of society is
Socialism”, but that is somewhat too general to serve as
a practical definition. It is very possible that various
definitions may be advanced by Mr. Eoote, and it will then
be my duty to deal with them as he puts them forward ;
but so far as I am concerned to-night, I lay down one
principle as the differentia of Socialism, as that on which
•every Socialist is agreed—that which I maintain is the
economic basis of Socialism; and I allege that Socialism
. is the theory which declares that there shall be no private
property in the materials which are necessary for the provduction of wealth. "Whatever your Socialistic school—let
�6
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
it be Anarchist or Communist, let it be Collectivist, Evolu
tionary or E evolutionary, or both, you will nowhere find a
Socialism which will disagree with that fundamental
statement, or which will not proclaim, as the basis of all
proposed changes, the destruction of private property in
the materials which are necessary for the production of
wealth. (Cheers.) The next question arises as to what
we mean by these “materials ”. And I propose to divide
them under two heads, practically following the usual
divisions of political economy, although using phrases to
describe them which are not those of the ordinary economic
books. I describe as raw material everything which the
political economist describes as land—that which Mill said
“no man made”, including, of course, in that raw material,
ah ore and minerals, and other natural material for the
production of wealth, so long as it has been untouched by
man. The whole of that will come under my definition of
raw material. And I put over against that the material
upon which human labor has been employed, and I class
the whole of that together as wrought material. That will
include of course what is generally known as “capital” ;
as “ means of production ”; or as “ instruments of produc
tion ”. And I take every case in which raw material has
been transformed by human labor into wrought material as
the second division of the materials for the production of
wealth with which we have to deal to-night. Now every
Socialist claims all this as common property. He declares
of raw material plus wrought material—that the claim to
make that common property differentiates the Socialist
from every non-Socialist school. He alleges that the
essential difference—which is what we want to get at hereto-night—the essential difference between Socialism and
Individualism is that the Socialist says that these materials
ought to be public property, whereas Individualism declares
that they ought to be private property; and between these
two logical and opposite schools you will find a number of
schools under different names which tend more or less in
one direction or in the other. Some only claim raw material
as common property, and would leave the wrought as
individual property. But I assert to you that everyone
who claims these, or part of these, as common property has
begun with Socialism, and is bound by logic to go on step
by step until the whole becomes public property. I allege
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
7
that land nationalisation is essentially a Socialistic plan;
and here again, instead of putting it on my own authority,
I fall back once more on M. de Laveleye, quoting from his
article on “The European Terror” in the Fortnightly
Review of April, 1883, I find him, without apparently the
smallest notion that anyone would challenge him, stating:
“ Collectivism may be conceived as more or less completely
applied, according as the State hold only the soil, and this
is the system which is being now so much discussed in
England, under the name of nationalisation of land, or as the
State hold all fixed capital, and in this latter case, all that
is reserved to individuals is the enjoyment of what they
can purchase with the immediate produce of their labor ”.
I take it then that this is the absolute differentia between
the Socialist and the non-Socialist, and it is with respect to
this raw and this wrought material that every Socialist is
a Communist. And I use that word deliberately, because
of the misconception with which it is often regarded in a
country like this. If we take the “ Manifesto of the Com
munists ” put forward by Karl Marx and his friend Fried
rich Engels in 1847, in which he proclaims himself to be a
Communist, and where according to the common view he
would destroy all property and take away all individual
claims, what are Karl Marx’s own words ? They are: “It
has been said of Communists that we wish to destroy
property which is the product of a man’s labor—earned by
his own work; that property which forms the basis of all
personal liberty, activity, and independence—personally
earned, personally acquired property”. But, he goes on
to point out that as capital is a collective product, “ Capi
tal is therefore not a personal factor; it is a social factor.
Therefore when capital is converted into common property
belonging to all members of society, personal property is
not thereby changed into social property.” And he adds :
“ Communism deprives no one of the power to appropriate
social products for his own use; it only deprives him of
the power to subject others’ labor by such appropriation”
(pp. 13, 14, 15, ed. 1886). (Cheers.) Whether or not
you agree with that definition of Marx’s, whether or not
you may carry Communism, as some writers do, very much
farther than Marx has carried it, and may use the word as
negating private property completely, still I submit that if
you are going to argue against Socialism, instead of cari
�8
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
caturing it, you must take the words you attack with the
limitations put upon them by the writers who used the
words, and must distinguish Marx’s Communism from that
of some others. And if you fail to do this, and merely use
it to rouse prejudices in the minds of the ordinary citizen
against the system, and thus mislead the understanding,
you may gain a temporary triumph on the platform, but
you do nothing towards bringing the argument to a satis
factory conclusion. (Cheers.) I pass from that, and the
next point I put for your consideration is this. It is im
possible to separate in practice raw material from wrought
material, so that you can nationalise the one and leave the
other as private property. I have sometimes thought that
the opposition between land and capital which has been so
much dwelt upon by a certain school is really nothing
more than a survival from the mercantile system, in which
capital was regarded merely as money, and the distinction
between land and money being apparently very clear these
two things were taken as fundamentally distinct. I believe
that the view taken of land and capital to-day is very much
colored in the minds of many by that old and discredited
mercantile theory. (Hear, hear.) If raw material is to
be land which “no man made”—which is, as we say,
given by Nature—where are you going to get that in an
old country ? How are you going to find out the so-called
prairie value which persons talk about so readily but under
stand so little? How, in a country like ours, are you
going to find out the economic rent, if you are going to
use the old Ricardian definition and call rent that portion
of the produce which is paid for the use of the original
and indestructible powers of the soil? Take a marsh.
That is raw material which is useless for agricultural
purposes, having, of course, no economic rent. But if
you drain the marsh, it is no longer raw material, for
Turman labor has changed the raw material into wrought
material for the use of man. And I am going to try
to show you presently that you cannot draw any dis
tinction economically between your marsh made into
fertile land by human labor, and your iron which was as
much raw material as the marsh, until by human labor it
was moulded into the machine for the sake of the greater
productive power it would not otherwise have possessed.
(Hear, hear.) What is it that the State is to have if you
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
9
are going to nationalise the land ? Is it to have the rent
of the undrained marsh ? That is nothing. Is it to have
some economic rent ? Then you must extend your Ricar
dian definition to include not only the original and inde
structible powers of the soil, but also the acquired powers
which the soil has gained by the labor of man. If you
only claim for the State the rent of your raw material,
then your whole scheme of land nationalisation becomes
absurd and hopelessly impracticable. (Hear, hear J But
if you are going to claim for the State rents which are
based upon the present differences of the value of the
land—of land which has been made fertile by generations
of laborers—land on which human power has been ex
pended and which in its present condition is the result of
the employment of human energy—then I submit to you
that you are nationalising the rent of wrought material
and not only the rent of raw. And when you have once
done that you have started from the Socialist basis and
you will find yourself unable to distinguish between the
wrought material of the land and the wrought material of
the machine. And now instead of taking this improved—
this wrought—material in the shape of land, I will take it
in the shape of a machine. A man invests money in a
machine and he demands that payment shall be made to
him for the use of that machine. Payment made for the
use of capital is generally termed interest, but I prefer to
term it rent. Using different words for the same thing
tends to confusion of thought, and I want to try to make
our views here to-night clear and not confused. What is
rent ? Payment made for differences of productive power.
What is interest paid for capital but payment made for
•differences of productive power ? It is essentially a form
of rent. There is no difference in principle between the
extended doctrine of the Ricardian rent which makes it
The part of the produce paid to the landlord for the original
plus the acquired powers of the soil—that is for advan
tages of productivity—and the interest which is paid to the
^capitalist also for advantages of productivity, only the ad
vantages are in the form of a machine which produces
more, instead of in the form of the more fertile land
which produces more than the less fertile. I submit
then that such payment—payment of rent for advantages
of fertility, payment of rent for advantages of productive
�10
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
power, that these payments are just and rational payments,
equalising to the laborer the results of his labor, because
by paying rent for an advantage you stand on the same
ground as your brother who does not share that particular
advantage, and the rent is merely the payment you make
for the advantage you have that he does not share, so that
both of you are practically on the same level, receiving for
equal amounts of labor equal results of your toil. (Hear,
hear.) Now, under the Individualistic system these rentsgo to the individual, and they keep up an idle class which
need never work at all, because other persons work for it.
Under Socialism these rents would go to the community,
and the only persons they would support would be the ser
vants of the community who were told off to perform dif
ferent non-productive functions for the benefit of those
whom they serve. (Cheers.) And that is our essential
difference—that is the point on which Mr. Foote must
meet me to-night. (Hear, hear.) I pass to my next point
—that all rent for the material of production should be
paid to the State. Private property in these being de
stroyed, common property, or—if you prefer the word—Communism takes its place. Thus we reach Collectivist
Socialism, the Socialism I am defending to-night. At this
point the question—a perfectly fair one—is asked very
often by our opponents : “ How far will private property
in anything survive the destruction of private property in
the materials for wealth production?”. Now on that
point the Collectivist is completely within his right if ho
says boldly and plainly that no other private property
need be destroyed at all save private property in these
materials for wealth production. Emile de Laveleye puts
fin's very strongly, and shows how Collectivism could
be worked leaving untouched private property in every
thing, saving in that which I have called raw and wrought
materials. There would be nothing against the Socialist
theory in such private property. But it is perhaps as well
to speak perfectly frankly and with absolute straight
forwardness on this point. And I, for one, confess that
realising the enormous change which the acceptance of the
principle of common property in the materials for wealth
production will inevitably work—a change not merely in
society as a whole, but a change which will touch
men’s minds and morals quite as much as it will touch
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
II
their views on economics—I admit freely and frankly that
it is perfectly possible that men who are educated in the
Collectivist system will after a while grudge the enormous
waste of labor which is implied in constantly dividing off'
to each man his exact share; and that private property
will survive just as far as convenience, as desire, as expe
rience keep it alive, and no farther. (Hear, hear.) That
is to say, that it is perfectly possible that—after being
trained in the Collectivist system—that, after realising
some better ideal than the mere scramble which is the con
dition of society at the present time, you will very largely
weaken the desire for what is called private property. That
exaggerated love of private property which has grown
into a disease, a morbid extreme, in many civilised
countries—what does it grow from ? It grows out of the
struggle for existence. It grows out of the fear that you
will not have enough, unless you are always grabbing as
much as you possibly can, to keep you in the time when
you are unable to work. Once let men feel that there is
enough foi' all; once let men feel that there is no neces
sity laid upon them to seize by strength from their brother
lest they, or those nearest to them, should suffer in the
strife; once let the idea spread that co-operation in.
brotherly fashion is a nobler ideal than that of cut-throat
competition, and I believe that you will enormously
weaken the sense of private property. (Cheers.) And,
after all, would it be so much the worse for society if such
a weakening took place ? Is our highest ideal to be that
of a number of pigs at a trough, struggling with each
other, pushing each other aside, for fear the trough should
be too small for every pig’s dinner, and that unless the
strong can push aside the weaker he himself may gohungry ? I cannot help thinking that it is not a very im
possible ideal of society that, instead of that strugglinground the pig-trough, you may rather have human beings
sitting around a board where there is enough for all;
where every man knows that he will have his share;
where he is willing to await his turn, ready to pass what
is wanted by his neighbor; and where the appetite of thediner, rather than the weighing-machine, shall measurethe ration that is given to him. (Great cheering.)
The Chairman: I will now call upon Mr. Foote to
answer.
�12
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
Mr. Gr. W. Foote : One thing to-night gives me exceeding
pleasure, and that is, for the first time in my life, to meet
■a, lady in debate. It shows that whether we are driving
towards Socialism or not, even our individualistic state of
society, rotten as it is said to be, is somehow consistent
with a growing recognition of the natural rights of a sex
which has through history been down-trodden. (Cheers.)
'Therefore I think that, on the whole, the system, in that
very fact, shows that it is not incompatible with progress.
Mrs. Besant is here to-night to advocate another system,
that of Socialism, which she undertakes to show to us is
sound. And to-night she has given us what she calls the
economical basis of Socialism. But I frankly confess,
without in the least intending to be ironical, that I have
heard of nothing in this economical basis which is not a
part of the economical basis of every other system. I
have listened and I have heard nothing—I use the words
without meaning anything invidious—but commonplaces
•of political economy, most of which I am prepared to
admit, although I do not admit with Mrs. Besant the
policy of calling things which, according to present usage,
pass under one name, by some other name in order to suit
an argument or a purpose. It may be convenient to Mrs.
Besant, but it seems to me inconvenient to other people.
Now, bas Mrs. Besant told us what the system of Socialism
she thinks to be sound really is ? (“ Yes ”.) Well, every
one is entitled to his opinion. I think not. Mrs. Besant
has given us one definition of Socialism, which I admit is
perfectly intelligible, and which I am glad to receive ; but
it appears to me that a system like Socialism which claims
to supplant the present system altogether, root and branch
•—which proposes to deal with millions of people and
thousands of millions of capital and land upon an entirely
new foundation—ought to give something more in the
way of explanation than a bald definition covering not
more than two lines of print. Mrs. Besant says that her
system of Socialism is not a Utopian scheme. I have not
the slightest doubt that she thinks so; but I certainly
differ from her. Whenever mankind is fitted for any
particular social system, it will inevitably live in the
midst of that social system. Outward institutions are
merely the expressions of inward thoughts and feelings.
It is quite true that the environment in which a man
�IS SOCIALISE! SOUND ?
1&
lives largely moulds his character; but it is also truethat man’s internal nature acting with and against his
environment — in accordance with the well-known laws
of Biology and civilisation, with which Mrs. Besant is
acquainted—produces that progress which. is recorded on
the pages of universal history. And Individualism has
been the very essence of that progress. Competition algo’
has been the essence of that progress. It is not such an
alarming thing as Mrs. Besant dreams. She has quoted
from Emile de Laveleye—who is not a Socialist, but who,
in my opinion, dreads it too much, because I believe it is
a great deal farther off than he imagines. She quotes from
him to the effect that Socialism will put an end—or. at
least proposes to put an end—to this system of competition
by means of which some are pressed down and others are
elevated. Gronlund—whose book on Socialism is justly
one of the favorites of Socialists, and in some sense
may be called their New Testament, as Karl Marx’s
book may be called their Old Testament — Gronlund,
seeing that competition is essentially indestructible, seeks
to restore it under the new name of emulation. We are
not to compete with each other, but we are to emulate each
other. (Cheers.) In what is the radical distinction ? It
is simply the difference between the concrete object of
desire and the abstract object of desire. If I compete
with my fellows it is for success in business, say.; but if I
emulate, for what is it ? Eor success in procuring public
opinion on my side ; an opinion which we all value more
or less, which some persons value above all things, and
which the foremost in the race of emulation must get, and
all the others to some extent greater or less, exactly as in the
competition for material objects, must lose. (Hear, hear.)
Mrs. Besant was candid enough—and I think it is greatly
to her honor—to admit towards the conclusion of her
speech that it was highly probable that a Collective state of
society would somehow or other result in Communism. I
was glad to hear that, because it saves me a great deal of
trouble. I should otherwise have had to show from the
works of Mr. Bax, Mr. Morris, and others distinguished
in present-day Socialism, what the system would ulti
mately lead to. Now, if you admit that it will ultimately
lead to something, you are bound to consider whether
what it leads to will be agreeable, and for the advance-
�14
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
Dient of man’s moral or intellectual character. Mrs,
Besant thinks Communism would ultimately be a good
thing. But I fancy I have seen somewhere in her
writings—and, if not, she will correct me—that a system
of Communism would mean that the unfit would live at
the expense of the fit. I admit, with Mrs. Besant,
that there are many hard things in Nature. But I did not
make Nature. No Individualist made it, any more than any
Socialist. If I were at the top of a fifty-foot ladder, it would
Be extremely absurd for me to declaim against the laws of
gravitation and then descend in a somersault. (Laughter.)
I should admit that the law of gravitation was a very hard
fact, and come down rung by rung. And so I see in
human nature that the Darwinian law of the struggle for
life in some form or another cannot be abolished. It is
the wisdom of men and women to recognise the fact as
unalterable, as a thing which cannot be changed “by all
the blended powers of earth and heaven ”.
Mrs. Besant says Socialism is intended as a redress for
poverty. What does she mean ? Does she mean that
poverty can, by the adoption of a certain system, be imme
diately changed or removed ? Certainly, if you passed a
law to-morrow that everybody should be entitled to go to
a national workshop and there get what is called productive
work, you would, for a time, be able to feed everybody; but
unless you took into account, unless you carefully con
sidered, unless you carefully provided for, something which
Mrs. Besant has not mentioned to-night, but something
she has been very eloquent about on other occasions,
viz., the law of population, which I think she will
admit with me is inevitable and is a natural fact which
cannot be blinked, then in the course of time you would
not be able to find employment, and this system would
bring on in an exaggerated form the very same poverty
which you wish to remove. (“ Oh!”, and cries of cfissent.)
Mrs. Besant speaks of people being like pigs round a big
trough, some of whom cannot even get their feet in.
(Laughter.) Well, that is the attitude in which pigs
always eat. Now, supposing there be only enough food
for ninety-nine pigs out of a hundred—I merely suppose
it hypothetically—which is preferable in the long run, that
the weak, unfit pig should perish and leave no offspring,
or that a strong one should suffer that fate ? I put the
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
15
case as one of hard fact, whether we like it or not. If
people to-day were content to come under some sensible
adjustment with regard to the population question, neither
Socialism nor Communism would in this economical respect
—although it might in other respects which I shall speak
of next Wednesday night—be fraught with much evil.
.But if a man who is unfit—Mrs. Besant used the word—
and a man who is fit were put on exactly the same level,
and if society insured them the same amount of subsist
ence, what would be the result ? The problem affects
posterity as well as yourselves. We are stewards for
posterity. (Cheers.) We know that the law of heredity
is a scientific truth which cannot be gainsaid. We know
that the unfit, will transmit their characteristic quali
ties of unfitness to their offspring. It is better for the
race that the unfit should not so transmit these qualities,
and if Mrs. Besant removes the law of natural selection,
which provides for the gradual improvement of the race,
.she is bound to provide in her new scheme something
which is adequate to replace it. Why, as a matter of fact,
under the present law—which in some respects is too
Socialistic—boys of fourteen and girls of twelve years of
age can go and get married. Mrs. Besant thinks perhaps
they do not. Mr. Arnold White, who knows as much
about London poverty as any man, gives an analysis of a
hundred and seventy-six cases which were investigated in
Clerkenwell. In eleven cases the wife was fourteen years
■old. In two cases the husband, and in twelve the wife,
were fifteen. In twelve cases the husband, in forty-six the
wife, and in three cases both, were sixteen. Twenty-seven
husbands and forty-eight wives were seventeen when they
began housekeeping, and in thirteen cases both of the
happy pair boasted of that age. Let me give another
statistical fact. In 1884—not so very long ago—14,818 men
married under age in England, and 74,004 married at the
age of twenty-one. And the practice of marriage by men
under age has increased since 1841 from 4’38 per 100 to
7’25 in 1884. Now, is it any wonder if this causes a
frightful deterioration ? If boys and girls rush into mar
riage at a time when they are utterly unfit economically to
support their offspring ; and if those who marry at a later
age are—as Mrs. Besant knows full well—grossly impru
dent in the number of their offspring, is it any wonder
�16
IS SOCIALISM SOUXD ?
that the trough should be over-swarmed ? And is it any
wonder that some should be turned away through the
operation of a natural law which can no more be defeated
than the Alps can be removed. (Cheers.)
Mrs. Besant says that she would not only nationalise land,
but also wrought material. And then she subsequently told
us there was no distinction in a country like ours between
land and wrought material. Is it a fact that the nationali
sation of the land is Socialistic ? Does it in any way
involve that wide regulation of human affairs which the
confiscation and seizure of all capital would entail ? It
does not. Suppose the land were nationalised to-morrow,
rent would necessarily be paid still. Rent cannot be
abolished. It is the difference between rich and poor land
and good and bad convenience of site. No man could
claim a plot of rich land for the same value as another man
paid for a similar plot of poor land. That rent would
have to be paid; but instead of going into the pocket of
a few private individuals who did not assist or co-operate
in making the land, this rent would go into the national
exchequer, and every man would as a citizen become a
part owner of the land which is the gift of Nature to all,
(Cheers.) It is a curious fact that before the present
phase of English Socialism was heard of, and long before
its chief advocates appeared in the field, the nationalisation
of the land was advocated by Mr. Herbert Spencer, the
protagonist of Individualism. In his “ Social Statics”,
published so far back, I think, as 1850, he argued that
the equal right of all to access to nature, and to the
exercise of their faculties in the gratification of their
wants, logically led to the State-ownership of the soil.
“ Equity,” he wrote, “ does not permit property in land.
Eor if one portion of the earth’s surface may justly become
the possession of an individual, and may be held by him
for his sole use and benefit as a thing to which he has an
exclusive right, then other portions of the earth’s surface
may be so held, and eventually the whole of the earth’s
surface may be so held; and our planet may thus lapse
altogether into private hands”. He further argued that
the doctrine of collective ownership of land may be car
ried out “without involving a community of goods”, or
causing “ any serious revolution in existing arrange
ments ”, and he concludes the chapter by saying, “ that
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
17
the theory of the co-heirship of all men to the soil is con
sistent with the highest civilisation; and that, however
difficult it may he to embody the theory in fact, equity
sternly commands it to be done ”. Surely, then, if the
greatest living opponent of State Socialism writes in this
way, it is idle to assert that the nationalisation of the land
is a Socialistic measure. (Cheers.) Sir Henry Maine tells
us that the idea of land being a chattel in the market is
very recent. It is probably not more than two centuries
old. People will probably recur to the collective owner
ship of the soil, which will stand in a different position to
capital. Mrs. Besant says that capital is a social product.
The watch in my pocket is a social product. Mrs. Besant’s
dress is a social product. Everything conceivable is a
social product under a system like ours where the division
of labor obtains. Well, if no social product could come
under private ownership, Mrs. Besant is landed in sheer
Communism—not in the far future—but to-night, accord
ing to the principles which she lays down. What is a
social product ? I want to eliminate the personal element
from the illustration as far as possible. One man with
capital might engage fifty men without capital to work
upon certain raw material, which his capital has provided.
What do they work for ? They produce a manufactured
article, but the essence of the contract on the workman’s
part was not any specific amount of produce, but a cer
tain proportion of his time given for a certain monetary
consideration. At the end of it the workman gets his
stipulated sum, and the capitalist holds the product.
But suppose the product turns out to be a drug in the
market—suppose the product has to be sold without a
profit. The workman will not lose. It was not part
of his contract that he should bear any risk or re
sponsibility. In other words, his fate was not bound up
with the product. He contracted to do certain work at
a certain price, and was paid for it. The product rightly
remained with the person who undertook the responsibility
and risk. Now, if the workman is prepared to undertake
the responsibility and risk, he also can become, in the
fullest sense of the word, a capitalist as well as his employer.
(Cheers and “No”'.) I believe in co-operation as much
as Mrs. Besant. Civilisation is co-operation. We could
not have been in this hall to-night unless we had co-
�'is
is SOCIALISM SOUND ?
operated to produce common results. Division of labor
means co-operation. But Mrs. Besant’s co-operation is
co-operation by law. My co-operation is voluntary co
operation. I distrust law. Mrs. Besant seems to place
implicit reHance on it. She thinks probably in the future,
if the law is made by the many, it will be absolutely just
and wise. I do not think so. The many can be mistaken
as well as the few. The many can go wild for a time as
well as the few. I say that no man ought to be handed
over bound hand and foot to that maj'ority which calls
itself society, but which can never be more than a majority,
large or small. The majority has no right to do every
thing and anything. It has no just power to rule the
minority arbitrarily, leaving them with no power to settle
their fate for themselves. (Cheers.) Mr. John Stuart
Mill thought—and everybody who agrees with Mrs. Besant
must honor him—that the individualistic system would
survive and gradually develop into voluntary co-operation.
Now, supposing Mrs. Besant’s system were established,
one of two things must happen. Either she would have to
seize the whole of the present capital, or she would have
to pay for it. (A voice : “ Seize it! ”.) I should like to
know how this is to be done. Suppose the property of the
country were obtained by either of these means, what
would the Collectivists gain in either case ? They would,
possibly, have the capital. But capital is a very tender
plant, reared with difficulty, and easily killed. It is not,
like the land, indestructible. It has to be continually
renewed. What is at present the value of capital ? Mrs.
Besant speaks as if all the profits of manufacturing
and commercial enterprises were really a return on
capital. That is a fallacy. Capital is worth what it
will fetch in the open market in good security—no more
and no less. The railway companies in England are
getting on the average four per cent. First-rate security
will give you, I think, about three per cent., and that
security is considered practically firm. Now if, in addition
to the capital, a capitalist has to provide himself the
trained capacity, the result consists of three things. First,
the interest on the capital which would be paid by any
other man -who used it; secondly, insurance against risk;
and, thirdly, the cost of direction which, if he did not direct
the concern himself, he would necessarily incur in the
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
19
payment of other persons who did. Under yonr Socialist
system, this cost of direction would still remain. If you
■elect directors, how would you pay them? If you paid
them at the same rate as a day laborer, the probability
is they would do just about as much labor, and just as
valuable labor, as that of day laborers.
(Cries of
dissent.) I say that, of course, without any disrespect
to day laborers. But a man who cannot draw a distinction
between laying bricks and writing “Hamlet”, for instance,
has something yet to learn. (Hear, hear, and applause.)
Now, this direction would have to be paid for; men with
directing capacity would make you pay their price. You
could not help it. Generalship is indispensable. Caesar’s
legions locked up in Gaul were worth nothing until Caesar
came. And so it is with any great commercial enterprise.
Unless you have the directing capacity, the ordinary run
of workers could not possibly work with a profit. You
may see two mills standing side by side in a town like
Oldham. The one will be bankrupt in two years ; and the
other, in the same period, will be paying ten per cent.
What is the cause of the difference ? One is in the hands
of a skilled management, carefully watching the markets and
generally exhibiting sagacity in the conduct of the business;
the other is deficient in this controlling wisdom. If you were
a capitalist, and did not head the enterprise yourself,
choosing the managers and watching personally over every
thing, all you would be entitled to, and all you would obtain,
would be three or four per cent, at the outside which is
the market interest on capital. Then, is this big revolution
worth working for three per cent. ? (Cries of “No, no”,
and “ Yes ”.) I think not.
As a redress for poverty, Socialism would, in my opinion,
wholly fail. All the Socialists, I believe, with one or two
trifling exceptions, consider that the Malthusian theory of
population is a delusion and a snare, a middle-class or upperclass invention. (Hear.) Well, Charles Darwin — the
greatest naturalist of our age—did not think so. One of his
greatest successors, Professor Huxley, does not think so.
And, what is more to the purpose to-night, Mrs. Besant does
not think so. You could not, as human nature is, provide
restraints. H so, I should like it proved. I deny the possi
bility of it. But Individualism is gradually lessening the
pressure of poverty. (“ OhI oh! ”) Nothing is so easy as to
�20
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
confine attention to what has occurred within a few months,
rather than to extend observation over a number of years.
Speak to an old man in any great manufacturing centreand ask him the difference between fifty years ago and
now. Nay, do not go to any old man; go to absolute
statistics which cannot be refuted. I shall show you if Mrs.
Besant questions it, because I have the figures under my
hand, that during the last fifty years the wages of skilled
artisans have nearly doubled; I shall show you that the
wages of unskilled laborers have increased nearly forty or
fifty pei’ cent. I shall show you that the prices of nearly
all commodities have diminished instead of rising. (Cheers,
and “No, no”.) I shall show you that the only twothings that have risen are the prices of meat and rent.
Now, if the profits of the capitalist have increased, they
have increased in the mass, and not in proportion. (A
laugh.) It is very easy to laugh at statistics and BlueBooks. But, if you look at the last Blue Book, with
respect to the Royal Commission on Trade—(laughter)—I
suppose, then, that we are to take not only Socialist argu
ments but Socialist facts—you will find that during the last
fifty years, in the various changes that have taken place,
the condition of the worker has improved, and pauperism
has diminished. When you hear of men being out of
work, it is only a small proportion of them who are out of
work. And as I understand the state of things, I contend
that it is the Individualistic system which is working
such improvements. The fate of the workers lies in their
own hands. (Cheers.) Why wait until you convince
everybody that the millennium is at hand ? Why not begin
with co-operative experiments to-morrow, and gradually
bring society to the truth by experiments which will con
vince, and cease indulging in extravagant schemes and
excited declamation which will do no good whatever?
(Loud applause.)
Annie Besant : Friends, I must ask Socialists who are
present to be good enough for my sake even more than
for their own not to interrupt in the way some are inclined
to do. Your flag to-night is in my hands, and I cannot
keep it unsoiled if you interrupt my opponent. (Hear,
hear.) Mr. Foote has said, and said truly, that Individu
alism has not been incompatible with progress. That istrue; it is a historical fact; and it would be idle to deny
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
21
that in evolving from the more savage and. brutal forms of
society the Individualism through which we have passed, is
tk necessary stage. But I hope to be able to show you
later on that real Individualism that makes for progress
can only be secured by the Socialist. That I am prepared,
to defend this day fortnight. (Cheers.) Then Mr. Foote
said that I was dealing only with the commonplaces of
political economy, and that he had but little trouble in
admitting most of them. But surely he was acute enough
to see that my claim for the whole of the raw and wrought
material included the claim for the whole of the capital of
this country ? So that while at the beginning of his speech
he said that my claim was a mere commonplace, at the
end of his speech he urged you not to take the step I am
striving to induce you to take. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Foote
complains that my definition was not full enough. It
included the whole of the land and all the capital; and
that ought to be full enough. (Laughter, and hear, hear.)
In dealing with the economic basis, and seeing that I care
fully confined myself to the economic aspect of Socialism,
I fail to see what further definition Mr. Foote can require.
He made another statement, however, with which I agree,
when he said that when mankind was fitted for a system
then it is that they will live in that system. That is
exactly why I believe that Socialism is now approaching.
I learn from Emile de Laveleye that the majority of French
workmen in every town are Socialists; that the professors
of nearly every university in Germany and Italy are up
holding Socialism. Even in this country the conception as
to property hitherto held will have to be completely given
up, according to Professor Graham: and I believe Social
ism to be absolutely inevitable, although I try to hasten
its coming by pointing out the advantages that will accrue
from the acceptance of it. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Foote says,
is competition so evil a thing ? And I do not propose to
waste time over the difference between competition and
emulation. Competition is an evil thing under present
■conditions. (Hear, hear.) Competition under Socialism
might possibly not have many evil results. And I will tell
you why. So long as you have your raw and wrought
materials in the hands of a class, then that class can practi
cally fix the remuneration of labor. (Hear, hear.) Upon
that, too, I will not be content with my owa opinion, but
�22
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
will take the authority of Emile de Laveleye, who pointsout that “in every contract he who advances the where
withal to labor, i.e., land and capital, will fix the terms
he chooses; and will, of course, so fix them that
the profits will be at a maximum and the wages at a
minimum”. (Cheers.) Take, too, the declaration of
Cairnes—that there is no possibility of the laboring class,
as a whole, rising out of the position of suffering and
distress in which it is to-day, so long as it continues to be
composed of wage-laborers. When you have your com
petition hampered by absolute proprietorship in the whole
of the materials of wealth production on the one side, and
on the other a proletariat without property—a proletariat
who must get at the land and capital or starve—then your
pretence of free competition is a fraud and a hypocrisy,
for one of the competitors has a clog around his neck
which makes it impossible for him to swim against the
other. (Cheers.) And that is not all. So long as you
have these proprietors and the proletariat, the proletarians
will have to work for the proprietors as well as for them
selves. And the difficulty is that the proprietors can wait,
and the proletarians cannot. The proprietor has got hisland. He can cultivate it himself if the worst comes to
the worst. He has got his capital. He can utilise that if
the worst comes to the worst. And land and capital give
him credit, and that will keep him well-clothed and wellfed for years and years. But the proletarian cannot wait,
for he wants food and can only get it by taking the wages
offered to him. He starves if he waits. And to say that
these parties are equal, and are able to make a fair con
tract, is to fly in the face of every fact of our present
society. (Cheers.) That brings me-—following Mr. Eoote
step by step—to the statement that he remembers a pas
sage of mine in which I stated that Communism would
mean the living of the idle on the industrious. I presumehe was quoting from my pamphlet on “ Modern
Socialism,” in which I stated what I stated to you to
night—that it was likely that society would evolve into
Communism. But I added—and this Mr. Foote omitted
to mention—“ that stage of development man has not yet
attained ; and for man as he is, Communism would mean
the living of the idle on the toil of the laborious”. (Hear,
hear.) I hold that immediate complete Communism is.
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
23:
utterly impracticable, but that through Collectivism you
may come to Communism. Mr. Foote says the struggle
for" existence is necessary; the fact of the struggle for
existence must be recognised. That both Darwin and
Huxley realise it is true; but it was because Darwin
realised it that he was against those checks to undue in
crease of the population which I propose. He says, if you
limit the number of competitors and soften the struggle
for existence, progress will be arrested. He would leave
the old brute struggle to go on among men, trusting that
thus, despite the suffering, improvement will result. Is
Mr. Foote prepared to take up that position, and to deny
everything we have striven to do to lessen and regulate
this strife by substituting rational for natural selection ?
(Hear, hear.) But Mr. Foote also says—and here I agree
with him—that if the law of population is not recognised
poverty will once more result. Mr. Foote is right. Many
of my fellow Socialists—not thinking as carefully and
thoughtfully as they should — ignore or deny that
indisputable truth. But I allege that when you
have Socialism, the fact that unless you regulate the
relative numbers of producers and consumers you
will overburden your producers, will be a fact so
patent and obvious that the blindest will be compelled to
see it. (Hear, hear.) Well, but says Mr. Foote, suppose
there is enough for every ninety-nine out of a hundred, is
it not better for the unfit to perish and not transmit their
unfitness to their offspring ? But do you kill out the unfit
in the present condition of society ? Is it the unfit who go
to the wall in the social struggle for existence ? Why, it
is your idlers who five; your idle aristocrats who cannot
earn their own living ; the lazy women who cannot sweep
a room or clean a saucepan. (Hear, hear.) These are the
men and women who live under your present social system,
and it is the fit who are crushed out—those who could work
and who long to work; those who are industrious and
pray for work; those you kill off by your competition, and
your idle vagabonds it is who live. (Hear, hear.) Then
Mr. Foote says the poor marry very young. I know that.
And why ? Because they are crowded together in small
rooms where no separation of the sexes is possible, and
where in consequence the sexual instinct is awakened at
an age when it should still be sleeping; because in their
�24
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
miserable life their poverty makes them old when they
ought to be young, and the longings of manhood and of
womanhood are roused in them when they should be still
almost in their childhood. (Hear, hear.) There is no
blame to them. Forced in this impure hothouse of
poverty; with no pleasure save that of the sexual relation;
with no relief for their feelings save in sexual intercourse;
shut out from art, from beauty, from education, and
from everything that might make life fair to them as to
others, they cling to this one joy of their manhood and
their womanhood as all of happiness that is open to them.
(Cheers.) But Mr. Foote says—Why not go in for land
nationalisation? it is more simple. Mr. Foote did not
think it worth while to deal with the difficulty of national
ising the rent of land. He ignored the fact that in
nationalising the rent of land—which is capital as well as
land, a point he had apparently forgotten—he has the
whole of the Socialist difficulty to face. (Hear, hear.) I
will take Sidgwick on this head. He points out that
capital and land cannot be separated; that land is capital,
and is largely the result of accumulated labor. Take, for
instance, a railway. Is the railway running through a
county land or capital ? Does not the land over which it
runs represent part of the capital of the railway company ?
And Mr. Foote, in an eloquent passage, said that those—
the idle class—who took the rent of the land did not make
the land ; that they did not even co-operate in making the
land. I can find no better words than his to describe the
class that lives on the capital made by the labor of others ;
“They did not make the capital; they did not even co
operate in making it
They have taken it unfairly, by
force and fraud, that is, by theft, and we want to take it
back from them. (Cheers.) But Mr. Foote says that all
who work to make the capital work with their eyes open,
and that they have no right to quarrel with the result. Is
that true ? Surely not. Even with their eyes open men
prefer a poor wage to absolute starvation. But it is not a
case of freedom of contract. They are forced into the
contract by the absolute pressure of their bodily necessities.
(Hear, hear.) It is not a case of willingly accepting a
contract which you have power to refuse. You are driven
into it with the whip of starvation, and you must take
it or starve. (Cheers.)
�IS SOCIALISM SOUXI) ?
25
Mr. Foote : To-night Mrs. Besant naturally circumscribes
-the limits of the debate : I follow her and must do so..
Next Wednesday night I trust to alter to some extent the
character of the debate. I shall then go a little further
into the Socialistic scheme, and see how it would work in
practice—or rather how it would be likely to work in
practice. (Hear, hear.) For the present I confine myself
to the duty of following Mrs. Besant. She admits that
Individualism is not incompatible with progress. I cannot
say that the admission was wrung from her, because it is
one that no student of history could possibly refuse to
make. But the fact that the progress the world has made
during the last three centuries—the great era of progress
—has been achieved under the system of Individualism
ought to make innovators pause before they propose to
substitute something for it, unless they can clearly show—
not in mere words but almost in the visualisation of imagi
nation—that what they propose to put in its place will be
far better than what they wish to remove. (Cheers.)
Under the present system we do somehow hold on ; we do
not go from bad to worse; we keep making some little
improvement year by year and generation by generation.
(Hear, hear.) If you cannot cultivate, under purely
arbitrary conditions of your own making, a special variety
■of a plant in a short time, how are you going to cultivate,
under what cannot be purely arbitrary conditions, a special
new variety of human nature in a short time ? Mrs.
Besant says present human nature is not fit for her whole
scheme. Her whole argument is founded on prophecy.
Some day or other human nature will be fit for it I I
think that, some day the forces which have elevated man
in the past will bring him to higher things. I know
Individualism is not incompatible with social elevation.
It is an essential requisite for a man to assist anyone else
that he shall be strong and self-helpful himself. You
cannot have a really strong society when everybody is
a leaning-post to everybody else. (Hear, hear.) In
.some parts of the world where they five under a system
which is very much nearer Socialism than ours, they look
upon the suffering and peril of their fellow creatures almost
with amusement. But in a country like ours where In
dividualism so predominates, our instincts are such that
brave fellows will leap into the water, and brave firemen
�26
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
will run up the fire-ladder, and men will go out in the
lifeboats to sinking crews, and women will send their
dearest to save the fives of others. (Hear, hear.) These
things are done under Individualism—it is not incompa
tible with the highest development of human nature.
Mrs. Besant says I cannot separate land from wrought
material. Now land is not wrought material in the ordinary
sense of the word—that it can be carried about. Whatever
improvements you make in the soil you cultivate, by
digging, manuring, and planting, you cannot carry them
away with you. They remain on and in the land. And that
is one of the reasons why the law interferes, and gives the
tenant compensation for whatever improvements he has
made when his lease is terminated by the landlord’s action.
Now, if the land were nationalised, is it true that we could
not possibly separate the value of the land, for the pur
poses of statemanship, from the value of other things ? A
railway runs over a certain amount of land. Supposing
we wanted that bit of railway. The company is not in the
true sense of the word “ a bloated capitalist ”. (Laughter.)
Thousands on thousands of persons have small sums of
money invested in it as shareholders. Heaps of money
are invested in railway security by life assurance societies.
If you were to take it you would make these bankrupt,
and ruin the expectations of almost everybody who assured
their lives for the benefit of their wives and children.
These things are talked about without the consequences of
what is proposed being seen. A laugh is cheap and a
sneer is easy. But when you find yourselves face to face
with the consequences you never foresee, you might feel a
little less jubilant. (Cheers.) If the land w§re bought
under Act of Parliament, and a price given for it, any
State that took possession of it would be bound to
compensate for it, otherwise it would injure thousands
who have invested their money in it. Socialists may
claim their right to take it without compensation. I
for one deny their right to do it. (Hear, hear.) Mrs.
Besant may differ from me. Well, in that case we must
both appeal to such feelings of fair play , as men may
possess. (Cheers.) It would not be very difficult to take
over a railway. My opinion is that it is confusion to sup
pose that because the State can do one thing well it can do
everything well. You might as well say that because a
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
27
man can build a house well he could paint a picture well.
(Hear, hear.) There is no natural reason for believing it.
A municipality can supply us very well with water and
also with gas. But what municipality could supply. uswith anything except what had been simplified for it
through long experience and experiment under individual
istic enterprise ? If any one tried to get municipalities to
take up the electric fight he would be laughed at. In
dividualism has to work it up, and risk the money, and
by and by when it has succeeded society will step in and
reap the advantage of it. (Hear, hear.) There are certain
things that must be monopolies. Mrs. Besant may say
that capital is a monopoly too. But what I want to point
out is, that although for the moment the amount of
capital existing is determined, the amount of capital that
may exist is indeterminate. The amount of land that
exists in England is determined; but land is also deter
minate—it cannot be more to-morrow than it is to-day.
But capital can. (Hear, hear). While the land is now
practically the same as in the time of William the Con
queror, capital is probably a thousand times as much as it
was then. I hold that what is a natural monopoly the
State should undertake, and the State has never relinquished
that right. There is no such thing in English law as
private ownership of land; there is no such thing in Eng
lish law as an absolute private right to work a public
monopoly. A railway has only a right given to it by Act
of Parliament. A water company has only the right given
to it by Act of Parliament. It is simply a question of
prudence whether it is better to give a public com
pany a right of working a monopoly under Parliament,
within legal conditions, or for a municipality or State to
take the direct management of it itself. But the prin
ciple of it is the same whether the company work understatutory limitations, or whether the State provide the
directors. (Hear, hear.) The State is the ultimatesovereign of all monopolies. I hold, as an Individualist,
that they should be regulated by the State, and that they
should be actively conducted by the State.
Now let us try to separate our land from the wrought
material. What would be the actual problem ? Here is some
land the State proposes to take. All the State has to do is to*
lay down what it considers just principles of compensation,
�■28
IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
which, of course, it is impossible to argue out in detail at
present. Besides, Mrs. Besant is a land nationaliser as
well as I. The State would have to lay down broad
principles of fair compensation. And commissioners would
have to apply them in particular cases, just as commissioners
did when they fixed the judicial rents in Ireland, or as the
Land Court does when it adjudicates on the question of a
tenant’s unexhausted improvements. There would be no
difficulty in it at all. I cannot understand how Mrs.
Besant can so dwell upon a difficulty which is, after all,
mainly of her own creation. (Hear, hear.)
Why is the land different from capital ? Mrs. Besant says
capital is a social product. Admitted. She says that land
and capital are both used for production. Yes. But there is
this difference. Land is naturally a monopoly. Land was
not created at all. Nobody co-operated in the making
of it. But people did co-operate in the making of capital.
The difference between capital and land is, that in the
one you have a vast mass of value created by the volun
tary cooperation of employers and workmen under all
varieties of association, while in the other you have an
uncreated and indestructible gift of Nature to all her
children. You have the right to take for all the prime
gift of Nature. But I cannot see your right to take
for all what has been created by separate bodies of men
after giving such consideration for the raw material as
the law of the land declared at the time to be just.
(Cheers.)
Mrs. Besant says that under the present system
■ capital fixes the terms upon which labor shall workI
Bid she never hear of trades’ unions ? Mr. Thornton’s
fine book, “On Labor”, showed how it was that trades’
unions were able, in spite of the mistaken notions on
the subj ect of most political economists, to affect the price
of labor. Mrs. Besant says the capitalist fixes wages!
Is there no such thing as supply and demand? Mrs.
Besant must know that it is one of the commonplaces
of political economy, as you will find in Mill, that under a
highly-developed economical system like ours, with im
mense accumulation of capital and increasing skill in labor,
wages tend to rise and profits to fall to a minimum. That
is a commonplace of political economy. And the proof of
lies in the fact that the profits are falling. Statistics
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
29'
show it. And wages have risen a hundred per cent.—in
some cases more and in others less—during the last fifty
years. Further, the return on capital, which, as I said,
is simply interest—the market rate for the use of capital—
gradually gets less and less. You cannot now get for
invested capital, unless you conduct the enterprise your
self, what was obtained ten years ago. Interest now is so
low that bankers have been declining to give interest at
all, and depositors have often been glad for the bankers to
take charge of the money for them without any percentage.
(Laughter.)
Mrs. Besant says that the proletariat cannot rise—that
it is the unfit, the idle, who five. Not all of them, I hope.
It is rather too sweeping a condemnation. I am in favor,
as a Radical, as much as Mrs. Besant can be, of abolishing
all privileges created by law. (Cheers.) And what is more
I have always been in favor, in all public reforms, of
adopting the wise German proverb of sweeping the stairsfrom the top downwards. But it is not true that it is
simply the unfit who survive and the fit who are killed
out. What is the fact ? According to the income tax
table, schedule D, incomes from £200 to £1,000 have in
creased in number, from 1874 to 1885, from 162,435 to
215,790; incomes from £1,000 to £2,000 from 11,944 to
13,403 ; and so on right up the scale. But you find a
decrease when you come to incomes from £5,000 to £10,000.
These have diminished from 2,035 to 1,928. (Hear, hear.)
And the incomes above £10,000 a year have diminished
from 1,283 to 1,220. So that there is a great increase of'
incomes from £100 upwards to £5,000, and a decrease atthe wealthier end of the scale. The wages of the workman
have also increased. (“No, no.”) I say yes. If Mrs.
Besant denies it I will prove it, but not otherwise. I say
then that under the circumstances it is not the fit who are
killed out and the unfit who survive. The fact is the mass
of the people are better off. The workers are in an improved condition. The income tax returns show an increase
of small incomes and a decrease of big ones. That is in
consistent with Mrs. Besant’s position. It is corroborative
of mine. (Cheers.)
Annie Besant : Mr. Foote alleged—I am going back to
the speech made before the last, when he was dealing with,
the conditions under which men accepted labor for which.
�30
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
they took wage—that if the product was a failure the loss
fell on the capitalist, and not on the worker. If Mr. Foote
will think that question out he will find that if a product
•is a failure—that is, if the capitalist cannot sell that which
has been produced and a glut is caused—that while the
capitalist may lose his profit the workman loses his live
lihood, which is a much more important thing. And it is
looking excessively superficially at the subject to say, that
because a man receives a certain amount of wage he runs
no risk from the failure of the market. (Hear, hear.) Mr.
Foote went on to urge that capital is easily killed, and that
it is a very tender plant. That is a favorite phrase of the
capitalist. But capital is not a tender plant. Look at the
way France was treated at the Franco-German War, and
see how soon she replaced the wealth of which she was
then robbed. The making of capital lies in the productive
power of the nation, and you cannot frighten away capital
in the fashion some persons imagine. You have it left
behind you after your big capitalists are frightened, and
the sooner they are frightened off the spoil the more chance
there is for the worker who really creates the capital. Then
we are told that the capitalist’s profits must cover insur-'
ance against risk, interest on capital, and the cost of pro
duction ; and Mr. Foote might have added the rent. It is
true that they cover these things, but when Mr. Foote
goes on to urge the enormous value of generalship and of
business ability, and to declare that the man, who cannot
distinguish between the value of the labor of laying, bricks
and that of writing Hamlet, is apparently not worthy of
having an opinion on a scientific problem, one cannot
help asking two questions. Are not the wages of
superintendence enormously higher than they ought
to be, judged by comparison with the value added
to the product by the business manager? And is it
not possible that, valuable as Hamlet is, the laying of
bricks is even more necessary to the community; and if
society wants to be served both by the bricklayer and
the poet, it must be content to take from each that
which his natural capabilities enable him to give ; and not
to give enormous extra advantages to the man who, being
an artist, has joy in his work as part of his payment, but
whose work is not more necessary to the community than
is that of the humbler members who do the actual manual
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
31
labor on which our lives depend. (Cheers.) Mr. Foote
argues that the wages of skilled workmen have doubled,
and those of unskilled workmen have risen; and we all
know these figures come from Mr. Gillen. When he says
so scornfully, 11 Is it worth while to make a revolution for
3 per cent ?”, I turn to Mr. Giffen, and I see he puts rent
and interest, without a penny of wages of superintend
ence, at £407,000,000 ; and I am inclined to say that as
the total produce per year is only £1,250,000,000, then to
rescue from the idle class even one-third of that total is
worth trying hard for by law, and might even, if it could
be effected thereby, excuse a revolution. (Cheers.) Then
we are told that under the present system we at least go
on—we do not go from bad to worse. Why, that phrase
is used by every tyranny, as well as by every Tory as an
excuse for opposing the wicked Radicals whenever they
propose a change. They use it by the necessity of their
position; but it is, indeed, strange, for a Radical to use
against Socialism the very argument he would scoff at if
it came from a Tory against himself. (Hear, hear.) Then
we are told that Mrs. Besant admits that human nature
is not fit for it—what is “it”? Mrs. Besant admitted
that human nature was not yet fitted for Communism, but
not that it is not fit for collectivist Socialism. Mrs. Besant
thinks it is fit for collectivist Socialism. (Hear, hear.)
Then I am told that in the savage state—which for some
mystic reason is like Socialism—men look on unmoved
at drowning men, whereas under Individualism they
plunge in to the rescue. I think I have read not
so very long ago of men walking away from a
pond whilst children were drowning.
But that is
not argument — it is only an attempt to raise prejudice
against the system at which it is aimed. (Hear, hear.)
Under your Individualism also the wealthy people look on
unmoved in the great cities at the poor, as they slowly die
of that which is a worse death than drowning. (Hear,
hear.) Then Mr. Foote urges that if you take the railways
you will rob people of the insurance they are hoping to
leave to their widows. But this difficulty is not special to
Socialism. The insurance offices have a large number of
mortgages on freehold land. When you nationalise the
land, are you going to steal from these offices ? or is it not
true that just the same difficulties will occur in the
�32
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
nationalisation of land as in the nationalisation of capital ?
and that while these difficulties are a good reason for pro
ceeding with caution, they are not the slightest reason for
not moving at all ? (Cheers.) In any such change you
will have to be careful as to the method; but the diffi
culties placed against the nationalisation of capital are of
equal force in dealing with the nationalisation of the land.
Then Mr. Foote says that municipalities can only take up
things when experience has shown them to have been
successful. I was told only the other day by the secretary
of a company for the raising of water by hydraulic power
that their machines were only taken by municipalities which
had the water supply in their own hands, and that these
were ready to take the cost in this instance which private
companies refused to incur. (Hear, hear.) Next, Mr.
Foote argues that the land differs from capital in that it is
a fixed quantity, while capital is not. The soil of England,
he says, has not increased since the time of William the
Conqueror. Does Mr. Foote mean to say that the soil is
not more productive now than it was in the time of
William the Conqueror ? If his argnment as to the land
is good for anything, that is the meaning of it. You
measure your soil by its power of production; and if you
increase the productive power and get more food from it
than before, then the increased productivity is the measure
of the increased land ; and it is only throwing out words to
those who look at words rather than things to say that,
because the outline of the country is very much the same,
therefore the land has not increased. (Cheers.) The
land has increased in everything that makes it valuable.
Thousands of aeres have been brought under cultivation,
and those cultivated have been made more productive.
Land is increasing in productive power. Capital, says Mr.
Foote, cannot be limited. I was under the delusion that
capital could only be obtained by applying labor to raw
material, and Mr. Foote expects me to believe that the
material is limited, and that that which is made out of it
is unlimited. I find myself unable to accept that view.
(Hear, hear.) Then, against the argument I put at the
end that the wages of the laborers as a class could not
rise very high—Mr. Foote asks me if I have not heard of
trades unions and whether I do not think they can affect
the rate of wages ? To a very small extent. Mr. Foote
�33
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
quotes Mr. Mill, but he knows that Mr. Mill’s political
economy has been discredited in point after point, and is
in much given up to-day by every economist of repute.
You cannot now quote Mill as a final authority. You
must take the arguments of Cairnes and Sidgwick and
Jevons, who have taken up the science where Mill dropped
it, and you must meet and refute their arguments. And
what is it that Cairnes has said on this subject? Cairnes
distinctly tells us that “nothing is more certain than that
taking the whole field of labor, real wages in Great Britain
will never rise to the standard of remuneration now pre
vailing in new countries” ; that the “possibilities of the
laborer’s lot are confined” within “very narrow limits”,
“ so long as he depends for his well-being on the produce
of his day’s work. Against these barriers trades unions
must dash themselves in vain.” (Hear, hear.) And then
he says, if you deal with the relative position of the in •
dustrial classes you find that inequality is continually in
creasing ; that “unequal as is the distribution of wealth
already in this country, the tendency of industrial progress
is towards an inequality greater still. The rich will be
growing richer, and the poor, at least relatively, poorer ”
(“Some Leading Principles of Political Economy”, pp.
337, 338, 340, ed. 1874). And he winds up his argument
on this point by declaring that ‘‘ if workmen do not rise
from dependence on capital by the path of co-operation,
then they must remain in dependence upon capital ;
the margin for the possible improvement of their lot
is confined within narrow barriers which cannot be
passed, and the problem of their elevation is hopeless ”
{Ibid., p. 348). (Hear, hear.) These are Professor
Cairnes’ words. I ask Mr. Foote to meet Professor
Cairnes on his own ground, and give us the authority
which will show us that Cairnes’ judgment is wrong. It
is true that profits tend to fall because of the competition
between employers. But when Mr. Foote says that wages
still tend to rise, then he speaks against the deductions of
political economy, and against the knowledge of facts of
every practical man who hears him. Wages do not now
tend to rise in the fashion which has been put. By com
bination something can be done. But as Sidgwick points
out—a man worthy of careful thought—Sidgwick points
out that if you are going to deal with the condition of
D
�34
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
wage-laborers, then you must recognise that the tendency
of our system is to press their wages down to a minimum,
and to a minimum which is below what is necessary .for
healthy life. (Cheers.) Mr. Sidgwick points out that
wherever laborers belong to the capitalist—as the horse
and the ox belong to him—then they have a fair subsist
ence to keep them in working order ; but he says that the
pressure of competition has forced the wage-laborer below
a fair subsistence; and that is the point to which the wage
continually tends. (Hear, hear.) And I submit that on
that point you find that the views deduced from the prin
ciples of political economy as to the results of the present
competitive system have been really borne out by all the
facts of the society you have around you, and that what
Professor Sidgwick says is true. And whilst you have more
absolute money going into the laborer’s hands in some
trades to-day than before, it is also true that the share of
the produce obtained by the worker is not growing greater
but smaller. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Foote says that he is in
favor of abolishing privileges established by law. I ask
him to come over then to the Socialist ranks, and join us in
abolishing the privileges conferred on the landlords and
the capitalists by giving them these unfair monopolies. And
when he says that the salvation of the workman lies in his
own hands, I endorse that with all my power. I say your
salvation does lie in your own hands. Till you are edu
cated, till you understand your own condition, till you are
loyal to each other, till you unite to win your own
liberty, you will remain oppressed ; and only as you band
yourselves together, and realise the changes you should
seek to bring about, will you raise yourselves from your
position of dependence. The workers must save them
selves. We can only talk; but you must act. (Cheers.)
Mr. Foote : I notice in this debate that up to the present
Mrs. Besant is fonder of relying upon other person’s
opinions than on statistics and facts that cannot be ques
tioned. I submit that the question before us to-night is
not what Mill or Cairnes thought. We are here to think
for ourselves, and it is the business of the debaters to lay
before you grounds upon which you can form your own
judgment. And the best of all grounds, and in the long
run the only ground, is fact. Now Mj?s. Besant has not
denied the truth of my statement, that during the last
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
35
fifty years mechanics’ wages have risen in the majority of
cases nearly a hundred per cent., and that during the same
period the wages of unskilled labor have increased nearly
fifty per cent. (Hear, hear.) Cairnes’ opinion cannot
avail against those facts. It is useless for Cairnes to say
that the workman’s elevation is impossible if, during those
fifty years, the workman has been elevated.
Again, you have heard I daresay a good deal about the
distress in the shipbuilding trade, and I know many of the
hard-working men of the Tyneside have suffered seriously
owing to the glut of ships in the market. There are ships
lying idle there because there is no carrying trade for them.
And the shipbuilding trade has consequently suffered
very much. But still, with all that, what is the fact as to
the wages ? Before the Royal Commission, Mr. Knight
(the secretary of the Amalgamated Boilers and Engineers
Society, with whom I had the honor of speaking once at
the Crystal Palace) was interrogated as to the recent strike,
and he said that the reason of it was that the men com
plained that upon the piece work they had accepted they
could not manage to earn as much as they thought they
should according to the rate of day wages. Now the
question was put to Mr Joseph Knight ££ What do you call
a fair day’s rate for rivetters for piece work ? ” ££ I should
say”, he replied, ££a fair day’s rate, working at piece
work, is 8s. per day”. Now if you take five and a half
days a week, which leaves at least one day and a half
leisure a week for a man, to say nothing of his evenings,
you get a wage of £2 4s. per week. Because they could
not get that sum they had gone out on strike. Now, does
that look as if the working classes in the main were in
such a truly deplorable case as Mrs. Besant endeavors to
depict ? I admit that there are evils and suffering in
society, and everyone of us thinks that something should
be done to remedy them. (Hear, hear.) But I see no use
in exaggerated pictures of blackness and despair. Mrs.
Besant said I used forms of words to appeal to your pre
judices. I say she has painted a black picture so as to
appeal to your finer feelings of sympathy to foist upon
you an economical system which is to be judged according
to pure scientific canons of criticism and not according to
sentiments excited by one side or the other.
Mrs. Besant said that capital was not a tender plant, and she
d 2
�36
IS SOCIALISE! SOUND ?
said, “see how quickly France recouped herself after the war
with Germany ’ ’. Why, that ‘ ‘ exploded ’ ’ political economist
John Stuart Mill explained it himself. If a war in civilised
times leaves the land, the plant employed in manufac
tures, the canals, the railways, the docks, and all the per
manent instruments of production, all the people have to
do is to set to work again. But how soon would France
have recovered herself if Germany had spoiled all her
canals and railways and docks, ruined her machinery,
destroyed her buildings, broken down her hedges, and
devastated her vineyards ? France would not be in the
position she is in to-day. It would be found that capital
was hard to accumulate. It would take generations of
hard effort to remedy the result of one single devastating
campaign fought on the old barbarous methods that were
practised three or four centuries ago. (Hear, hear.)
Mrs. Besant says that generalship is necessary, but that
it should not be rated too highly. Do I rate it too
highly ? I do not rate anything except at its market
value. I know of no other method. If a man asks me
how much a bricklayer’s work is worth, or an artist’s, I
say I do not know. What does he get in the market?
That is the only means I have of judging of its value.
All the economists who have learnedly explained or be
fogged the question have got no further than old Butler,
who wrote “ Hudibras ”, and who said : “ The value of a
thing is just as much as it will bring ”. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) Generalship can be rated too high! Now
supposing you have industrial armies, as Socialists are
fond of advocating, these armies would have to be com
manded. (“No, no.”) But you cannot have armies
without commanders. Why use the word army, if you
do not mean a similar mode of direction from head
quarters ? Why not find some other term ? Mrs. Besant
said she preferred to find new terms. Why not find a
new term for that ? Is it a fact that an army is of
much use without its general ? No. A general in military
matters and a general at the headquarters of an industrial
army would be of similar value. Such a general in
military matters is often of more worth in a struggle than
another army as large as the one he commands. The
difference between the genius of command on the one hand
and on the other will often make a small army more valu
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
37
able than a big one. What was it made the difference
between Oliver Cromwell, with a small sick army shut up
on the peninsula of Dunbar, and David Leslie, with nearly
three times the number ranged on the heights ? The
English soldiers were brave, but the Scotch were also
brave; and they fought after at Worcester as bravely as
men ever fought on this earth. But the difference lay in
this, that at the head of the smaller army there was the
sleepless vigilance, the military genius, the unfaltering and
invincible mind of one of the greatest generals that the
earth ever produced. (Cheers.) Although he was down
below and David Leslie had a better position on the
heights, the result was that Cromwell’s army, by a splendid
stroke of generalship, defeated the other army, losing
itself only a few men, and taking ten thousand of the
others as prisoners. (Cheers.) I say that the captain or
general of a great industrial enterprise may be of as much
importance to its success as the whole army put together,
and under any system you must pay him somehow. Mrs.
Besant said society must fix the wage. But supposing the
man objects and walks off, and goes elsewhere. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) It is very well to speak of altruism,
but even under the selected communisms of America, as
Noyes tells us in his history of those institutions, what he
called general depravity—in other words, personal interest
—even among the elect divided them again and again.
One concern—a big one—broke up because the artisans
themselves complained that the value of their product was
twice that of those who worked in the fields, and they
should therefore only work half as long as agriculturists
did. Mrs. Besant says that human nature is fit for'Collec
tive Socialism. In my opinion Collective Socialism is not
fit for human nature. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mrs. Besant proposes to wrest capital and land from the idle
classes. It is well to understand not only what they
propose to do, but how they propose to do it. Wrest
ing means taking away, and taking away without com
pensation. (Cheers.) Now the wealth is to be taken
from the idle classes. What idle classes ? (A voice:
“Those who do not labor”).
Do you . mean the
English aristocracy? (Cheers.) I am as ready to deal
with them by law as you are. Why, Mr. Bradlaugh, who
is opposed to Socialism, is quite ready to deal with the
�38
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
English, aristocracy, if he gets the chance. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) Surely we do not need Socialism as a
revelation to inform us that the English aristocracy should
be removed. Radicals have known that long. But some
whom Mrs. Besant includes in this idle class are not idle.
Was Josiah Mason idle, who worked as he did, and,
having made a fortune, founded the best institution in
Birmingham, erecting out of his fortune a splendid monu
ment of his wise generosity ? Was Whitworth idle ? Was
Bessemer idle ? But why go through a long list of these ?
Mrs. Besant knows and you know, as I know, that many
of these men included in the idle classes work in their
way, and contribute in their way to the production which
is the result of labor and capital and superintendence.
Without their guidance, and without the capital which
their ability helped to get together and increase, the work
man would really be worse off than he is to-day. (Hear,
hear.)
Mrs. Besant says that I should not scoff like the
Tories, who say that we should do nothing fresh because
we still go on. I never said we should do nothing because
we still go on. What I said was that if we do go on under
the present system, you must show us some very clear
reason for believing that the new system will supplant it
with immense benefit before we give up all we now
possess. That is very different. I am surprised that Mrs.
Besant could not see the difference. Mrs. Besant also
thought that it was not right for me to insinuate that
certain barbarous or savage people were somehow in. a
state of Socialism But if Socialism means an omnipotent
State, that the State regulates all industry, that the State
owns all the land and all the capital employed in produc
tion, then nearly every primitive form of society is more
or less in a condition of Socialism or Communism. (Hear,
hear.) The Individualism of the last three centuries has
revolutionised the modern world and done more in that
time than the Socialism of the lower states has done in as
many thousands of years. (Cheers.) Again, Mrs. Besant
holds me wrong for saying that the soil of England is of
the same extent now as it was in the time of William the
Conqueror. I said “soil” ; I did not say its productive
ness, nor did I say cultivated soil or uncultivated soil. _ I
I said simply soil. And the soil of the earth means all its
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
39
surface and what is under it that can be got out. Now, is
the soil of England in that respect any greater than it was
in the reign of 'William the Conqueror ? On the contrary,
some miles of coast on the east have been washed away by the
sea. (Laughter.) But it is true that the capital has increased
a thousandfold. Mrs. Besant says she cannot understand
that, but if the fact is true, not understanding it will not
alter it. The explanation is not so difficult. There is so
much raw material got somehow from the land, either
from plants, or from animals that consume the vegetation,
or from the surface of the ground, or from the bowels of
the earth. Now that raw material so worked might be
consumed the very same year, or a portion of it might be
kept over for further production. That amount so kept
over goes on accumulating—the abstinence of each genera
tion from consumption causes an accumulation of capital.
And that process goes on to an extent which is practically
illimitable; although at any one moment it is determined.
If that explanation does not make it clear, my power to do
so fails me.
Mrs. Besant says it is not true that the workman can
emancipate himself. I say it is. That is the grand dis
tinction between us to-night. She wants to call in an
omnipotent State to provide the brains which we have
not got, to provide the moral cohesion which we have
not got. But where is it to come from ? When we have
the moral cohesion, when we have the intellectual capacity,
we can join together. We do not want to wait for the mil
lennium. Any Trades Union could, if it had the necessary
mental and moral qualities, begin co-operative production
to-morrow. When we are sufficiently advanced we shall
go in the right direction, and the workers will find in
voluntary co-operation the way to elevate themselves from
the dependence of the wage system. But until we are
sufficiently advanced we must not expect the reward, and
no social mechanism will ever supply us with the qualities
we lack. (Cheers.)
A vote of thanks, proposed by Mr. Eoote and seconded
by Mrs. Besant, having been accorded the chairman, the
debate was adj ourned.
�40
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
SECOND NIGHT.
Mr. Arthur B. Moss
in the
Chair.
The Chairman : Friends, to-night we are to listen to
the second instalment of this interesting and instructive
discussion on Socialism. Mr. Foote will open the proceed
ings with a speech of half-an-hour’s duration. Mrs.
Besant will follow with a speech of the same length.
There will then be two subsequent speeches of a quarter
of an hour for each disputant, and that will terminate the
proceedings. As I know from personal experience that
audiences who assemble in this hall are for the most part
trained listeners, I have only to ask you to give to the
consideration of the subject all the attention which the
importance of it undoubtedly demands. I have great
pleasure in calling upon Mr. Foote to open the discussion.
(Cheers.)
Mr. Foote : Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen, in
opening this discussion to-night I have the opportunity of
settling the lines upon which it is to go. I am glad of the
opportunity, because it is highly necessary not only that I
should be able to reply to what Mrs. Besant advances on
behalf of Socialism, but that I should also be able to urge
objections against it in my own fashion, which she will
have to reply to in return. First of all, let me say—not
for the instruction of all, but for the instruction of some—
that Socialism is by no means a new thing. Almost all the
Socialistic pills that are prescribed in our age have been
tried by the human race again and again in various stages
of its career. The peculiar American sect of Free Lovers,
for instance, is only teaching something which was taught
long, long ago, which is always tried more or less as
society is in a low condition, and is always left behind as
society advances into what is called civilisation. So it is
with Socialism.
What is, after all, the essence of
Socialism ? It is the omnipotence of the State : the de
claration that the State is rightly lord of all, that no
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
41
citizen has any rights excepting those which the State
allows him, and that even the family itself only exists by
the toleration of the State. If that is the essence of
Socialism, it is to be found amongst savages, amongst bar
barian nations, and is still to be found amongst peoples
in Oriental lands. An extreme instance of it was found
in ancient Peru, where everything was managed by State
officials, and where every department of the life of the
citizen was absolutely under the control of those who were
in authority. (Hear, hear.) There is, then, nothing new
in Socialism. Further, ever since Christianity had any
power Socialism has been a commonplace of its teaching.
I am not here for the purpose of dealing with theology,
but simply to deal with the relation of the system to social
matters. Mrs. Besant kindly drew my attention, in fur
nishing me with a list of books she would use, to two
articles by Emile de Laveleye, one in the Fortnightly
Review and one in the Contemporary Review, both for the
same month of April, 1883. I was exceedingly glad of
the references, because they had very naturally escaped
my attention, having been published at a time when,
owing to the law of the majority, which of course is
supreme, I was secluded for my country’s good. (Laughter.)
Now Laveleye, in the second of those articles, cannot
understand why Socialists reject Christianity, which ad
mits a great deal of their claims, and accept Darwinianism,
which denies the very equality they urge. He says,
“ Christianity condemns riches and inequality with a
vehemence nowhere surpassed” ; and (on page 565), after
citing a long and eloquent passage from Bossuet, a great
French divine, he gives the following brief quotations
from the early Christian Fathers. “The rich,” says St.
Basil, “ are thieves ”. St. Chrysostom says, “ the rich are
brigands. Some sort of equality must be established by
their distributing to the poor of their abundance ; but it
would be preferable if everything were in common ”. St.
Jerome says, “ opulence is always the result of a theft; if
not committed by the actual possessor, it has been the
work of his ancestors”. (Cheers.) I am glad to see so
many Socialists in accord with these early Christian
Fathers. (Laughter.) St. Clement says, “ H justice were
enforced there would be a general division of property”.
Mrs. Besant must, of course, be also aware that the
�42
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
founder of Christianity taught the precept, “ Sell all that
thou hast and give to the poor”. She must be further
aware that the early Christian Church practised Com
munism ; but as soon as it grew large—as soon as the
fanatical bond of the small community was broken—this
teaching had to be relinquished in the interest of the very
order itself. (Hear, hear.)
Again, we have had no dearth of paper Utopias—from
Plato, whose Republic is a classic, down to Gronlund, the
American writer, whose “ Social Commonwealth ” I referred
to as a sort of New Testament for Socialists. If you
invest ninepence in one of Routledge’s shilling series, you
will get a little collection of more modern Utopias than
Plato’s, beginning with Sir Thomas More, going on to Lord
Bacon, and ending with Thomas Campanella, whose “ City
of the Sun ” has some affinities with More’s work, and
also some differences, which I have not time to dilate upon
now. In more recent times still we have had the Utopian
schemes of Owen, Fourier, and St. Simon; and essentially
Utopian schemes even by men like Comte. Then there
have been attempts to reduce their teachings to practice in
France, in England, and in America. Curiously enough,
in every case, unless the community was held together by
some bond of religious bigotry, or fanaticism, or as I should
sometimes prefer to say, of sheer imbecility, they have
always broken up and had to resolve themselves into the
general competitive system of mankind. (Cheers.)
While it is perfectly true that many noble natures have
been attracted by Socialistic Utopias, it is also a fact that
a very different class of persons are attracted by them.
Horace Greeley, who at one time belonged to a Socialist
community in America, and who after he ceased to be a
practical Socialist assisted some Socialist communities with
his money, wrote from bitter experience as follows : “A
serious obstacle to the success of every Socialistic experi
ment must always be confronted. I allude to the kind of
persons who are naturally attracted to it. Along with
many noble and lofty souls, whose impulses are purely
philanthropic, and who are willing to labor and suffer
reproach for any cause that promises to benefit mankind,
there throng scores of whom the world is quite worthy—
the conceited, the crotchety, the selfish, the headstrong, the
pugnacious, the unappreciated, the played-out, the idle,
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
43
and the good-for-nothing generally; who, finding them
selves utterly out of place and at a discount in the world
as it is, rashly conclude that they are exactly fitted for the
world as it ought to be.” (Laughter.) There cannot be
any doubt in the minds of those who know Mrs. Besant
that she belongs to the first and better class of those
whom Greeley mentions. (Cheers.) But I am decidedly
of opinion that even in England there is a large contingent
of the second class. Watching the antics of some of the
more forward class of Socialists, who do not follow the
example of the Fabians, but go out into the streets and
advertise themselves lustily, I am inclined to think that
Horace Greeley wrote from a very accurate and very painful
observation of Socialists and of mankind. (A. voice:
“Apply it to yourself”.) Socialism I urge, is really a
case of recrudescence. In my opinion it might be described
as economical atavism. In our country, curiously enough,
every time there is acute distress, Socialism comes to the
front, and every time the distress disappears it recedes
until it becomes invisible. (Hear, hear.) If the trade
of England improves—and it has shown signs lately of
improving—the probability is that Socialism will have to
wait until distress is again acute. (“No, no.”) I know
that some Socialists think differently, but that is my
opinion and as I am in possession of the platform I shall
say just what I think—(cheers)—and it will be well to leave
Mrs. Besant the opportunity as well as the right of replying
to me. (Cheers.)
In defining Socialism last Wednesday, Mrs. Besant said
that you might take the definition of Proudhon. Now
Proudhon was certainly a writer of great power, and
nobody can read his writings without feeling that he lived
habitually in a lofty moral atmosphere ; but it would be
as well, if we are to judge of his economics, to take his own
definition of property. La propriete c'est le vol, he says :—
“ Property is theft ”. I do not know whether Mrs. Besant
accepts that definition of property ; if not, I do not know
why Proudhon was referred to at all. But really Mrs.
Besant’s definition comes to much the same thing. She
says that “ Socialism teaches that there should be no
private property in the materials used in the production
of wealth”. That is, not only the land, but also the
capital of the country is to be appropriated by the State.
�. 44
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
(Hear, hear.) I deny that such a definition leaves any
right of private property at all. (Hear, hear.) I deny
the possibility of any separation of wealth into two classes
—one capital and the other simply wealth. Every particle
of wealth is capable of being used as capital for the pro
duction of fresh wealth. The line is arbitrary. Only a
certain amount of wealth is used as capital at a certain
time, but the whole is capable of being so used. Mrs.
Besant’s definition would result in the complete abolition
of private property, a result which, I think, Socialism must
eventually come to if we accept it. I agree with Mr.
Bradlaugh in saying that no definition of Socialism is
accurate except that which includes the abolition of private
property. Any other definition is divided from this by a
thin sheet of tissue paper, which probably is set up in
order that we may not see all that Socialism means, and
thus be led to accept its best side without seeing its worst
side, which is inseparably connected with it. (Cheers.)
Now, how is capital to be appropriated by the State ?
I said last Wednesday that we not only want to know
what Socialists propose to do, but how they propose to do
it. If a man wants me to go to Manchester, it is a
matter of importance to me to know whether he wants
me to go on a bicycle, by train, by stage-coach, or
to fly. Unless he goes my way, I shall not go his
way. Now, how is this appropriation to be made ?
Mrs. Besant says it will be taken somehow, but she does
not tell us how. I should like to know how it is to be
done. Our friends of the Social Democratic Federation
say, for instance, of railways, that they are to be appro
priated by the State “with or without compensation”.
(Cheers.) Now that implies that “with or without” are
equally right, and if it be right to appropriate with
out compensation what utter fools they must be to
include the possibility of compensation. (Cheers.) I
submit that we have no right to deal with interests
that have been allowed by law without compensation.
(Cheers.) Of course, if Socialists say, as Gronlund does,
that the State has a right to do everything; if they
urge that there are no rights antecedent to the State,
and that there are no rights which are inviolable by the
State ; there is nothing more to be said. That, however,
is not my philosophy, nor, if I read mankind aright, is
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
45
that the philosophy of mankind. All of us recognise that
there are personal rights over which the State has no just
control or authority. Mrs. Besant recognises it every day
of her life. Mrs. Besant stands every day of her life in
opposition to the declared law of the land. Mrs. Besant
writes and prints and publishes what, according to the
law, is illegal. She justifies by her conduct—and I, of
course, quite approve of the position she takes up—the
principle that there are imprescriptible rights of mankind,
which altogether transcend the power of the State, whether
the power be exercised by a single despot or by a multi
tude that transforms itself into a despotism. (Cheers.)
One of the French Socialists, called Clement Duval, an
Anarchist, who is now unfortunately paying the penalty
of his mistakes in a prison—(cheers)—he has evidently
two or three friends here who, I hope, will never share his
fate—committed a burglary at the house of a widow lady,
abstracted money that did not belong to him, and stood by
while his comrade set fire to the house. That looks like
an ordinary case of ruffianism. When a man profits by
his theories in this way, it certainly looks as though self
interest had a great influence among some Socialists.
But on his trial Duval said: “I declare from my
point of view I am not a thief. Nature, in creating
man, gives him a right to existence, and he is justified
in availing himself of it. If society does not supply
him with the means of living he is entitled to take what
he requires.” (Cheers). He did not, however, quite
approve of the house being set on fire, whereupon his
comrade reproached him by saying : “ Then you are not a
true Anarchist”, to which he answered: “lam. Why
burn down houses which, after the great revolution, will
afford shelter to the workers ? ” (Cheers.) I am pained
to think that robbery by individuals like this can find
any justification. (Hear, hear.) Do our Socialist friends
propose to carry this right through ? Do they propose to
do by a majority what many of them would censure when
done by an individual ? If an individual had no right to
help himself, what right has the majority to help itself ? I
do not believe that majorities have a right to do anything
they like—(hear, hear)—although I admit that their power
to do so is unquestioned. I say that the majority have
only the right to act within the lines of those purposes for
�46
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
which, all society is formed. All society is, in my opinion,
formed for the protection of life, of liberty, and of property.
(Cheers.) Gronlund says: “We shall not trouble our
selves overmuch about compensation ”. Mrs. Besant does
not, so far as I know, give her views on that point at all.
I beg her to-night to give us some idea of how she would
have the State appropriate the possessions of private indi
viduals. (Cheers.)
The motive of this appropriation is the redress of poverty.
Assuredly poverty should be redressed if possible. (Hear,
hear.) And assuredly poverty is being redressed. (Cries
of “ Oh, oh,” and Hear, hear.) Now I am quite prepared
for the “oh’s,” and I will give the “oh’s” a few facts
which they can digest at leisure. Birst of all the removal
of ignorance is one means .for the redress of poverty.
(Cheers.) In my opinion ignorance is simply the mother
of all the preventible ills that human flesh is heir to.
(Hear, hear.) In 1851 in England (excluding Scotland
and Ireland) there were 239,000 children at school; in
1881 there were 2,863,000 at school. (Cheers.) Look for
a moment at the statistics of crime. In 1839 there were
24,000 prisoners committed for trial in England, and in
1881 there were only 15,000, although the population had
largely increased. Now look at the statistics of pauperism.
In 1849—from which date our statistics become accurate—
there were 934,000 paupers in England; in 1881 there
were 803,000—that is, a decrease of 131,000, although in
the interval there had been a large increase in the popula
tion. (Hear, hear.) In the whole of the United Kingdom
in 1849 there were 1,676,000 paupers, but in 1881 there
were only 1,014,000. Now look at another class of figures.
In 1831 there were 429,000 depositors in our savings
banks, and the amount of their deposits was £13,719,000.
In 1881 the number of the depositors had increased to
4,140,000, and the amount of the deposits had increased to
£80,334,000. (Cheers.) In 1862 there were 90,000 members
of co-operative societies with a paid-up capital of £428,000,
and annual sales of £2,333,000. In 1881 there were
525,000 members, with a paid-up capital of £5,881,000,
and total sales of £20,901,000. (Cheers.) In the various
building societies in the country there were as many as
500,000 members. (Hear, hear.) Now these statistics are
facts. They are not fancies. They are not Individualistic
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
47
dreams to set against Socialistic dreams. They are things
that have already happened. If this accumulation of wealth
—this saving practically by the working classes—has been
effected during the last twenty or thirty years, what reason
is there for supposing that the improvement may not
go on with accumulating power, gathering momentum as
it goes, until by self-help, and personal thrift, and the
sense of individual responsibility, the social problem is
solved on the lines of Individualism—without transform
ing the State into an almighty and omnipresent tyrant,
ruling every person and everything with a rod of iron ?
(Cheers.)
If Socialism were inaugurated, you would not settle
the question. It is only the few in every generation who
do the forward work. The mass simply mark time. It is
the few who go ahead and point the way. When they
have convinced the rest by experience, when their ideas
are proved to be true, the rest take advantage of the
demonstration and join them. (Hear, hear.) Mrs. Besant
complained that the great instrument of Individualism is
cut-throat competition. There is an old adage that if you
give a dog a bad name, that is sufficient to secure his
destruction. Now why cut-throat? Of course it makes
competition look ugly. It suggests a razor and blood.
But why not say simply “competition”. Competition
may be a very bad thing for those who cannot keep up.
It does not follow that it is for those who can. Competi
tion may be a bad thing for a man who runs in a race and
loses ; but it is not so bad a thing for the man in front.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) And unless you are going to
abolish all competition, which Mrs. Besant proposes to do ;
unless you are going to remove it as she proposes from
every department of human life ; I do not see how you can
object to the principle at all. (Hear, hear.) John Stuart
Mill who, although, according to Mrs. Besant, he is a
discredited economist, is not by any means a discredited
thinker—for his writings will probably live when both
Mrs. Besant and myself are forgotten-—John Stuart Mill
says:—“Instead of looking upon competition as the
baneful and anti-social principle which it is held to
be by the generality of Socialists, I conceive that,
even in the present state of society and industry,
every restriction of it is an evil, and every extension
�48
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
of it, even if for the time injuriously affecting some
class of laborers, is always an ultimate good”. (Hear,
hear.) I agree with Mill in this. If competition is to
be removed, what do you propose to substitute for it
as a method ? Are you going to base society on pure dis
interestedness ? Gronlund himself, the writer of the New
Testament of Socialism, says: “Morals are not the founda
tion, still less religion. They are the top of our system.
Interest—self-interest—is the foundation, the prime motor, the
mainspring of our actions, so it is, has always been, and
will always be.” Self-interest, then, is to be the mainspring
of our actions even under Socialism. It must be, and I
will tell you why. You may do disinterested actions and
practise generosity—the more the better. But daily life
can only be organised on permanent motives. And the only
permanent motive which will keep the average man at
work, prevent him from idling, and make him thrifty, is
the desire of his own personal advantage—the desire of
the advantage of his own family—without infringing on
the equal right of all others to work for the same ends for
themselves. (Cheers.)
I have a number of other points for Mrs. Besant, but if
she goes over these I shall be satisfied. Meanwhile let
me ask her, above all things, to tell us how she proposes
to carry out the appropriation of all the wealth of the
country by the State. (Hear, hear.) How is it to be
done ? On what principles is it to be conducted ? For
until you tell us that, you are working with one hand
behind your back. Show us the hidden hand. (Cheers.)
Annie Besant, who was received with cheers, said: In
Mr. Foote’s last speech, on Wednesday night, he threw out
a challenge which I was then unable to answer, as I had
no further right of speech; and, with your permission, I
will accept that challenge very briefly before passing on to
the points which were raised in the speech to which we
have listened to-night. Mr. Foote then asked me to ex
plain how we were going to deal under Socialism with
what, he said, were the necessary “ generals” of industry,
and he compared Oliver Cromwell in his generalship of the
army to the best of those men who organised industry, and
who because of their special ability were highly paid.
I would submit to Mr. Foote first that in that comparison
he confused two things, which are very different—the
�49
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
wages paid for exceptional ability and the interest paid for
the use of capital held by idlers. It is not wise to mix up
different things in that fashion if you desire to seek clear
ness of thought. Wages for exceptional ability might
exist under Socialism, where the interest for capital was
abolished as a payment to idle individuals. Not only so,
but it must be also remembered as to generalship
that history tells us that the greatest generals were not
those who were attracted merely by high pay ; and I read
Oliver Cromwell’s character very badly if he was moved to
his devotion to his country by the hope of the cash pay
ment that he might receive, and not by his enthusiasm for
the cause which he thought was the nobler cause at that
time in England. Then Mr. Foote, arguing on the ques
tion of the “tenderness” of capital, asked me what would
have happened in France had Germany destroyed the
canals, and generally the fixed capital of the country.
There would have been a far slower revival of prosperity.
But I desire to reassure Mr. Foote on this head, and to
tell him that when the Socialists take over the land and
capital here they do not propose to destroy, before taking
over, the canals and fixed plant, but to keep them for the
benefit of the people to work with, so that they shall start
with the advantage of the past accumulation, and use it
for the facilitation of present and future labour. (Cheers.)
Then Mr. Foote challenged me on the question of the rate
of wages. Here I am obliged to go over the point very
quickly, and I would suggest to Mr. Foote that in dealing
with Mr. Giffen’s figures there are certain points he over
looked. Mr. Foote stated that the wages of skilled labor
had risen 100 per cent., and that that of the other
forms of labor had risen 50 per cent., and he asked
me to explain the cause of that. But Mir. Foote did not
state that which Mr. Giffen put with great frankness—
that his figures were, to a considerable extent, guess-work
rather than absolute certainty. His statement was that un
fortunately there was no account drawn up that would give
full statistics on the question save from the date of about
fifteen or sixteen years ago, and he explained that in dealing
with this matter, he was dealing with figures drawn from local
trades and then he takes from these an average which he
admits himself might not be really accurate. (Hear, hear.)
He then goes on to say that the wages have risen variously
E
�50
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
from 20 per cent, up to 50 and 100 per cent. And after
he has admitted that variation of percentages, for the rest
of his pamphlet he speaks of the rate of wage as having
doubled. Instead of taking into account the small increase
of 20 per cent, he takes the highest percentage for the
purpose of his argument, and uses that as if valid for the
whole of his argument. But I am willing to admit a
very considerable rise of wages. That has, however, been
largely balanced by the enormous rise of rent. It has also
to some extent been balanced by the very great rise in the
price of meat which is used to a considerable extent in this
country. The rise of rent is simply enormous. If you
take the rent in 1843 it amounted only to £95,000,000 ; if
you take it now it has run up to at least £200,000,000 ;
and if you are going to put the gain of the workers on the
one side, you must take into account the gain of those who
live on the workers on the other side. (Hear, hear.) Nor
is that all. Mr. Giffen himself admits that while wages
have risen in this fashion, the returns from capital have
risen from £188,500,000 to £407,000,000. He admits that
the wages which are paid to the workers among the upper
and middle classes, the wages of the highly paid, have
risen from £154,000,000 to £320,000,000; so that you have
your returns from capital more than doubled ; your returns
of these higher wages more than doubled, and I ask
you with what pretence, after admitting figures of that
sort, can Mr. Giffen say that the whole of the material
advantage of the last fifty years has gone into the pockets
of the manual workers? (Cheers.) But even this is not
all; in order thoroughly to understand how the rise has
come about, you must investigate the surrounding condi
tions, and you will find that you are dealing with a time
when an enormous impetus was given to trade. You are
covering the whole of the time when trade was expanded
by the first rush consequent on the free trade movement.
You are dealing with a. period in which England prac
tically stood alone as the workshop of the world; when
her coal and her iron went everywhere; when she was
the maker of nearly all the improved machinery, and
had nearly all the other nations of the world as her
customers to give her laborers work. All these things
must be taken into consideration when you are dealing
with the rise of wages that, as I admitted, has been con
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
51
siderable. But that is now no longer the case. You have
come to the end of the tether of your prosperity, for other
countries now raise their own coal and produce their own
iron. Your coal and your iron are getting lower down,
and therefore harder to work, while other countries are not
coming to you now as formerly for your machinery. You
used to be the world’s workshop, but you are now com
petitors with other nations; and the result of that is that
as you are competing with men whose wages are lower,
your wages will have to sink to the level of those which
are paid to the worst paid workers in foreign countries.
(Hear, hear.) That is my position. The past was a time
of unexampled prosperity, but that time is over, and now
the share to be divided among the workers is less than
it has been; the workers feel the pinch of poverty, and
that is the problem with which you have to deal at the
present time. Nor still is that all. During the time over
which Mr. Giffen has taken his figures you have had a
growing Socialism with all its advantages. There has
been the great benefit of trades unions, which fifty years
ago were illegal. They were combinations of workmen
struggling together to obtain the legal right of combining,
the right to work with each other for a rise of wages.
Trades unions are essentially Socialistic. (Hear, hear.)
They do away among the members with that competition
of which Mr. Foote is so strong a supporter; they tell the
stronger men not to use their strength for the injury of
their weaker brethren, but to hold together so that the
advantage of the strength may spread over all, and not be
taken by the stronger to the detriment of the weaker.
The same sort of attack as that of the Tories on trades
unionism is now being made on Socialism, and the same
reasons are given for the attack, namely, that trades
unionism was tyrannical, that it held back the stronger,
and tended to equalise the earnings of the more and the less
skilled workers.
There is one other point as to the growing Socialism
that I wish to refer to, and that is the passing of various
Factory Acts, which have practically, to a certain extent,
limited the power of plunder of the propertied classes.
These Acts, which came between the capitalist and the
worker limiting the hours to a considerable extent, have,
by their influence on public opinion, even limited the hours
n2
�52
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
of labor in places outside the statutory scope. You have
the whole of these matters operating on this question
of the rise of wages, and simply to say that the wages have
risen and to leave out of consideration everything that has
been a factor in that rise, is really not to go to the
root of the question, but to deal with it with absolute
superficiality. And I contend that these figures are used
against the workers in a fashion that even Mr. Griffen—
holding a brief for the capitalist as he said he was accused
of doing—would have been ashamed to use them. (Hear,
hear.) I will conclude this brief answer to Mr. Foote’s
challenge by reminding him of that which of course he
must know, the relative position of workers and of capital
ists in the matter of increased incomes. He submitted to
you figures as to the rise of incomes amongst the poor folk.
Why not have laid some stress on the enormous rise of
incomes amongst the wealthier persons as well ? Why not
have told us of the fortunes of £50,000 and upwards, that
whereas there were only eight of these in 1843, there were
sixty-eight in 1880 ? Why not have told us that the
fortunes ranging from £1,000 to £5,000 have enormously
increased during that time, having risen from 6,328 in 1843
to 15,671 in 1879-80? Why did he only lay stress upon
the increase of small incomes and not on the increase in
the large incomes? and why not have pointed out that,
according to Mr. Giffen, you will find that out of sixteen
and a half millions of different incomes, there are only one
and a half millions over £150 a year ? Why not also have
pointed to the shocking extravagance that has been one of
the signs of that fifty years’ growth, and the shameful
luxury and waste which have characterised the aristocracy
of wealth ? And why not have cast one thought towards a
point of serious importance in dealing with the possibility
of change—to that wise remark of De Tocqueville, that the
French made their Revolution when their condition was
improving ? He suggested that people do not rise in revolt
when crushed down by hopeless misery, but that it is as
they improve, as their position gets somewhat higher, as
they have hope in their life, that then it is the hope that
sometimes pushes them into the revolution which they
would never have dreamt of making in their days of utter
degradation. (Cheers.)
I pass from that to deal with the speech of to-night.
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
53
Mr. Foote says Socialism is old. So is man. But it does
not necessarily follow that because a thing has been long
in the world it is bad. (Hear, hear.) How ought history
to be used ? History is the record of the experiences of
our race. Are we to read it only to abuse our ancestors
and to say what fools they were? Or are we to read it
to learn wisdom from their experience ; to utilise only
what was proved to be right and true, and to avoid
falling into their errors by marking the places where they
stumbled? (Cheers.) Mr. Foote passed on to what he
called the peculiar American sect of “Free Love”. . I
fail to understand why any mention of that sect was in
troduced into this debate. (Hear, hear.) It has nothing
to do with our discussion. The phrase “free love”
raises in England a very bitter feeling, largely because
the views implied by it are not sufficiently understood.
And I quite fail to understand—and Mr. Foote did not
give us any explanation—why he dragged that particular
sect into a discussion on the question “ Is Socialism Sound? ”
(Cheers.) Mr. Foote says that Socialism is the character
istic of a low state of civilisation ; and to some extent it is
true that you will find in the low stages of civilisation a
very crude form of Socialism as well as of Individualism.
(Hear, hear.)- But if it is true that you are to condemn
Socialism because among some tribes of low civilisation you
will find a community of goods, are you then to condemn
Individualism because in some tribes in low stages of civilisa
tion you find it in the crudest form, and see the strongest
man preying upon the weaker and using his imprescriptible
right of eating his neighbor for his dinner ? Because, if
you are going to argue in that way then Socialism and
Individualism are alike to be rejected; where is the path
along which humanity is to walk ? (Cheers.) But Mr.
Foote says that according to Socialism the State is every
thing ; everything is to be done by the State. I cannot
help regretting that Mr. Foote did not define what he
meant by the State. If by the State he means a bureau
cracy ruling over the people, or a despotism like that of
Peru—a despotism in which the workers had no political
or social power whatever, but were merely a class tyran
nised over by an absolute sovereign and a hierarchy of
priests and aristocrats-—then I deny that such a State
has anything to do with Socialism. (Hear, hear.) But
�54
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
if by the State he means the whole of the community
organised for self-government; if he means a society
organised for the good of the whole of society; then I agree
with him that it is of the essence of Socialism that that
organised community shall be supreme over itself. And I
fail to see any difference there can be between the Socialist
and the Radical on this head, when the Socialist says that
the community should be the controller of itself, and the
Radical desires the government of the people, by the people,
and for the people. (Cheers.) We ought not in this discus
sion to merely play with words. (Hear, hear.) We want
to get to facts, and it is necessary for Mr. Foote to define
what he means by the State before I can deal with his
statement as to the tyranny implied.
Then Mr. Foote went off to touch on Christianity, and
stated that ever since Christianity had begun Socialism
was a part of it. But this need not be any accusation against
Socialism, since he also says that it existed long before
Christianity was in existence, and it was very likely to be
partly taken into Christianity when Christianity became
one of the religions of the world. It is possible that if I
had lived in those times I might have approved of some of
the doctrines which were put forward by those fathers of
the Church which Mr. Foote quoted. (Hear, hear.) And
if Christianity walked on the same lines as Socialism then
Socialists would be willing to welcome it on these points
of agreement, as they are willing to-day to welcome
Christians as workers for this common purpose. (Hear,
hear.) But if we are to bring theology into this discussion,
it is as well to remember that Jesus Christ not only said,
“ Sell all that thou hast and give to the poor ”, but also,
“ Blessed be ye poor ”, and that Socialism considers as an
absolute curse that poverty which the founder of Chris
tianity is said to have blessed. But will it not be wiser to
try and deal with the thing itself rather than say whether
or not it enters into a religion to which both Mr. Foote and
myself are known to be antagonistic, and which can hardly
be introduced here without unfairly prejudicing the view
I am advocating? (Hear, hear.) I pass from this about
Christianity to the statement that many Utopian schemes
of Socialism have been suggested in the past. That is so.
Is it wonderful that men, grieving sorely at the sorrow of
their present, should strive to picture some nobler life on
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND
55
earth, where the sorrow and the misery should have passed
away ? (Cheers.) Remember it was the noblest men who
did this. Utopian dreamers or not, they were the nobler
outcome of humanity. All who long for a nobler life on
earth must at times dream of some Utopia. (Hear, hear.)
And it was better to have noble dreams even, than to rest
satisfied with the brutal gratifications of gain and greed.
Is it therefore, because some have made their Utopias too
perfect, that we shall not strive to realise something better
than the Pandemonium we have now ? (Cheers.) But Mr.
Poote says they were not only Utopian, but that many of
those who have started Socialistic experiments were only
held together by the bands of fanaticism, or religion, or
by sheer imbecility. I am not so sure that the desire of
persons to make a life of brotherhood—although imperfectly
carried out—should be characterised as an attempt in which
they were only held by sheer imbecility. (Cheers.) And I
doubt whether the use of words such as that will lead us to
any satisfactory result in this debate. (Hear, hear.) Mr.
Poote said that some of the nobler minds now approve of
Socialism, and that large numbers of the ignorant and the
poor also join them from baser motives, and he was kind
enough to say that I was one of the dreamers of the former
class, while he put the mass of Socialists in the other. He
also said that many of the members of the Social Demo
cratic Federation were going into the streets to advertise
themselves. And is it in this hall—the hall which is the
very centre in London of Preethought, of aggressive
Radicalism—that the going out into the streets to reach
the poor is to be pointed and scoffed at as being an un
worthy attempt at self-advertisement? (Cheers.) How
else are we to reach many of the poor? Mr. Poote may
say that I do not go out street-preaching. It is true I do
not speak in the streets, because I have not the physical
strength, and because I believe that the work I do is more
useful when I speak in this hall and elsewhere, and when
I use my pen—(cheers)—then if I did work others can do
more effectively. But if. there were no others to do the
street-work—if there were no Socialists able and willing to
do it—then would I too take my share in it and speak in
the streets. (Cheers, and cries of “Bravo”.) But whilst
there are others willing to do it, and whilst they are also
willing that I should do the other part of the work for
�56
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
which I am more fitted, I will not scoff at them because
some of them may not always be wise in their speech, be
cause some may be even reckless in their utterances.
(Hear, hear.) I will thank them, despite even their
recklessness and their passion, for that they at least
see the evil of the present, and long for some nobler and
better form of brotherhood, instead of the struggle in which
the weaker are trampled out of life. (Cheers.)
M e are next told that Socialism is a symptom of distress,
and there is truth in that. The desire to make things
better comes from the recognition of the sufferings of
others. While everything goes on smoothly and easily, it
is quite possible that men’s minds may not turn towards
a change. But I think that trade depression has lasted
quite long enough to teach the lesson of Socialism, and
that the lesson being learned that poverty must grow out
of the form of proprietorship to which Socialists object, an
improvement in trade will only make the workers stronger
to effect the necessary change. (Cheers.)
I am a little surprised at—if Mr. Foote will pardon methe phrase—what seems to me Mr. Foote’s somewhat rough
and inaccurate translation of Proudhon’s phrase “la pro
priety c'est le vol”, as “property is theft”. Mr. Foote, is,
I know, well acquainted with the French language, and he
will bear me out in saying that “property ” in the English
sense is not the equivalent of “propriete” in the French.
A Frenchman would no more speak of his hat or his stick
as his “propriete” than an Englishman would say that
similar articles were his “estate”. In fact, the word
estate is a nearer equivalent for “propriete”, and it is
used for land, or for wealth in a wide sense, not for the
personal property of individuals in small articles. I put
this, not as agreeing with Proudhon, but as doing him
justice in a matter in which he is very generally misunder
stood. (Hear, hear.) As to Mr. Foote’s remark that my
presentation of the Socialist arguments is designed to hide
the bad side of my case, I cannot help thinking that the
debate will proceed more smoothly if such imputations be
omitted. The distinction that I made between wealth in
general, and wealth which is set apart for purposes of pro
duction, is not a distinction invented by myself, but is one
which is made by every political economist. There is a
very wide distinction between the ownership by the com
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
57
munity of land and capital, that is, of the raw and wrought
materials for the production of wealth, and the enjoyment
by individuals of their share of the products of labor. It
is perfectly possible to have public property in the one
existing simultaneously with private property in the other.
(Cheers.) Mr. Foote, as a land nationaliser, is face to face
with a similar difficulty with respect to the land. He
surely thinks that a man might pay rent to the State, and
yet remain owner of a vegetable he had raised on State
land. That is, that there might be public property in the
material for wealth production, and private property in the
wealth produced. Then why might not the distinction be
equally maintained between public property in capital, and
private in the products of labor when once they had been
acquired? The difficulty is of words not of things, and
affects all change in the ownership of raw, as much as it
does change in the ownership of wrought, material. Ought
I then to say to Mr. Foote, in his own words, that
his argument was a sheet of “thin tissue paper” in
tended to hide the true state of his case ? (Laughter and
applause.)
In my next speech I will say something on the possible
methods of appropriation of the material we claim for
society, though on questions of method there is much
divergence of opinion among Socialists, and in dealing
with them I can give only my personal views. Let me, in
conclusion, express my dissent from the doctrine of the
natural, or imprescriptible rights of man. These supposed
rights have no historical basis, they have no answering
realities in life. The natural right of a man is to grab as
much as he can, and to hold all he can grab as long as he
can. “The spoils to the victor” is the natural law.
Rights were not anterior to society, but grew slowly out
of society. They grew out of the desire of each to be safe
and free from oppression, and from the union of many to
restrain the aggressor, from public opinion codified as law.
Anterior to society and to law there were no rights. The
doctrine is an idle metaphysical theory, and what we now
call the “ rights of man ” are those conditions which bn man
experience has shown to be most conducive to happiness.
The idea of a “ right ” has been slowly evolved in, slowly
recognised by, society, and society exists to secure these
rights for the weaker, who can only obtain them by law,
�58
IS SOCIALISM SOW ?
and to guard for all those advantages which are naturally
enjoyed only by the strong. (Loud applause.)
Mr. Foote : Mrs. Besant seems to have perverted many
things I said, or perhaps she misunderstood them. A little
sense of humor would have prevented these blunders. Mrs.
Besant might, for instance, have seen that I was speaking
as euphemistically as I could of the Social Democratic.
Federation ; that I meant a good deal more than I said,
but I did not care to use strong language. Since I must
speak plainly, however, to make myself properly understood,
I will do so at once. I did not complain simply because the
more eager Socialists went into the streets. Mrs. Besant
says she would go into the streets and speak herself if there
were no others to do the work. Well, I have gone into the
streets. (Cheers.) I have done it repeatedly, and when the
summer months come round I shall probably do it again.
(Applause). But I have never assembled men and led
them to places of worship, where neither they nor I have
any business. (Hisses and cheers.) I have strongly op
posed the teaching given in such places, but I have no right
to obtrude my opinions there. (Hear, hear.) bl or have I
ever sought to gain a hearing by appealing to the basest
passion of the human mind, the passion of envy. (Hear,
hear.) I have never addressed half-starved men, or men
out of work, in such a way as would encourage them to
■commit offences which the law would punish; nor after
wards, when brought before a jury, have .1 pitifully
pleaded “ It was not I that did it ”. (Loud and repeated
applause, hisses, and cries of “order”.) I have stood
before juries, and I may have to do so again. Who knows ?
What has happened may happen once more. But what
ever I may be tried for, in the matter of advocacy of
opinion, I shall, as before, defend what I have done.
(Loud applause.)
Mrs. Besant says I mistranslated the sentence I quoted
from Proudhon. But I had at least the honesty to give
the French original before I gave my translation. It is
impossible to translate with absolute precision from one
language into another, especially in the case of two
such different languages as the French and English. I
might have said “Owning is theft”, or “Ownership is
theft”—which is perhaps the nearest translation. But
really, what difference is there between that and “Pro
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
59
perty is theft?”. It is simply a quarrel about words.
(Hear, hear).
Mrs. Besant also said I was unfortunate in my reference
to Cromwell. But was I ? It is true he did not work
simply for mercenary motives, but there was in him a mix
ture of regard for his own interest. Cromwell did not
refuse substantial rewards. He was exceedingly well paid
for what he did. He had something like £10,000 a year,
a palace to live in, and many acres of confiscated royalist
estates. I do not deny Cromwell’s earnestness, but I say
it was not unalloyed; and there are other generals who
would be patriots on the same terms. (Cheers.)
Again, I adhere to all I said about the destruction of
French capital by the Germans. They did not destroy the
permanent capital of the country, but only some of its
floating capital, and that chiefly food. In fact, they merely
helped to consume what the French would otherwise have
consumed by themselves. When the French were left in
peace with their railways, docks, canals, fields, houses,
and machinery, all they had to do was to go on working as
before, and the replacement of floating capital was an easy
task. (Hear, hear.)
I have been accused by Mrs. Besant of not representing
Mr. Giffen fairly. Well, Mr. Giffen gives a great
quantity of figures, and I could only select what suited my
purpose. With respect, however, to the proportion of the
national income taken by labor as against capital, Mr.
Giffen distinctly says that he has, if anything, understated
it. I am also aware that he says the early figures are not
quite satisfactory. But they are satisfactory as far as they
go. Mr. Giffen takes the actual wages, for instance, of
many parts of the country. They are numerous and far
apart, so that he gets a very fair average. How otherwise
would you have him proceed ? (Hear, hear.) Mrs. Besant
says that Mr. Giffen holds a brief for the capitalists. I
don’t quite see it. But suppose he does; might I not
reply that Mrs. Besant holds a brief for the Socialists ?
(Hear, hear.) It seems that we must listen to nothing
here but Socialist facts, and”by a judicious selection and a
judicious use they may be made to prove anything.
(Cheers.) If Mr. Giffen’s figures are wrong, let the
Socialists furnish other figures that are right and that
will controvert his. (Cheers.)
�60
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
Mrs. Besant said that trade unions are carried out on
Socialistic lines. But is thst so ? Any member of a trade
union may leave it to-morrow if he chooses. But if you
socialise everything, the only way to leave it will be to go
to another planet. (Laughter.) Then trade unions do
not prescribe an absolute uniformity of wage, but only a
minimum, and even that breaks down where piece-work
is taken. The reason of the uniform minimum is obvious.
Trade unions are to some extent fighting organisations,
and under a fighting system you must submit to the com
mon law of the machine, otherwise united action in warfare
would be impossible. But I maintain that if it were not
for that necessity there would be nothing like uniformity
of wage, and the men themselves would reject it. The
tailors’ establishment at Clichy started by Louis Blanc,
despite his sentimentalism, gave up equal payment. It
was found to be unworkable. The men would not put up
with it. In the great house of Leclaire, which is worked
on the co-partnership principle, the men would laugh at
you if you suggested that they should all have the same
wages. The difference in the skill and application to the
work makes all the difference in the result of the man’s
labor, and, as Mrs. Besant says everyone should have the
result of his labor, why should not everyone in the ideal
state of things have the wage for which he honorably
works and which he has actually earned? (Applause.)
It is not fair to say that I did not refer to the increased
incomes of the rich during the last fifty years. I stated
that the rate of the working men’s wages had increased
during the last fifty years to counteract Mrs. Besant’s
picture of the gradual deterioration of the workman and
the poverty in which he was found now. Next, Mrs.
Besant wishes me to give her an explanation of how the
land is to be nationalised without falling into the very
evils which she will fall into with her nationalisation of
capital. I dealt with that last Wednesday, when I stated
that if land were to be nationalised, the use of it would
would have to be paid for as now. There would be com
petition amongst those who wanted to use the land, and
those able to give the best rent would get it. But there
would be this difference—that rent, when paid by the in
dividual cultivators of the soil, competing against each
other in the open market, instead of often going as un
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
61
earned increment into the pockets of the absolute idlers,
who do not co-operate to produce the general result, would
go into the national exchequer, for the benefit of all.
(Cheers.)
What is the State ? asks Mrs. Besant. The State, always
and everywhere, is a body of men appointed by other men,
or self-elected, or coming in by what is called hereditary
right, to manage the affairs of the people. (Hear, hear,
and “No, no”.) That is not a State? Then I will ask
Mrs. Besant to give me her definition of a State. I know
what some of you may mean. You may have in your
mind the idea of society. But society, consisting of every
body under the State, is a very different thing. (Hear,
hear.) The State itself is the government of the country,
no matter how it be appointed or held.. It involves coer
cive power. That coercive power is rightfully used for
some things, and is wrongfully used for others. The dif
ference between us is that Mrs. Besant says it rightly
covers everything, while I say it only rightly covers some
things. Against its exercise in some things she rebels,
and I rebel, and every man or woman here also rebels.
(Applause.)
But let us return to our old friend “cut-throat compe
tition”. (Laughter.) Mrs. Besant is, of course, aware of
the fact that we largely depend upon foreign trade. Until
the world is Socialised—and that will be a very long time,
for before you convert the Chinese and the Hindoos, the
Central Asians, the South Americans, and the Central
Africans, a good period must naturally elapse, even under
the most hopeful prospects—(laughter)—we shall have to
depend largely on foreign trade. How are we to hold our
own in that open market of the world where we are noy
obliged to trade, unless we compete with the foreigner in
respect to the prices at which we can offer our goods for
sale ? And if we are obliged to compete as to prices, we
must compete as to labor, and consequently, to that extent
at least, competition is inevitable. (Hear, hear.)
Now, I come to a point which Mrs. Besant did not deal
with, although I invited her to do so last Wednesday, and
that is, What are you going to do with the population
question ? Mrs. Besant says, in her pamphlet on Social
ism, that “Under a Socialist regime the community will
have something to say as to the numbers of the new
�62
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
members that are to be introduced into it
I urge that
the community must say its wordyzrsh All your construc
tion, if you do not settle the population question, is like
erecting castles on the sand of the sea-shore in front of an
advancing tide. (Hear, hear.) It is a peculiarity of
Socialists that they laugh at the population question.
Gronlund says of Malthus that ‘ ‘ This doctrine of his is a
vicious monstrosity, hatched in the saloons of the wealthy,
and flattering to the conscience of the ruling classes, and
therefore it has been so widely accepted”. Mrs. Besant
does not argue thus. She argues quite to the contrary.
The law of population is an absolute fact, and if anyone
cannot see it it shows the deficiency of his sight. If the
State finds everybody with work—and Mrs. Besant holds
it must—the Socialist state, with respect to population,
would be in the same position as a Communistic state;
because, if it cannot provide everyone with work, it must
provide everyone with food ; for, if it takes all the capital
and leaves none for private enterprise, it is bound to fur
nish food for the starving. (Hear, hear.) If you find
everybody with food, how are you going to prevent over
population by those who have no sense of responsibility ?
Under the present system, conjugal prudence and parental
responsibility prompt those who possess them not to pro
duce a larger offspring than they are able to rear, and
they have thus an advantage in the struggle for existence.
I know the struggle is hard. Therefore it is better to
breed from the fit than from the unfit. It is better for
posterity that the stronger should survive than that the
weaker should hand down their weakness to subsequent
generations. (Hear, hear.) Mrs. Besant and her friends
must settle this problem, not after but before they ask us to
inaugurate Socialism. She understands the vital importance
of this point, and I ask her to speak out clearly. She was
never grander than when she defended the right to
publish the truth on this subject. It is one of the regrets
of my life that I misinterpreted her motives, and I take
this public opportunity of saying so. But I also ask her
to be true to the great cause now as she was true to it
then, to champion still the theory of population which she
maintained in the face of danger and in front of the gaol.
(Loud applause.)
Annie Besant : Mr. Foote asks me, How do you pro
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
63
pose to nationalise the land and capital ? and he quotes a
phrase—I think it is from the manifesto of the Social
Democratic Federation—about taking over the railways
“ with or without compensation ”. The phrase is not difficult to understand. If the change be made in peace, it
would be possible to make it with reasonable compensation
to the holders, the unjust holders, of land and capital.
But if the change be made, not by law but by force, then
the question of compensation would be swamped in the
rush of revolution. That is probably what is meant when
the phrase is used “ with or without compensation ”. If
the present holders are wise, then, remembering that
society has made them, and that, unsatisfactory results as
they are, we are responsible for them, we may still keep
them for the remainder of their unprofitable lives ; but if
they are not wise, and set themselves against the people,
then they will have to take their chance in the struggle
which they have provoked. (Hear, hear.) How should
we make the change ? I grant that is a question for dis
cussion. My point, as a Socialist, is to persuade people it
would be a good thing to make the change, and until that
is done all the talk about the methods of doing it is
almost useless. (Cries of “No, no”.) You say no. But
Radicals’ proposals for sweeping changes are open to a
similar objection. Do you mean to say that in dealing
with proposals for change that you do not always first try
to persuade people that change is desirable before going
into the methods ? How many imperfect schemes of nation
alisation of the land are there? The land nationalisers
are not agreed as to the method, although they are agreed
on the principle. (Hear, hear.) Socialists are not agreed
as to the method, although they are agreed that they must
do something to bring that nationalisation about. (Hear,
hear.) My view of the easiest way to do it is to try and
make a reasonable allowance to the present holders of
land and capital, to terminate with their lives. That is.
more than just; it is generous in the extreme. You must
remember that in dealing with human affairs you have not
always the choice between good and evil, but you have to.
choose the lesser of two evils. At the present time a small
class lives idly because they possess these monopolies. It
would be better that that small class should be deprived
of that monopoly without compensation, rather than
�64
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
myriads of the people should continue to live as they live
to-day. (Cheers.) But I do not believe that absolute
confiscation is necessary. I believe we can find a method
by which, with the least possible suffering to any, this
great change can be made. But I say frankly that this
question needs very full and very complete discussion. It
is a question for Socialists to discuss amongst themselves
rather than for Socialists to discuss with their antagonists.
We want to convince you first that it would be well for us
to cross to the other side of the river, and when that is
done we will consult as to the best methods of building
the bridge that will take us over. (Hear, hear.) But, as
I have said before, it may be done simply by making a
number of those persons life-charges on the rents of the
monopolies. I believe it might be done in that fashion
to a large extent. Then the National Debt should be
gradually paid off, so that those who five on the interest of
the National Debt may be got rid of even though it be
done by very considerable taxation. I should not propose
to continue to pay interest, but to pay off the value of
their stock; because I know that when you have once
closed the source of idle living by stopping the interest,
small harm would be done by letting them have what they
originally invested; but you must stop them from levying
a perpetual tax upon industry by the interest which they
are able to draw. I put it to you that these and similar
methods of turning these people into life annuitants is a
practical reasonable way of making the great transition,
and of getting rid, in a generation, of the idle class. I
admit there are many difficulties, but they are not always
insuperable. What is wanted is, first to get the idea clearly
before the people that these monopolies for the few mean
poverty for the many, and that we must use our brains to
discover the best method of destroying them, and so of
striking at the root of our social evils. (Hear, hear.)
After dealing with that point, Mr. Foote went on to the
case of Clement Duval, but I fail to follow his argument.
Clement Duval was said to be an Anarchist, and was
clearly a thief. But is it because a thief calls himself an
Anarchist that Socialism is to be condemned ? If so, as
Individualism produces most of the thieves, Individualism
stands condemned in the same way. (Hear, hear.) And
I must remind you that your legalised thievings breed
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
65
illegal thefts. If a man. like Clement Duval sees a wealthy
man taking wealth that he has not earned, how is he to
distinguish in principle. between the capitalist’s right to
take the wealth he has not earned from the worker, and
his own right to take that for which he gives no equiva
lent from a private house ? If you destroy men’s sense
of honesty by your legalised system of thieving—called
capitalism—you cannot wonder that men, with somewhat
muddled brains, imitate on a small scale what is done on
a large by the leaders of society. (Hear, hear,) Mr.
Foote says that the majority has only the right to protect
life, liberty, and property. But society, in its supreme
right over its members, very often tramples on the whole
of those rights, and I think with the approval, to some
extent, of Mr. Foote himself. What about taking the
life of a man who has committed a murder ? I do not
say it is right. I do not think it is consistent with the
highest morality ; but if society is formed for the protec
tion of life, speaking generally and universally, it seems
strange that the life of man should be taken by society, and
this action seems to support the view that society can claim
supremacy even over the lives of those who are its mem
bers. Mr. Foote says that society defends liberty and
property. Liberty and property are very fine words, but
we complain that the present organised system defends
neither liberty nor property for the majority. We allege
that instead of defending property, it confiscates the property
of the workers, and places it in the hands of those who do
not labor. We allege that it only protects the property of
the rich, and authorises the constant robbery of the poor.
When you are dealing with this question of property, has
it ever struck you to turn to some statistics—not made by
Socialists, but issued by a benevolent Government for the
instruction of its subjects—and to read there that out of
every 1,000 persons who die—I am dealing with the
probate and legacy returns—only thirty-nine leave behind
them £300 worth of personal property, including furniture.
So that, on the whole, the protection of property in our
country is scarcely satisfactory, since it can hardly be con
tended that the worker in a whole life would not have
made more than that to leave behind him when he dies.
And again, when you have the idler who leaves hundreds
and thousands of pounds behind him when he dies,
u
�66
IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
although, he has done nothing, then your view as to the
value of society in protecting property will have to undergo
some modification before being accepted. (Hear, hear.)
I am told that poverty is now redressed, and stress is
laid on the spread of education and on the decrease of
crime, and when Mr. Foote urged that I found myself very
much in agreement with him. The statistics quoted as to
education and diminution of crime are such as we must
all be glad to know ; but as to the decrease of pauperism,
the statistics are not so satisfactory, because we know how
it has been caused; we know that the poor-law officers
have made the conditions of relief much more stringent,
and the taking away of out-door relief has diminished the
number of paupers, in consequence of the shrinking of
the people from going into the workhouse. This has made
the diminution shown by the statistics not so real as it
looks. (Hear, hear.) Then we are told as to the growth of
savings in banks, and so on, and we are asked why not go
on in this particular line. I answer, because if we go on
in this line the masses will continue to get so little and
the few will still get so much ; because although in savings
banks you may get a large sum in the aggregate, if you
work it out and compare it with the number of the popu
lation you will find it amounts to a contemptibly small
amount per head, and even then we have no right to say
that all is the savings of the workers. But still all those
points are points which show some sort of slight improve
ment here and there. But they are balanced by an amount
of misery, by an amount of wretchedness, that surely
should urge us to some method of dividing the nation’s
produce which shall not leave only one-third of it in the
hands of 5,000,000 families, while the remaining twothirds go to 2,000,000 families to keep them in wealth.
(Hear, hear.)
But, Mr. Foote says, why use the phrase, “cut-throat
competition”, and he says it suggests a razor and blood.
But how many of our people are killed out in this struggle
for life ? (Hear, hear.) I speak of cut-throat competition,
and I base that phrase, not on Socialist figures, but on the
report of the Registrar-General, where I find the average
life of the workers is very little more than one half the
average age of the idlers, and it makes no difference to me
in looking at the effect of things whether a man has his
�67
IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
life cut short by direct violence, or if his throat is cut by
the razor of semi-starvation carried on during a great part
of his childhood and manhood, sinking him to the grave
sooner by half a life than if he shared the better food and
sanitary conditions of the wealthy class. (Hear, hear.)
Then Mr. Foote made another attack on the Social
Democratic Federation, into which I will not again
follow him, for this debate is on the question, “Is
Socialism Sound?”, not on whether it is wise for persons
to enter a church and hiss at the Queen. Supposing these
things were done over and over again by foolish persons
that does not touch the subject of this debate. (Hear,
hear.) Then Mr. Foote tells me that Oliver Cromwell was
well paid in the end. Mr. Foote will not say that that
payment was Cromwell’s motive in his work. In fact, all
the great works of genius are done because the genius is
there, impelling the man to act. It was not money that
made Mil ton write “ Paradise Lost ”. It is the imperious
faculty in the artist that makes him create, and makes him
find a joy in his creative work. Little cares he whether
money come to him as payment; his payment comes in
men’s love, in men’s gratitude, and the memory they keep
of him ; he knows that the future is his, and herein is his
reward, rather than in the mere cash amount that may be
paid over to him. (Cheers.)
Mr Foote : I have again and again heard Mrs. Besant
say what the facts of life strictly disprove—that men of
genius are simply moved by theijs creative impulse. If
Mrs. Besant went and told the members of the Royal
Academy that they only painted for public applause, they
would probably all laugh at her. Certainly the artist
does like public applause, just as Mr. Gladstone or any
minister of the crown likes public applause. But somehow
they all like to be as well paid as possible too. (Hear,
hear.) Gronlund supposes—and I have heard the same
thing from other Socialists—that it would be absurd to
think of a great man of genius painting or writing for
payment. The name of Raphael was given as one instance,
but Raphael painted for popes and cardinals, and other
men of great eminence and great wealth. It is well to
keep the facts of history before you. (Hear, hear.)
When Mrs. Besant says that the suffering of to-day is a
balance against the improvement that I indicated, she is
f 2
�68
IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
also conflicting with the facts of history. I have read some
thing of the history of my country, and Mrs. Besant pro
bably has too. I have also spoken to old men belonging to
the party with which I have the honor to work, up and
down the country in the manufacturing districts, who
remember what was the state of things thirty and forty
years ago, and they corroborate what I have read in the
pages of recent history. If I may trust these reports, the
state of the worker forty years ago was greatly worse than
it is to-day. (Hear, hear.) It is easy enough for a man
who feels the distress to-day to exclaim like mourners are
always apt to do, “Never was grief like unto mine”.
But if you look at the real facts you will find that in your
deepest misery others suffer as greatly; and if you now
suffer from distress, there was greater distress forty years
ago. However, Mrs. Besant says—and true it is—that
poverty is to be redressed. But it does not at all follow
that mere benevolence is likely to redress it. It does not
follow that rash action is likely to redress it. (Hear,
hear.) If a man is in dire agony, it does not follow that
the first half-a-dozen persons who drop in to see him in a
neighborly way, and to sympathise with him, will do him
any good. The surgeon who is called in must keep
his sympathy in the background. He must use his skill
with the utmost callousness. He must not allow his
sympathy to affect his nerves. He must work in the
cold, dry light of the intellect. Unless he does that the
patient will suffer more, from his sympathy than he will
gain from it. So with this great social question. You
cannot eradicate the evils of human nature in a moment
or in a generation. I tell Mrs. Besant she takes too
optimistic a view of human nature. I know there are
heroes in the world, but there are also cowards; there are
wise men, and there are fools; there are Shaksperes,
and there are Silly Billys. (Laughter.) You cannot with
the same old human nature work a new scheme simply
because you have devised it on the strictest rules of
altruism. (Hear, hear.) The same human nature that
produces to-day’s evils will reassert itself. No matter
what your social mechanism is, it will show the same old
fruit. Covetousness will not be abolished by Socialism.
Idleness will not be abolished because the whole com
munity will find work or food. Thrift will not be increased
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
69
because you say that a man should work for all instead of
for himself. (Applause.) If this human nature could be
twisted and turned like dough, and we were to agree that
the most benevolent scheme of the loftiest dreamer should
be put into operation, we might perhaps do some good.
But if it were applied to ordinary human nature it would
not, it could not, work. (Cheers.) Why, if ever a Social
istic experiment could have succeeded, surely it would have
been the Brook Farm in America. Surely it might be
thought that persons like Emerson, Hawthorne, Margaret
Fuller, and the others assembled together in a Socialistic
system, had the wisdom and the lofty nature for the pur
pose. But there was the old human nature in every one
of them. There it was, deeper down than their intellect
and their aspirations, and asserting itself in its own way.
In the end the experiment broke up, as all others have
done, except when supported by fanaticism and religious
bigotry. (Applause.)
Mrs. Besant says that she does not quite understand my
saying that society, or rather the State, exists for the pro
tection of life, liberty, and property. She carefully refrains
from saying a word about liberty. In the last night of
this discussion, when my turn comes to open again, I shall
perhaps have enough to say about liberty, which I believe
Communism, Socialism, or any such system, would crush
from off the face of the earth. (Cheers.) Meanwhile, I
will say that I cannot understand how Mrs. Besant thinks
that hanging a murderer is a violation of the principle that
the State is organised for the protection of life. Why is
the murderer hanged or incarcerated for the rest of his
days ? Because he has taken life; because he has violated
the very principle for which the State is organised. Unless
the State protects the people, you have anarchy instead of
organised society. (Cheers.)
It may, perhaps, be clever, but it is on the whole a little
too clever, to say that the protection of property means
merely the protection of idlers. Are all the members of
building societies idlers ? Are all the men who own—as
many do throughout England—the freehold of their houses,
idlers ? Are all the men who deposit in savings banks,
idlers ? Are all those who have paid money year by year
in fire and life insurance societies, idlers ? (Cries of “ No,
no ”.) You will find that if John Smith thinks the fate of his
�70
IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
fifty pounds is bound up with that of the Duke of Bedford’s
millions, he will fight in defence of his own and the Duke’s
too. (Applause.) It is easy enough to under-estimate the
power which is held by those who own small properties in
this country. Socialists may laugh, but the moment they
thought they were in the majority, and tried to put their
proposals into execution, they would find a million bayonets
lifted in defence of property. (Cheers.) The right of
property is not simply a principle that’ covers the idler;
it covers the worker too.
Mrs. Besant allows that we both agree that poverty
should be redressed. Before this debate is over it will be
my duty to show that I am not simply occupying a nega
tive position, although I am doing so to-night. (Hear,
hear.) I will attempt to show that without the Collectivist
system, or any of its dangers, by a gradual and sure
process we can emancipate the worker in the true sense of
the word. Bor what is it he suffers from ? Compe
tition? I say, nonsense I (Hear, hear.) Competition
gives a hard-working man an advantage over a lazy
man. Competition gives a skilful man an advantage over
a man who will not take the trouble to be skilful. What
the worker really suffers from is the subordination of
labour to capital. Aye, and that subordination can be
remedied just in proportion as the workers show that they
possess the moral and intellectual qualifications without
which their emancipation is an impossibility. (Cheers.)
Mrs. Besant has not yet touched the population question.
I want to know how she proposes to deal with it. She says
that under Socialism the necessity of conjugal prudence
would be obvious to the blindest. Why is it not obvious
now, when the parents have to bear the whole responsi
bility, unless the poor-law or private benevolence inter
venes ? How will it be obvious to the blindest when the
whole burden is thrown on collective society ? I did not
make the world, and I am glad of it. I did not lay down
the law of natural selection, and I am glad of it. But
nature has laid it down. It is a sure sign of a fool to
fancy that if you walk and talk round a fact it will change
or vanish. Facts must be met. H you go on breeding
population you must meet the question somewhere. H you
keep all that are not working, or for whom work cannot
be found, you will have the unfit, the scrofulous, the con
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
71
sumptive, the indolent, and the stupid, exactly on a par,
as respects their offspring, with the more capable and
energetic, from whom it would be far better that the race
should be continued. It is better to face these facts
instead of blinking them. (Cheers.)
In concluding my last speech to-night, let me draw your
attention to something curious in Socialism. In every
other system, persons all say “ experiment will show the
thing can be done ”, Why do not the Socialists try an ex
periment and see whether they can manage to succeed.
(A voice: “We are not organised”.) In this world we
do not make discoveries, we do not make inventions, we do
not make any progress, except by the one method of ex
periment. We try fifty or a hundred wrong ways until we
find the right one. By closing the avenues to experiment
with a cut-and-dried universal system, you really block
progress. Instead of doing this, let the Socialists show us
by experiment that Socialism can succeed. Why wait for
the whole world to join you before you make a move ?
Why don’t the Socialists give their scheme a trial on a fair
if modest scale, and show us that they can produce
better results than are obtained under Individualism.
(Cheers.) But Mrs. Besant’s Socialism cannot be practised
tilll the whole world is converted. There never was such
a Gospel before. She invites us all to ascend Mount
Pisgah, or some other height, and view the beauties of the
Socialist promised-land. Some of us think it is nothing
but a mirage, a mere haze on the horizon, or only a dream
of the prophet’s brain. But Mrs. Besant asks us to ascend
with her, and she will provide us with a patent Socialistic
flying-machine. We are not to go on in the old plodding
way, step by step, but we are to try our wings, we are to
fly instead of walking. It will be fortunate for those who
hold back when the flight begins. (Laughter.) There is
only one true method of progress in this world. It is step
by step, line upon line, here a little and there a little.
(Applause.) Pessimism is probably false, and Optimism is
probably false, but there is sound philosophy in Meliorism,
or making things a little better day by day. When Louis
Blanc, after years of sentimentalising, had an opportunity
of doing something after the fall of the Empire, he went
on sentimentalising as before. He kept talking and writ
ing about “the social question ”, until he provoked Gam-
�72
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
betta into saying: “ There is no one social question ; there
are many social questions, and each must be dealt with
when it is ripe”. Every stimulation of the intellect and
higher feelings of the people, every fresh advance in public
education, every new political reform, every gradual im
provement of the relations between labor and capital, every
sure step of the workers in the direction of self-help through
voluntary co-operation, is of more advantage to the world
than all the fanciful Utopias ever spun by metaphysical
spiders. (Loud applause.)
Annie Besant : Let me dispose first of the Royal
Academy. I quite grant that the members of the Royal
Academy paint for money. My words only applied to
geniuses. I quite admit that where you are dealing with
mental ability short of genius, it may be necessary for
some time to come to have some difference of remunera
tion. That is not in any sort of way necessarily antagon
istic to Socialism, and the confusing of the two things may
give a dialectical triumph, but will hardly stand much in
vestigation. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Eootesays I take too opti
mist a view of things. Socialism urges itself upon the world,
not because it takes an optimist view, but because it tries
to take a real one. It believes that where one man can
live idly on the labor of others, that man will live idly on
other’s labor. That is, it realises that unless you can
make it impossible for men to live in idleness, and can
thwart men’s evil instincts by arrangements which do not
permit of their having full play, these instincts will
triumph and cause misery in society. It is because we
believe this that Socialists propose to take away the pos
sibility of idle living, so as to be able to say to a man,
“ If you do not work you will starve
(Hear, hear.) It
is because we know men will live idly if they can, that we
want to destroy the means of their living on the labor of
others. (Hear, hear.) Socialism tries to destroy the
monopolies in the material for wealth, because only by
that destruction can the men who own them be prevented
from preying on their fellows. Hear, hear.) Well, Mr.
Eoote says that the Socialistic experiment at Brook Farm
did not succeed, and that, if that failed, where can we
hope for success. And he asks, why do you not try your
Socialist experiments yourself ? We say that the failure
of the previous experiments has convinced us that small
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
73
Socialist societies living in the midst of a competitive
system can never realise our idea of what true Socialism
is. It can only be done by the conversion of the majority
to Socialism, and by that majority taking over the means
of production already in existence. And when we are
asked why do we not now make our experiment, we say
that we are not going to surrender our right to the accu
mulations of previous labor, and that by leaving these in
the hands of the present owners, and starting afresh, we
should be only playing into the hands of the plunderers.
(Cheers.) The workers have already made the capital;
why should they leave it in the hands of the appropriating
class, and set to work to build it all up anew ? Then Mr.
Foote challenges me—and rightly—to speak on the popu
lation question, and he uttered words of generous recog
nition of what I have done in the matter in the past, for
which I earnestly and cordially thank him. (Hear, hear.)
I do not move from the position I took up in 1877. I
would stand as readily on my trial now, as then, for the right
to teach the people how to limit their families within their
means. I know I am in a minority on this question in the
Socialist party. I know that the majority of my Socialist
friends, realising rightly, as they do, that the population
question alone cannot solve this problem of poverty, at
present shut their eyes too much on this matter, and turn
their backs too angrily on a truth which they ought to
realise. (Hear, hear.) But none the less is it true that if
you solved the population question to-morrow your people
would still remain exploited for the benefit of others; if
the population were so reduced that the masters were left
to compete for labor as laborers now compete for employ
ment, justice would still be left undone. Why do masters
try to get hold of the laborers but in order to make a
profit out of them—that is, to deprive them of some of the
result of their labor ? and whilst, given the same amount
of employment, the laborer’s wage with a small population
would be higher than with a larger population, it would
still only be a wage—a share of what he earned—and the
idler would still live on the industrious man. (Cheers.)
Socialists see this ; but they very unwisely, as I often tell
them, go out of their way and put themselves into a false
position by setting themselves against a law of nature,
instead of recognising and utilising the truth for them
�74
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
selves. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Foote says, how will your
Socialist State prevent over-population ? and I might
answer him by saying, How would your Individualist
State prevent it ? But that is no answer. The Socialist
State would probably prevent it by law. (Laughter, and
“Oh, oh”.) Yes, by law. The Socialists will be forced
to understand that the children are a burden on the com
munity ; education being supported out of the taxes and
education going on from childhood until the citizen is
almost an adult—education will be a very heavy burden
which the producers will have to bear. When they feel
that the undue increase of their families makes that burden
too great, when they realise that the multiplication of non
producing consumers means more work, less leisure, more
hardship for themselves, can it be pretended that they will
be likely to leave the comfort of the community at the
mercy of its most reckless members ? And when you are
dealing with society organised as we propose it should be
organised, it will be far easier to stop these mischiefs even
by public opinion than it is now. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Foote
speaks about breeding from the fit and from the unfit. But
is it from the fit only that the population is recruited under
the Individualist system ? Are the Brunswicks then among
the fit ? The idlers of the country add largely to the
numbers of the population, and we want to strike at all
idle living, and we believe that by doing that we shall be
able the sooner to educate the people to realise the full
scope of this question of population. But I say again,
as before, that every system which does not realise or
recognise this law of population will break down. (Hear,
hear.) Socialism without it would break down, and even
Bebel himself, who speaks against Malthusianism now,
admits that under the Socialist regime we shall come face
to face with this increase of population, and that the time
will come for dealing with it. (Hear, hear.)
I will now pass on from that to another point raised.
Mr. Foote says why not have free competition ? You can
not have free competition whilst you have monopolies in
land and capital. You can only get anything of the value
of free competition when every man shall be able to reach
the land and have the use of capital, so that each shall be
really free. (Hear, hear.) There is no freedom of con
tract between the proprietors and the proletariat. For one
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
75
is clogged by the absolute necessity of having to get his
livelihood from the other, and to talk of free competition
under such conditions is a mere hypocrisy. Then Mr.
Foote says that the State under Socialism would interfere
with everything. We do not allege that the State should
do everything and interfere with everything. We allege
that you should have an organisation elected by the people,
responsible to the people, removable by the people, which
should administer for the general good the material for
the production of wealth in the country. (Hear, hear.)
But such a State, or rather the Executive of such a State,
would be nothing more than a body or bodies of officers
elected by the people, much as your municipalities are now
elected to discharge certain functions for the benefit of the
towns whose business they administer. (Hear, hear.) Next,
Mr. Foote asks, what about foreign countries ? and he
says truly that it will take a long time before China,
India, and various barbarous races will be socialised.
Then, he says, we should have to compete with these non
Socialist States in the markets of the world. I am not
aware that we compete with the negro or with these
lower races in the world’s markets ; and is it quite fair to
use the argument that it will be a long time before these
lower races are socialised, and then the next moment to
speak of them as if they were our competitors, whereas
the only relation between us and them is that we plunder
and murder them, and that they resist us? (Hear, hear.)
It will indeed be a long time before the negro is socialised;
but we hope it will not be long before England, France,
Germany, America, and Italy will be socialised. (Cheers.)
These are the nations with which we have to compete in
the world’s markets, and these are the nations in which
the Socialists are winning over the majority of the working
population, and are obtaining adherents in every circle of
society. (Hear, hear.)
Then Mr. Foote says, poverty will not be redressed by
benevolence and sympathy. I admit it; and it is because
of that that Socialism tries to trace the poverty to its
source. I reiterate the statement that the source of
poverty is private ownership in the material necessary to
produce wealth, and so long as private ownership in this
material continues, so long will poverty be found to be
its inevitable result. (Hear, hear.) That is not talking
�76
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
benevolence; that is not simply acting on sympathy or
appealing to yonr emotions. It is laying down a hard
economical fact out of which the whole of Socialism grows,
and that fact it is with which our opponents must deal.
And Mr. Foote has not attempted to do so. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Foote finally spoke about liberty. Mr. Foote urges
apparently, and he has said that he will strengthen his
contention hereafter, that under Socialism liberty would
disappear, that tyranny would override society. Never
from my lips shall come one word of attack upon liberty—
that liberty which is the source of human progress, which
is the condition of human growth. (Hear, hear.) But
even liberty is not all. Nearly one hundred years ago a
cry broke out from an awakening people, and that cry
had in it the word “liberty”, but it had joined with
it as watchword for the Revolution “Liberty, equality,
fraternity”. (Cheers.) That cry rang over to England,
and the Radicals caught it up, and on their banner they
put the motto, they named the indivisible three which
make human progress safe. (Cheers.) And are the
modern Radicals going to drop the last two words, and
in the exaggeration of the importance of liberty forget
that of equality and fraternity, which are its sisters
and inseparable? (Cheers.) Liberty! What liberty
under your Individualistic society for the poor sempstress
stitching in the garret for the pittance of a shilling a day ?
(Cheers.) What equality possible between your duke and
your dock laborer? What fraternity to be hoped for
between your millowner and-his hands? (Hear, hear.)
Is equality to become only a word ? Has fraternity passed
into a dream for the modern Radical? 0 my Radical
brothers, who turn deaf ears against our Socialist plea:
you who dream in your zeal for liberty that by this you
will win everything, no matter over what human lives your
car travels, I remind you of your older days ; I recall you
to your older traditions. (Cheers.) I appeal to you for
help for the movement which began a hundred years ago,
and which is going on among us still; I appeal to you—
do not use against us the weapons which of old Toryism
used against you; do not throw at us the old taunts and
scoffs which were thrown at you by our common enemies.
I appeal to you to remember your past. (Hear, hear.) If
you would have liberty to work for progress have also
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
77
fraternity and equality, and let us work together for that
nobler society where all shall be free, where all shall be
equal, and where all shall be brothers because masterhood
shall have passed away. (Cheers.)
Mr. Foote : I beg to propose a hearty vote of thanks to
our chairman.
Annie Besant : I second it.
The vote having been carried,
The Chairman said: I thank you for your vote of
thanks, and I ask you to attend in large numbers next
week, when Mrs. Besant will open the discussion.
�78
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
THIRD NIGHT.
George Bernard Shaw
in the
Chair.
The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen; our business to
night is the continuation of the debate on the subject,
“Is Socialism Sound?”. Mrs. Besant says that it is
sound. Mr. Foote contends that it is not. The arrange
ments of the debate this evening will be : each debater
will speak three times—once for half-an-hour, and twice
for fifteen minutes, the speakers speaking, of course,
alternately. On the last evening the debate was commenced
by Mr. Foote. It is therefore Mrs. Besant’s duty to open
to-night; and I now call upon her.
Annie Besant : Friends, as I said on the first night of
the debate, I propose to deal to-night with the historical
evolution of Socialism, and with the absolute necessity for
its adoption in this and in other civilised countries, if the
civilisation of the present is not to break down as past
civilisations have done. I am, of course, aware that there
is something of rather portentous impudence in the attempt
to sketch the evolution of society in the space of half-anhour ; but as I am limited to that time, I must do the best
I can, merely giving you the landmarks of the chief stages
through which, as I contend, society has passed. And to
begin with, we will go back to that condition which Mr.
Foote fairly enough described as the condition of primitive
Communism; this you find in a few cases of tribes in a
very low condition of civilisation ; this is found only where
life-conditions are easy, where the soil is fertile, and where
food is abundant, and can be obtained without very much
trouble. Under those conditions you will occasionally find
what may be called primitive Communism—a condition of
things in which private property has practically no exist
ence, and there being abundance for everyone, each man
takes according to his own needs. These communities,
however, are very few in number, for the simple reason
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
79
that the parts of the earth where such abundance is easily
obtained, are themselves very limited in number. And the
moment that you come under harsher life-conditions, then
over the greater part of the habitable globe you will very
soon find a struggle for existence going on amongst men,
which makes anything like Communism absolutely im
possible. You then get the right of the strongest to take
what he can and to keep what he can. Thus you get what
we may call a primitive Individualism, where strength is
the supreme law, and where the individual’s rights are
only measured by his power of enforcing them. (Hear,
hear.) Under those conditions private property very rapidly
springs up ; for when a man has to work hard for that which
he obtains, he naturally feels resentment, and desires to
punish those who, without labor, would deprive him of the
results of his own toil. And so, as practically there is only
one man who is the strongest in the tribe and only a few
who are above the average strength, the resentment of the
majority who are plundered finds expression in the form
of law and of punishment; and private property becomes
recognised as a right by the limitation of the power of the
stronger and by the defence of the weaker who form the
majority of the community. (Cheers.) And when that
stage has been reached, the next one is the condition in
which civilisation, having somewhat advanced, and the
cultivation of the ground having taken the place of hunt
ing and fishing, and of that particular form of war in
which war and the chase are united—-I mean the institu
tion of cannibalism—when society has passed beyond that
stage into the agricultural stage, you find appear in prac
tically every early community a form of labor which is
known as slavery. (Hear, hear.) Men who are taken in
war, instead of being used as food immediately, are used
as food in a less direct fashion. And you find the owners
of these captives taken in war setting the captives to labor,
turning them into slaves who produce for their master’s
benefit, and who have no rights beyond those which
their masters may bestow upon them for their own advan
tage. And you then get this property in man. This is
one of the results of the growing civilisation under the
Individualistic condition, and you find society divided into
the propertied and the non-propertied classes—the nonpropertied class in these early conditions being literally
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
slaves—chattel slaves—who produced for their owners, who
took the result of their labor, giving back in return suffi
cient to keep them in healthy working order. (Hear,
hear.) If you look back to the various stages of civilisa
tion which we should class as ancient, you will find that
they were all very largely based on this institution of
slavery. You will find that in Greece and in Rome you
have a vast mass of the population absolutely without
property, absolutely without rights; and the nation was
considered to consist of the higher classes of the com
munity who owned the slave, no rights of the commonest
citizenship being given to the slaves themselves, who
labored for their masters. (Hear, hear.) And on that rock
of utter division of classes—of the breaking up of society into
practically two nations in every community—on that rock
ancient civilisations split, and every one of them in turn
went down before a flood of barbarism. (Cheers.) I pass
now to the next stage that I mark on this brief sketch
of historical evolution. Of collective property in land you
find traces practically down to our own time, and I must
ask you in thought to distinguish between the less numerous
cases where the property in land was really of a collective
kind, and the far more numerous cases which were more
analogous to peasant proprietorship, where families inheri
ted certain plots of land to which they had a special right,
in which each member of the community had his own
piece, as it were, of the ground, none being left absolutely
landless. But still all the community, with this sort of
limitation, owned property in land, though not having
absolute collectivism. But you do find in some communi
ties absolute collective property in land, and I suppose
there is no better instance of that at present than you will
find in the case of some Slavonic tribes, such as you may
see a good example of in the Russian Mir. In the western
parts of Europe the property in land was of a very different
character. There you find—in countries like our own, in
France, and in other western lands of Europe—there is
a kind of holding of land known as feudal, that is practi
cally the result of the military state in which the people
lived. The nations of the north, urged on by the necessity
for subsistence and the pressure of the population, were
constantly overrunning the more fertile lands, and the con
quering tribes set up the system which grew into feudalism
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
81
in the lands of which they were the conquerors. And
then you find the Danes and the Northmen spreading over
France and settling in England; and then some passing
from Normandy into England, destroying the old fashion
of land-holding and establishing feudalism in its stead.
(Hear, hear.) Under these conditions the king was really
the one owner of the whole of the soil. I know that
it is said that the king was the representative of the
nation. But that is a myth, a mere figure of speech. The
king was really the owner, for he granted the land to his
barons. (Hear, hear.) What is, however, very important
to us is that the baron’s rights in these lands were strictly
limited, and under feudalism these barons had duties con
nected with their ownership of the soil, and one special
duty was that of defending it from all outside attack.
(Cheers.) In Scotland and Ireland the method of hold
ing land was somewhat different. There you had the
clansmen living on the land. There were clans under
a chief who was autocratic, but still the clansmen had cer
tain rights in the soil, and the very chief himself would
have been careful how he touched them. (Hear, hear.)
And the result of that was that there was a feeling on the
part of those who then dwelt on the land that they had
rights in the soil as sacred as any of the rights of their
chief. And if you enquire into the traditions of these
people—which are now held by men like the Scotch
crofters and the Irish peasants—you will find that the root
of these men’s resistance to the modern landlord is not so
much that they are fighting against the rights of property
of the landlord, as that they are fighting for their own
right of property in the soil upon which they were born.
(Cheers.) And you will never convince a Highland crofter
or an Irish peasant that justice is not on his side, however
much landlord-made law may be against him. (Hear,
hear.) In passing from the feudal system, I pause for a
moment to remind you of that great act of robbery whereby
the landlords conveyed the land into their own complete
possession, throwing off the rental which in the feudal
days they had to pay in dues and various charges to the
king, and they thus became practically absolute owners of
the soil. (Hear, hear.) I am of course aware that there
is no such thing as absolute ownership of land known to
our law; but for all practical purposes the landlords are
�82
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
absolute owners ; and that act of theirs was really a great
act of expropriation, a robbery, whereby they made them
selves the real owners of the land which they had up to
that time only held by payment of dues. (Hear, hear.)
We find, upon turning from these various stages through
which this land-holding went, that the claim for collective
property in capital is of comparatively very modern origin.
(Hear, hear.)
And naturally so, because until very
modern times there have been no vast accumulations of
capital for the purpose of wealth production. You have
the small industries of the Middle Ages—you have the
handicraftsmen banded together in guilds, but you have
no great accumulations of capital; nor have you any
thing which is at all analogous to our modern system of
factory labor of gathering together great crowds of
men to co-operate in the formation of a common product.
And it is only from the sixteenth century upwards that
you will find the struggle beginning between traders
and landowners; and only practically from the end of
the last century will you find the true beginning of the
industrial difficulties with which we are dealing at the
present time. (Cheers.) From 1760 to 1781 you get
the great age of invention in machinery; the destruction
—not of industries themselves but—of the small methods
of manufacture, and the putting in their stead of the
modern method of manufacture by which hundreds of
men work together to make a common product, dividing
the various parts of the labor amongst them. It is thus
only for the last 100 years that society has been face to
face with this great difficulty of the aggregation of capital
in the hands of a few. (Hear, hear.) What was the im
mediate result of this sudden outburst of mechanical
energy ? It was the revival of slavery under a new name.
(Cheers.) Just as when society, taking up agricultural
pursuits and working on the land, found that by enslaving
men and making them work their masters would be raised
to a position of wealth and of luxury which they could
not reach by their own toil, so in modern times, when this
sudden productivity of machinery was discovered or prac
tically started—we may say just about a century ago—then
you get the beginning of a similar division of propertied
and unpropertied classes — the employing class and the
employed class—the one completely at the mercy of
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
8.
the other. (Hear, hear.) And although it is true that
the slavery was a wage and not a chattel slavery, still fun
damentally the two things are identical; for you have in
each case one man taking another man and using his labor
for his own purposes—taking the product that the laborer
has produced and giving back to him only enough to keep
him in working order. (Cheers.) It is true that in the
chattel slavery the produce—or the share of the produce—
that the laborer got was given to him in the form of food,
clothing, and shelter. It is true that in the modern sub
stitute for slavery that part of the produce the laborer
gets is given to him in the form of money, with which he
buys food and clothing and shelter. But the principle
is exactly the same—(hear, hear)—men working for a
master not for themselves; men with no control over the
product of their own labor, but the product passing into
another man’s hands, and the laborer in each case getting
in return the possibility of subsistence; getting in return
sufficient to keep him in fair working order. (Hear,
hear.) But there is this difference. Under the old system
the slave really did get sufficient to keep his body in the
best possible condition for labor. (Cheers.) Not only so,
but as a child he was maintained, as an aged man he was
fed and he was sheltered. The chattel slave was a
valuable property as the horse is valuable and the ox—
(hear, hear. A Voice : 11 And no more ”)—and the owner
of the slave kept him in a condition of the highest effi
ciency. (Hear, hear.) But the modern slave owners have
found out a cheaper method than that of breeding and of
owning slaves. (Cheers.) They have found that it is
cheaper to hire than to buy them. They have found that
it pays better to take them only for their working life and
to have no responsibility beyond it. (Hear, hear.) And the
advantage is a very simple one. James Nasmyth, the
great engineer, was being examined before a Parliamen
tary Committee on the subject of trade unions, and he ex
plained that he constantly increased his receipts by sub
stituting apprentices at a low wage for able-bodied men
who demanded payment of the full wage that was paid in
their trade. And the questiou was asked him, “What
becomes of the men you discharge : of their wives, and cf
their families ?” Nasmyth answered: “I do not know.
I leave their fate to the natural forces that govern society”.
g2
�84
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
Now that is exactly what the slave owner could, not do.
(Hear, hear.) But it is what the modern capitalist can do,
and does do, although very few of them are honest enough
to speak out as frankly as James Nasmyth spoke before
that Parliamentary Committee. (Cheers.)
I pass for a moment from that to the next point in my
argument. We have to trace in that growing industrialism
the growing interference of the State. I will just remind
you of the early attempts of the State to regulate Middle
Age industries. You will remember that the first edict
fixing wages was in the Fourteenth Century, and that the
Statute as to laborers that followed it tried to fix the
laborer’s wage at a definite sum, and that it failed, and
Jailed for a very simple reason. (Hear, hear.) It failed
because the men wanted higher wages than were specified,
and because it paid the masters to give a higher wage.
(Hear, hear.) And as the men were anxious to get the
higher wage and the masters were ready to give it, the
law became practically inoperative. It was a regulation
between two classes, neither of whom was willing to accept
that regulation of the State. But it is not because that
one case failed that any student of history can pretend
that it is true that all attempts at wage-fixing have been
inoperative. (Hear, hear.)
Take, for instance, the
Statute of Apprentices. It was successful to such an ex
tent that when it became an anachronism it was difficult to
get rid of it. And one half of the difficulty of the adminis
tration of the old Poor Law was due to the attempt to
circumvent in some sort of fashion this Statute with its
fixed wages, and out of the rates they tried to make up
more than the wage which ought legally to have been given.
Then you have a mass of laws interfering with workmen’s
combinations. And then, going on again, we come to the
time which I previously spoke of, when machinery was in
troduced, and you have the struggle between the workmen
who were fettered by the laws against combination, and
the employers, who were absolutely free—absolutely un
fettered by law. (Hear, hear.) What was the result of
this condition of things ? Vast fortunes on the side of
the propertied class ; frightful degradation on the side of
the unpropertied class—(cheers)—degradation so horrible
as to frighten Parliament itself. The death-rate of children
so great; the deterioration of the factory population so
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
85
terrible, that even Parliament itself—composed as it was
chiefly of the propertied class—found itself forced to pass
the first Factory Act, which interfered with this condition
of so-called free contract and free labor. (Cheers.) Then
you had—first, interference with child labor; next, inter
ference with woman labor. And the result of this inter
ference with the child’s and with the woman’s labor was
practically a limitation of that of the man’s. (Hear, hear.)
Because since these three worked together in the factories
—and since the female and the male labor were practically
complementary to each other—the limitation of the women’s
hours of labor indirectly brought about a limitation of
the men’s hours. (Hear, hear.) And so this legislation
went further than those who initiated it intended, and it
acted as a very general limitation of the hours of labor.
(Hear, hear.) And then you had still further State inter
ference—interference with contracts over and over again,
as when rent-courts and so on were established in Ireland
and in the northern parts of Scotland. And step by step as
that legislation has progressed, the condition of the laboringclasses has to some slight extent been improved. (Hear,
hear.) That is to say : the growing Socialism has brought
about a growing improvement, and the gradual inter
ference of the community to make the conditions more
equal on the side of the men has really given them oppor
tunities of rising which were utterly out of their reach in
the earlier years of the present century. (Cheers.) Nor
has that been all. There has been a growing recognition
on the part of the community that it is concerned with
something more than the regulation of business relations.
The responsibility of the community for the feeding of its
helpless members had long been recognised. (Hear, hear.)
The recognition of its responsibility for the curing of its
sick members had also to a considerable extent been recog
nised. But the fault in both these cases has been that the
conditions for getting food or medicine were, with the
object of discouraging people from embracing them, made
so degrading that those who may be considered the least
worthy accepted the opportunity of relief, whereas those
who were self-respecting and independent found the con
ditions so insulting that many a one would rather starve
than condescend to accept the relief. (Cheers.) Next,
society recognised its duty in matters of education. It
�bG
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
recognised that it was a thing in which the community
had a right of interference, and it went on the plan of
taxing everyone, although only some had the immediate
benefit of the taxation. (Hear, hear.) And rightly so;
because you cannot divide off society into small cliques
and tax each for its own necessities. And although it may
be true that only some profit directly by the taxation for
education, yet the whole community profits indirectly ; not
only in the greater utility of the educated man or
woman, but also from the decrease of crime which is one
of the most marked results of our Socialist plan of national
education. (Cheers.) Next came the acceptance of re
sponsibility to a considerable extent on the part of society
even for the health and amusement of its members ; and
parks were made and kept up out of the public rates ;
galleries and museums were provided out of the national
taxation; libraries were adopted by parish after parish
taxing itself directly for this benefit to all. And so, step
by step, and more rapidly than ever during the last twenty
years, this growth of practical Socialism has been spreading
amongst our people, so that John Morley truly said, in his
“Life of Cobden”, that England, although Socialism was
little spoken of, had a greater mass of Socialistic legisla
tion than any other country in the world. (Hear, hear.)
And at the same time the Socialist spirit is spreading in
the smaller representative bodies in our country; corpora
tions and municipalities, passing beyond their at first very
limited duties, have been gradually taking over more and
more administrative and trading work into their hands.
And so you find municipalities now beginning to trade in
water and in gas ; and wherever that has commenced, the
advantages of that kind of Socialist trading become patent
to the town that adopts it. And the result is a gradual
but more and more rapid growth of Socialist feeling.
(Cheers.) Take a town like Nottingham—a town I hap
pened to visit recently. There the municipality has taken
over the supply of gas. What has been the result ? Not
only that the gas has been very much cheapened to the
citizens—although that is something—but that out of the
profits obtained from the cheapened gas-rate, at the same
time that the people of Nottingham can get their light for
very much less than ever before, instead of the profits
going to the shareholders of a company and being divided
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
87
amongst them, and. so keeping in idleness men who did
nothing for the town, those profits on the gas have been
utilised to build a great college, fitted up with everything that
is wanted for literary, for scientific, and for artistic training.
(Hear, hear.) There in that college, paid for out of the
profits of the town’s gas, are professors for instruction in the
various branches of learning ; and there every night classes
are held at merely nominal prices, to which every citizen
of Nottingham can go and train himself into wider know
ledge, into deeper enjoyment of life. (Hear, hear.) And
that is the result of Socialist legislation. (Cheers.) Under
Individualism the profits would go to enrich shareholders.
Under Socialism the profits go to be used for the benefit
of the town, and that grand educational experiment is the
result of practical Socialism in Nottingham. (Cheers.)
Mr. Foote : Last Wednesday evening Mrs. Besant occu
pied the first half of her first speech in replying to what
I had said on the previous evening. She cannot therefore
complain if I follow her excellent example to-night. And
I feel that I shall be all the more entitled to do so because
a considerable quantity of Mrs. Besant’s first speech to
night is the kind of thing you may read in any primer of
universal history, and which therefore I do not feel called
upon to dispute. (Hear, hear.) It will be remembered
that last Wednesday I pressed Mrs. Besant in two speeches
to say how she proposed to take over capital and land, and
how she proposed to deal with the population question.
Now either by design or inadvertence—I prefer to think
the latter—Mrs. Besant left these two questions unanswered,
although she had two opportunities of replying, until her
last speech, when of course I had no opportunity of rejoin
ing, and therefore it had necessarily to be left until this
evening. Now how does Mrs. Besant propose to take over
capital and land ? A great many Socialists say, following
Gronlund, 11 the matter of compensation will not trouble us
much”—(hear, hear, and laughter)—and evidently when
Socialists speak out in unguarded moments—(hear, hear)—
Mr. Gronlund and the Social Democratic Federation have
a very large amount of sympathy. But Mrs. Besant says—
and in this as in so many other points she follows Gronlund
—“we would give capitalists and landowners life annui
ties”. Gronlund’s proposal is a little more sensible, if
Mrs. Besant will allow me to say so. By Mrs. Besant’s
�88
IS SOCIALISM SOUXD ?
plan all the capitalists would be given life annuities.
Some of them would live a great while, but some of them
would die to-morrow, and their wives and families would
be swept among the wreckage of society—(“Oh, oh”)—
to find some kind of compensation of a character which
I think it is far better to contemplate than to realise.
(Cheers.) Gronlund proposed that they should all be paid
off; so that, supposing Vanderbilt were worth eighty
millions, he should have a million a year for eighty years.
I very much doubt if a Socialistic Society would have the
million a year to pay for eighty years—(hear, hear)—I
still more gravely doubt whether the ease with which the
first measure of confiscation were passed would not speedily
raise an agitation for complete repudiation of the obliga
tions that were incurred. The great difference between
Mrs. Besant and myself on this point is that I deny her
right to do this; I say that the man who owns property
under the existing law, which he has not stolen in violation
of any law, has a right not only to get his price for it, if
someone else demands it, but a right to withhold it from
sale if he chooses. (Cheers.) So that there is a moral
difference here between myself and Mrs. Besant, and I do
not see how it can be easily bridged over. I fancy it must
leave Mrs. Besant and myself on two different sides of a
chasm, across which she strikes me in vain, and across
which I strike her in vain. And I can only leave the
moral aspect of that question to every man and woman, to
be decided by such instincts of justice and fair play as they
may happen to possess. (Hear, hear.)
With respect to the population question, which Mrs.
Besant does not appear to treat with quite her old serious
ness, she says that the new society—whatever that may
be; it is largely a question of prophecy—will deal by law
with the progress of population. But if law can deal with
it, why does not the law deal with it now ? And how are you
to get your law ? Under Socialism everybody will have a
vote. Of course, everything will be decided by the vote
of the majority. If Mrs. Besant thinks that the human
nature, which we all know, will by a majority of voters
pass a law making the procreating of offspring over a
certain number penal, she is a great deal more sanguine
than I happen to be. (Cheers.) But if human nature
can assent to such a law, why does not human nature
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
89
assent to such a law now ? Mrs. Besant says that the
workers only breed slaves for the capitalist. (Hear, hear.)
She says that all their children are kept, or nearly all of
them—the exceptions being hardly worth counting—in
the state of society in which they are born. Well, if this is
so, and if the fact is obvious, how is it that the workers
do not voluntarily restrict population now ? Because it is
much easier to ask somebody else to come under a law
than to come under it yourself. (Cheers.) I cannot help
contrasting the almost Bacchanalian fury with which Mrs.
Besant incites the workers to take possession of other
people’s property—(cries of “No, no”)—and the bated
breath and whispering humbleness with which she reminds
her Socialist friends that they really do not attach quite
sufficient importance to this law of population. Mrs.
Besant did not use to speak so. She spoke in sterner
accents years ago. (Cries of “Oh” and “Question”.) Is
it not a fact, after all, that great as may be the courage
required to face juries and judges and prisons, a still
higher and rarer courage is required to turn on friends
who are mistaken and tell them in the stern accents of verity
what they have neglected or forgotten ? (A Voice: “She
has the courage”.) A gentleman, who has I fancy inter
rupted me more than once, says Mrs. Besant has courage.
I have not said she has not. (Cheers.) Now, what kind
of law is it to be that will deal with population ? Are you
going to have public committees watching young couples ?
(Laughter.) Are you going to say a husband and wife
shall have two, three, or four children as the case may be?
And if they have more children than the law prescribes,
how will you deal with them ? Are you going to put them
in prison ? If so, you must keep them there. And when
they come out they will violate the law with the same
equanimity as before. (Cheers.)
This law of population is the rock on which all com
munistic and Socialistic schemes must founder. (Cries of
“No, no.”) Suppose you have Socialism inaugurated to
morrow. Suppose you remove the competition which
Mrs. Besant detests. Suppose you guarantee, as she un
dertakes to guarantee, productive work for everybody.
Suppose you monopolise all the means of subsistence.
You are then bound to do what the law of England does
at present: make the possessors of the means of sub
�90
IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
sistence find food for those who are out of employment.
(Cheers.) The State would be obliged to feed everybody
who was starving for want of work. (“Oh, oh.”) The
lady or gentleman who disputes that is really without a
rudimentary acquaintance with the subject. Persons out
of work have to be fed now, and persons out of work under
Socialism will also have to be fed. (A Voice: “There
will be none”.) A gentleman says, “ there will be none”.
Well, he and I differ on that point. You will have to find
food for all your population. You remove competition,
and you remove parental responsibility for offspring. The
feeding of the children will be done by the State if the
parents are unable to do it, and what will be the result ?
(A Voice: “Enough to eat”.) The result will be—
(dissent)—Well, really, it appears that the manners of
economical atavism are quite what one might expect.
(Laughter.) You would have to do one of two things.
Either you would have to weed out the utterly incapable—
the semi-idiotic, the scrofulous, the consumptive, and all
those whom a sensible doctor would declare to be unfit to
procreate—and sternly forbid them to do so. Otherwise
you would have a perennial supply of the unfit, who would
all flourish; whereas, under the present competitive system,
notwithstanding our hospitals, our charities, and our work
houses, they get gradually eliminated, because the odds are
against them from the very beginning. (Cheers, and cries
of “No, no”.) If you are not prepared to do that, you
would have swarms of population beyond your power to
maintain. Then what would happen ? Either there would
be such anarchy, such poverty, that society would remould
itself round some stable centre—perhaps in the form of a
military conqueror—figuring once more as a savior of
society; or else the more vigorous and more progressive
members would separate themselves from the rest, form
new communities of their own, strike out in fresh direc
tions, and so restore the old competive system which was
abolished in a moment of Socialistic folly. (Cheers.)
I am very sorry to spoil a pretty peroration. I am very
sorry to throw a cold shower of common sense upon what
was a glowing piece of rhetoric. But at the same time I
would ask Mrs. Besant, who accuses me of mistranslating
Proudhon without giving a better translation herself, how
she comes to read Liberte, Egalite, et Eraternite as meaning
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
91
anything Socialistic? “Egalite”, which we translate
equality—very roughly, hy the way, though—has never
meant in the mouths of the French people who used it
anything like equality in the Socialistic or Communistic
sense. Nor has “ fraternity ” meant anything like Com
munism. Liberty and equality were both meant as a
protest against the privilege created by law under the
ancien regime. Egalite. meant equality before the law
for everyone, high and low, rich and poor; the aboli
tion of all law-created distinctions; the placing of everybody
on what Thomas Paine called the “democratic floor”, where
he is entitled to no more consideration than his own energy,
intellect, and character entitle him to. (Cheers.) Perhaps
Mrs. Besant will tell me what great leader of the French
Bevolution used the word egalite as meaning anything like
Socialistic equality. If she cannot point to any such
leader, and if the word has never been used in that sense,
it appears to me that her peroration was far more mis
leading than my translation of Proudhon’s definition of
property. My translation was as near as possible, con
sidering the difference between the genius of the two
languages, which makes it utterly impossible to translate
epigrams from one into the other without some roughness
and some loss of the finer shades of meaning. (Cheers.)
Practically Mrs. Besant, in one of her remarks, gave up
the whole of the debate. She said that it was perfectly
absurd—and I agree with her—to start Socialistic experi
ments in the midst of a competitive society; or, as Mr.
Hyndman grandiosely called it in his debate with Mr.
Bradlaugh, “making Socialistic oases in a howling desert
of competition”. By the way, Arabs and other people
do keep up oases in the desert, where they cheer and
refresh the traveller with palm trees and water. Mr.
Hyndman and his friends might try to do the same kind
of thing. But what is their admission ? Why is it that
Socialistic experiments cannot succeed in the midst of a
competitive state of society ? Because competitive society
is more robust and virile, calling forth the energies of the
people, and producing grander results. Socialism cannot
succeed by experiment because competitive society would
beat it and kill it in the open field. (“Oh, oh.”) Mrs,
Besant shows a wise and true instinct in asking that every
body shall join Socialism at once before it is carried out.
�92
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
Socialism could never hold its own unless, by means of an
overwhelming majority, it got the power to make the laws
into its own hands, and used that power to proscribe every
form of rivalry with itself. (Cheers.)
Monarchy, aristocracy, and such things, I am quite as
much prepared to deal with as Mrs. Besant can be, and
therefore they may as well be eliminated from the debate.
(Cries of “ No, no ”.) My opinion is that if many things
Mrs. Besant and I equally object to were remedied there
would be very little distress now or at any time. But we
need not dwell upon these. They are common points of
agreement. But let me say that Mrs. Besant attaches a
little too much economical importance to a Duke with
£200,000 a year or a rich capitalist with £50,000 a year. As
a matter of fact, a man with that immense income cannot
eat it and drink it. (Laughter.) A laborer once facetiously
remarked, though with a great deal of truth, when some
one was talking to him about a rich man: “Well, I guess
he has not a bigger stomach than I have”. (Laughter.)
Now, what does a rich man do with his wealth ? He
spends nearly all of it in employing some kind of labor.
(Laughter and cries of “Oh, oh”.) One moment. It
may be the labor of domestic servants; it may be
the labor of men engaged in various forms of fine
art, it may be the labor of men engaged in painting
pictures, it may be the labor of men engaged in carving
statuary, it may be the labor of men employed in one or
other of the twelve thousand different trades that are
tabulated by the Registrar-General. Well if this be so,
and all the rich men were immediately abolished, all the
persons who follow the trades they maintain would be
thrown helplessly on the labor market. (“ Oh, oh.”) I
say they would if it were done at once. (“Oh, oh,” and
cheers.) I say that the peculiar kind of work they do is
only such as rich men can pay for. (Hear.) That is no
argument against any kind of reform, but it certainly is an
argument for gradual proceeding, instead of revolutionary
haste. (Cheers.) The real grievance is that so much is
spent in non-productive labor. That is the true economical
grievance ; and I should very much like to see less money
spent in non-productive labor. But there will always be a
great deal of money spent in that way, unless you widen
the term productive so as to include everything that can be
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
93
done. Mrs. Besant might think that publishing a book is
productive work. It is in a sense, but I doubt whether it
is in a Socialistic sense. I do not know what particular
value a book has. If it is printed and sells, it is worth
something; but if it is not instructive or interesting, or
too good for the public, and does not sell, it is only worth
waste paper. It is not like a commodity turned out in the
open market which has a natural value, and will always
fetch it. I will turn to another point. Mrs. Besant over
estimates the amount which would be distributed amongst
the workers if capital were appropriated by them “with
or without compensation”. A fact is worth any quantity
of theory, especially if the theory conflicts with it.
(Laughter.) I have taken the trouble, as I have on
previous occasions, to put together a few statistics. I find
that in 1884 our total output of coals and metals was of
the value of £64,000,000. I find also that the number
of miners was about 441,000. Now if you divide the out
put by the number of miners, you will find it gives a total
sum for each worker of £145 per year. But mark, the
£64,000,000 is the total value of the output. In addition
to the miners’ wages there are other expenses, a few of
which I will recite. Birst taxes, including income tax,
as now paid; secondly, rates on the property; thirdly,
interest on the capital, or sinking fund ; fourthly, savings
for increasing, maintaining, and extending the business;
fifthly, extra payments for skill, such as foremen, engineers
and managers ; sixthly, rent, or royalty to the Government;
seventhly, payment for clerks, surveyors, etc.; eighthly,
payment for materials, machinery and ventilating appa
ratus ; ninthly, payment for tramways, horses, and so
forth; tenthly, payment for insurance and employers’
liability. Now, if you took all those expenses for each
colliery from the total output, you would find that they
made a very serious diminution in the amount that would
be available for distribution amongst the workers them
selves. The total only comes to £145 for each worker, and
the nett amount could not come to anything like that sum.
Surely the difference between the wages now paid to the
miners and the amount they would receive if the whole
value of the output, minus the working expenses, were
distributed amongst them, is not sufficient to justify Mrs.
Besant’s revolutionary proposals. She asks us to leave
�94
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
the shore we are accustomed, to, where great possibilities
of improvement still remain, and embark with her for the
opposite shore. It is politic to ask us all to go at once,
for if we succeed in crossing safely the pilot will be
universally praised, and if we sink there will be nobody to
utter a word of blame. (Cheers.)
I will deal in my next speech, and more fully, with what
Mrs. Besant has advanced to-night. What she said does
not seem to have any particular relation to Socialism. The
great questions of universal history—how States arose and
fell, how slavery originated, how it affected civilisations,
how far it helped to break them up, the growth and pro
gress of education, and so forth—have nothing to do with
the distinctive question “Is Socialism Sound?”. (Cheers.)
Mrs. Besant has to deal with the economical and practical
objections to Socialism. She has to show, by an effort of
constructive imagination, how Socialism would work in
practice. But she has done nothing of the kind. She has
denounced evils that we all deplore; she has urged that
they should be remedied, and we all wish to remedy them.
The question at issue is: Is her remedy a good one ?
Denouncing evil is beside the point. She must show that
her remedy will cure it; and unless she does that, she
has no right to invite us to follow her prescriptions.
(Applause.)
Annie Besant : I am almost sorry that Mr. Foote did
not think it worth while to deal with the speech with
which I opened, because one of the great differences be
tween modern thought and older thought is the tendency
of modern thought to study how things evolve. (Hear,
hear.) And that can only be done by studying the past,
and tracing through the past up to the present. The
modern progress of science is based largely on that
method. (Cheers.) And to renounce that, or to treat it
with contempt, is to turn your back on the truth which
has made the scientific progress of the last twenty years.
(Hear, hear.) I pass from that, and I will deal very
briefly with my peroration of last week, to which Mr.
Foote objected. Now I am sure that Mr. Foote knows as
well as I know that you cannot destroy the effect of a
peroration after a week has elapsed. A peroration moves
for the moment; it is the arguments before it that remain.
A peroration is like the closing passage of a sonata, bring
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
95
ing the music to an effective conclusion. You remember
the sonata, and you cannot destroy its effect even when
the chord which concluded it no longer fills the ears that
listened to it. I make Mr. Foote a present of my perora
tion without any further remark, save this : that I admit
at once that the Frenchmen who used that cry did not
mean Socialism when they spoke of “liberty, equality, and
fraternity
They were not face to face with a condition
of society in which Socialism was possible. But what I
meant in applying their phrase was that just as in those
days equality meant the destruction of the privileged
classes, which were then kings and nobles, so the cry of
equality now means the destruction of that aristocracy of
wealth which is more highly privileged and more mis
chievous to society than the old one. (Cheers.)
I now come to the points raised by Mr. Foote in his
speech. Mr. Foote spoke as to compensation. Let me
put very clearly what I said. I said that I should be
willing to give life annuities to the expropriated owners.
The income of the Duke of Westminster will shortly, as
the building leases fall in, reach a million and a half a
year. The way in which I should deal with the Duke of
Westminster would be something like this : I should say—
“ My lord duke, you are not of the very least good in the
world; you are the result of a very bad system, and we are
even more responsible for that than you are, because you are
only one and we are many. We have practically made you
the very unprofitable creature that you are. You cannot use
your hands to keep yourself. You cannot earn your living
by any useful work. Although this is our fault more than
yours, we cannot allow you to keep on robbing others for
an income. We will therefore give you for the rest of
your unprofitable life a decent little income, say of £500 a
year.” (Hear, hear, and laughter.) That is the sort of
compensation which I meant when I spoke of life annuities.
And I should be willing, in a case where a man died and
left a widow, to continue the annuity to her; and I might
be generous enough, if there was a son left about forty
years of age, too old to learn to be of any use, to continue
the annuity to him. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I do
not desire to make these people a wreckage on society—
I see too much social wreckage as it is. (Cheers.) And I
do not desire to add one single life to it. (Hear, hear.)
�96
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
But what I do desire is to prevent these men continuing
to make wreckage of thousands in order to keep them
selves. (Cheers.) Then Mr. Foote says man has a right
to withhold his property from sale if he chooses. Would
he have used that argument in the Southern States of
America to defend slavery ? I deny that a man has any
absolute right to withhold property from sale if he chooses.
(Hear, hear.) The rights of property were made by society,
and society is supreme over them. No man has a right to
hold his property to the injury of the greater number
among whom he lives, and you do not even now allow
~Hm “so to hold it. (Hear, hear.) You force men to sell
now by law, if they will not sell of their own good will,
when their property is wanted for the community; and
you must, if you are going to have society at all, admit
the right of society to control the property of the members
of the community to an enormous extent. (Hear, hear.)
And if a man usurps property which he has not made,
that he has no right to—property which he only holds by
virtue of bad laws—then the majority has the right to
repeal those laws and destroy his power of exploiting, and
thus, by destroying his property in man, to free the men who
must remain slaves whilst he holds them. (Cheers.) Mr.
Foote says there is a moral difference between us. I grant
there is an enormous moral difference between Socialism
and Individualism, and the whole of the moral difference
is this—that from Mr. Foote’s point of view a small num
ber of persons have the right to rob other persons and get
the result of their labor, whereas Socialism says that theft
is wrong in the prince as much as in the peasant, and that
neither shall be allowed to rob his neighbors and live
upon the labors of the industrious. (Cheers.)
Mr. Foote challenges me again on the question of the
law of population, and asks me how it is possible by law
to limit the population, and why not pass such a law, and
why don’t the workers see the difficulty now. There are
several reasons why the workers of this country do not see
the bearing of the law of population. In the first place,
they have so little property themselves that they do not
see the mischief done by making too many claimants
among whom it is divided. They are already so poor
that they cannot well be poorer, and they are careless
and indifferent, thinking it matters comparatively little
�97
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
whether twelve are starving on 12s. a week or four are
starving on the same sum. (Cheers.) One important
step towards limiting the population is to raise the standard
of comfort; because when you do that you make the
people anxious not to fall back from the comfort they have
obtained. (Hear, hear.) But if always on the verge of
starvation they do not feel the fall, because practically
they cannot fall very much further in position. (Hear,
hear.) And, unfortunately, through our history there has
been an opposition from the time of Malthus between
those who consider that the remedy for poverty lies in
State interference and those who believe it lies in limita
tion of the family. The result of that has been a certain
antagonism between those who would improve matters by
legislative action, and those who would only deal with the
law of population. And that hereditary antagonism, like
the fighting of dogs and cats, comes out rather as a matter
of instinct than of intelligence. Nor is that all. I ask
Mr. Foote to notice that in France where you have, to
some extent, raised the standard of comfort for a great
part of the population, that part of the population has re
cognised the law of population, and has voluntarily
limited its own increase. (Hear, hear.) And in every
Socialist experiment in America it has been found neces
sary to recognise the law by the very condition of their
living. And whatever steps they took—whether by pre
ventive checks of various kinds—in every case limitation of
the population has been one of the primary conditions
insisted on in these communities. That is, the moment
you establish Socialism, even among a limited number of
persons, they recognise that you must keep the balance
between the arms that produce and the mouths that eat.
(Cheers.) Another reason why I think the law of popu
lation is not now seen by Socialists as it ought to be, is
because of the bluncFfing way in which it has been put
by many economists. I think I have mentioned before
that the old wage-fund theory on which it was based has
been given up. But as this law was based by economists
on an economical theory now discredited, it is not wonderful
that with the discredit of the theory the other theory based
on it disappears from the thoughts of Socialists. And
when you take these facts into consideration—the raising
of the standard of comfort; the recognition that society
H
�98
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
must maintain its members, and that therefore every man
is interested in the limitation of the family; it being then
seen—as it will be then seen—that for every large family
there is less leisure and more labor for the producing
community, then you will have made a public opinion in
favor of the limitation of the family, which is utterly
impossible at the present time. (Hear, hear.) Then,
again, Mr. Foote asks : How are you going to limit the
number ? Are you going to imprison the parents ? H
you do, the multiplication will go on as soon as the people
come out of prison. (Hear, hear.) But you don’t use such
arguments against imprisonment for theft. (Hear, hear.)
We know that penalties practically make conscience and
public opinion. But, at the same time, I very much doubt
whether for the limitation of the family you would want
anything more than the education, especially, of the women,
and a rather stern social boycotting for those who trans
gressed the limit too recklessly. (Cheers.) Nor is that
all. I believe that one of the strongest arguments in
favor of the limitation of the population will come from
the women ; as you educate your women more highly, as
they take part in public life, as they become more economi
cally independent than they are to-day, your women will
refuse to be mere nurses of children throughout the whole
of their active life. (Cheers.) They will be willing to
give all the care that is necessary for two or three children,
but will refuse to have their health ruined, and the whole
of public life shut to them, by having families of ten
or twelve, which are practically destructive of motherly
feeling as well as of happiness and comfort in the home.
(Cheers.) Mr. Foote suggests that under the present con
ditions the sickly, the scrofulous, and so on, get killed out
amongst the poor. You do not kill them out from among
the rich. And what I want is a public opinion to make it
a crime for a diseased man or woman to transmit their
disease to a child. (Cheers.) And it is public opinion
that will do this better than any other way; and that
public opinion I am trying to make. (Cheers.) But Mr.
Foote says that I used to use stronger language on this
question than I do now : and that it requires more courage
to speak out to friends things they do not like, than even
to face a judge and jury. I do not think I have softened
my language on the population theory. (Hear, hear.)
�99
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
I say now, as I said long ago, that the limitation of the
family, if it stood by itself, would never remedy poverty.
I pointed then to the changes which we wanted in the
land laws and in other ways, side by side with the law of
population, and I say the same still. I say the law of
population alone is not our most important matter. It.is
more important to get the right idea on the production of
wealth to-day even than it is to press—as I still press—
the duty of the limitation of the family. (Cheers.) I
thoroughly agree with Mr. Foote, that it does need more
courage to speak unpalatable truths to friends than to
face judge and jury. (Hear, hear.) And I can assure
him that, in my own experience, I stood before judge and
jury, and lay under sentence of imprisonment, with a far
lighter heart, and with a far less troubled mind, than I
have felt in taking the name of Socialist, and thus setting
myself against some of those with whom I have worked
for the last thirteen years—(hear, hear,)—and when I have
seen faces grow cold and friends grow distant, because I
have dared to speak a truth unpalatable to them. (Cheers.)
The Chairman : Ladies and gentlemen, in calling upon
Mr. Foote this time will you allow me to say that the way
in which you have listened to Mrs. Besant’s speech is very
greatly to the credit of those who disagree with her. I
want to appeal therefore to those who disagree with Mr.
Foote not to allow themselves to be outdone in patience
and courtesy. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Foote: Unfortunately, I and the chairman mis
understood each other towards the close of my first speech.
He said something about my having half-a-minute more,
but he told me afterwards that I had three and a-half
minutes, so I am to have my compensation in this speech.
(Hear, hear.)
Mrs. Besant says you cannot spoil the effect of a perora
tion a week after. It depends upon the circumstances.
She says a peroration is something that influences people
at the moment. That is not quite my notion of a perora
tion. If a peroration is something that cannot subsequently
be defended, I do not think it is a right thing to try to
influence people with it at any moment. (Hear, hear.)
Mrs. Besant says she would compensate the Duke of
Westminster in the way you heard. It is a curious thing
that Mrs. Besant avoids all the ticklish parts of her case.
h2
�100
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
The Duke of Westminster, as an English nobleman, has
no right whatever in the land except the right which he
holds legally under the Crown. The Duke of Westminster,
as a peer of the realm, can be dealt with by Parliament,
with the Crown’s sanction, differently from men who have
purchased the land, or men who are holders of land in the
sense that their small moneys, collected together in fire
and fife insurance and other societies, are invested in that
way. I want Mrs. Besant to tell us, not how she proposes
to deal with the Duke of Westminster—with whom I, as
an Individualist, believe we can deal by law—but how she
proposes to deal with the hundreds and thousands of poorer
persons who own smaller quantities of land—(hear, hear)—
and how she proposes to deal not only with the big capita
list who makes a fortune, but with the thousands of little
capitalists, some of whom only get a bare living, and
others not a much better living than the highest form of
skilled labor which they happen to employ.
Mrs. Besant says a man has no right to do as he pleases
with his property. Aye, but what property ? Mrs. Besant
has referred to land, but the law of England does not
recognise private property in land—not absolute private
property. The soil of England is always held under law.
But I do not hold my watch under law. A capitalist does
not hold his capital under law, except in the sense that the
law protects him against the thief who wishes to appro
priate it. The land, of course, has to be sold if it stands
in the way of a public improvement, but the Bill which
empowers the public improvement also provides for fair
compensation. I want Mrs. Besant not to be merely
facetious about the Duke of Westminster—as to whom I
don’t care very much—but to deal with the interests of all
these other persons—hundreds and thousands of our fellowcountrymen, as honest as Mrs. Besant and I, as honest as
all of us here—who, with their wives and children, if they
have any, must all be considered in your scheme, unless
a ou are going to violate all the instincts that throb in the
heart of every man with a feeling for his fellows.
(Cheers.)
As to population, Mrs. Besant says she would somehow
deal with it by law. But she takes particularly good care
not to tell us what kind of law she would put in operation.
She trusts more to public opinion, however, in the long
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
101
run. That is exactly what I trust to, and public opinion
grows under our Individualist system quite as much as it
could under a Collectivist system. (Hear, hear.) It is
true that the prejudiced jury, representing a mistaken
majority, found Mrs. Besant guilty of an obscenity which
she never committed. Yet at the same time, notwithstanding
these occasional outbursts of bigotry, Individualist society
is more and more willing to act fairly, and to allow
discussion on vital subjects. (Hear, hear.) The proof of
it lies in the fact that Mrs. Besant can go on, despite that
verdict, advocating the very same principles for which .the
jury condemned her. (Hear, hear.) Public opinion is
growing, and it cannot very well be forced. Collectivist
social machinery won’t, as Herbert Spencer says, produce
golden actions out of leaden instincts. You have to wait.
Progress is slow. Jumping at the moon is sport for
lunatics. Our way in this world, set for us by nature, is
steady plodding, step by step. We make some advances
even on the question of population. Mrs. Besant says byand-bye women will be educated. But we are not waiting
for Collectivism to educate women. (Hear.) The Education
Act of 1870, passed under an Individualist state of society,
provides for the education not only of every boy, but of
every girl, in the State. (Hear, hear.) Girton College,
University examinations for women, education in the fine
arts for girls, and tutorship even at the Royal Academy—
these things are not the gift of Collectivist Socialism.
(Hear, hear.) Women are being educated, and all of us
are glad of it. (Cheers.) I quite believe with Mrs. Besant
that as women become more educated, and take a larger
interest in public affairs, and think more about general
questions, they will not oppose that prejudice, which they
now oppose more than men, to a prudent restriction of
offspring. (Cheers.) They will refuse, as Mrs. Besant
well says, when their standard of comfort and feeling and
education is raised, to become mere domestic drudges from
the beginning to the end of their married life. We do not
want Socialism to tell us that. We see the improvement
of woman going on now. If Socialism disappeared to
morrow, and was never heard of again, the cause of
woman would be safe. When a great cause has raised its
head from the dust, and begun to boldly challenge opposing
prejudices, it must win in the long run, unless you can
�102
IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
crush, it by law. But the time for that is gone by, and the
elevation and emancipation of woman is assured. (Cheers.)
Mrs. Besant says that under a Socialistic state of society
the workers would see that if they bred too fast they
would injure themselves. Here is a man who is earning
two pounds a week. He has four children, and the fifth
is coming. He says “It is hard ” ; he knows his two
pounds a week is becoming relatively less and less. He
knows he must keep himself and all the children he brings
into existence. Yet although the burden of keeping them
falls directly, obviously, perceptibly, beyond all question,
upon his own shoulders, Mrs. Besant says he has no in
ducement to refrain from breeding, but that under a Col
lectivist state of society the inducement will be perfectly
clear. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
I will deal now with Mrs. Besant’s first speech. She
told us how tribes began, and as I think, quite wrongly.
She said that in the tribe one man was stronger than the
others and he gained the predominance. But one strong
man cannot terrorise five thousand by his physical power.
The five thousand could break him in a moment. Why
is he the head of the tribe ? The whole explanation of it
is, that tribes war against tribes, and military organisation
is necessary. The military machine must be worked from
one centre, with one controlling mind. A debating society,
as Lord Macaulay said, never fights. A general, whether
he be a tribal chief, or a Duke of Marlborough, or a
Napoleon, must have absolute control, otherwise the whole
business will come to grief. Savages are subordinated to
chiefs because everything must be subordinated to the
tribal law of self-preservation. They are obliged to protect
themselves against the attacks of the predatory tribes
about them. There thus arises a military state of society,
entirely because of the militancy of the populations sur
rounding the tribe, and the constant necessity of selfdefence. (Cheers.)
Mrs. Besant told us quite rightly that slaves were origin
ally captives in war. That clearly shows that slavery did
not begin out of the mere lust of slavery. (Hear, hear.)
Originally, as you will read in many ancient scriptures
the captives taken in war were slain—immolated on the
altars of cruelty. But as men got a little more intelligent
and a little more humane they discontinued this, and all
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
103
the captives in war became slaves. All the various castes
in India and elsewhere are simply the results of so many
waves of conquest sweeping over the land, the conquerors
establishing themselves as rulers, and subordinating those
whom they conquered. But I do not see what that has to
do with Individualism. I do not propose that we should
go prowling over the world, and imposing ourselves on
subordinate populations. Unfortunately we are in India,
and we shall have to face many difficulties before we can
■clear out of it. (Hear, hear.) But if we were not in India,
what sensible man would ever propose that Englishmen
should go there ? (Cheers.) How slavery arose is a very
long question, and how it developed is a longer question
still. But when Mrs. Besant says that slavery broke up
all the ancient civilisations, I have to differ from her.
What broke the power of Greece ? The greater power of
Borne. Both of them were founded on slavery. What
ultimately broke the great power of Home ? Was it
slavery? No. It was the employment of mercenary
troops, by which the Romans themselves grew out of the
habit of war, lost their old instinctive valor, and so the
barbarians from the north were able to overrun them. The
barbarians, who overran them, brought Feudalism.
Feudalism was established by the Goths upon the ruins of
the Roman Empire, and that Feudalism was slavery in
another form. (Hear, hear.) The serf of the soil was no
better off than the ancient slave. He was really in a worse
position than the. slave in the best days of the Roman
Empire, when many of the leading men—artists and
thinkers—were slaves. They were protected by the law
then. No owner was allowed to do as he liked with his
slaves. If maltreated, the slave could appeal to the
tribunals, and obtain his freedom or a better master. But
under Feudalism the lord was practically absolute. Out of
that Feudalism our modern system has arisen. (Hear,
hear.) Mrs. Besant points to the Act of 1694—I presume—
by which the English aristocracy threw off from them
selves the burdens of Feudalism, which went with the
holdership of land, and practically threw those burdens
upon the shoulders of the industrial community. I should
be as glad to undo that as Mrs. Besant, but I do not see
how the undoing of it conflicts with the principles of
Individualism, which I am here to maintain. (Hear, hear.)
�104
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
Let me now deal with, something which Mrs. Besant
says is Socialistic and which she claims for the principle of
Socialism. She speaks of the town of Nottingham. But
she might, without going to Nottingham, have found at
Birmingham many years ago that the Municipality had
taken over the gas supply. The Municipality may also
take over the water supply. But, as I said in a previous
part of this debate, no Municipality, no State, ever did, or
ever will, inaugurate a new thing. (Hear, hear.) The
State and the Municipality can only take over what has been
begun and perfected by individual enterprise. (Cheers.)
Mrs. Besant says that education is Socialistic. I hope
not, I believe not. What is public education founded
upon? Upon Socialism? No. Upon Individualism, upon
the right of every individual brought into the world to
have those duties performed that are involved in the obli
gation which the parents undertake. (Hear, hear.) A
parent is forced to find education for his child, but the
duty had been so long neglected that the State had to say—
“ The child, who is an individual as well as the parent,
the child towards whom the parent has contracted obliga
tions, shall be sent to school”. (Hear, hear.) And as
the State made it compulsory, the State had to find the
machinery. It was a question of ways and means. The
easiest method was to establish School Boards all over the
country. And that education does not in any way interfere
with competition. Certainly that education does not dimi
nish competition. That education gives all the children
brighter minds, more knowledge, keener faculties, to start
with some measure of equality in that great race of life,
where the prize is to the swift, and the victory to the
strong. And that law—the law of all struggle, and the
law of all progress—cannot be set aside by all the devices
of all the dreamers in the world. (Cheers.)
Annie Besant : Doubtless, from the brevity with which
I had to make my opening statements, Mr. Foote did not
quite catch my idea in dealing with slavery in connexion
with the downfall of the older civilisations. I alleged
that they fell from the great division between the proprie
tary and the unpropertied classes, caused by the slavery
on which they were founded. And the reason why they
fell was chiefly this: that those who did not labor, in their
idleness grew luxurious, effeminate, and careless. (Hear,
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
105
hear.) That happened in Greece and it happened in Rome.
(Cheers.) The earlier strength of Borne broke down Greece
where the slave canker had existed longer, and had made
these idle, useless classes unable to defend themselves.
The younger vigor of the Goths broke down Rome when
the sloth made possible by the slave-class had destroyed
the manhood of those who possessed them. And so in
England the upper classes are growing, as the upper classes
of Greece and Rome grew, luxurious, effeminate, caring
more for soft living than for hard thinking. And for them,
living on a vast and degraded population, there is the
danger of a similar fall to that which wrecked both Greece
and Rome. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Foote repeated the state
ment that no municipality had ever taken up a new thing.
But he appears to have ignored the fact which I stated
that the only bodies which had taken up the hydraulic
machine for supplying water at high pressure were munici
palities, and that that fact was fatal to the whole of the argu
ment that the State can never inaugurate an improvement.
(Cheers.) Mr. Foote ignores the fact, and simply repeats
the statement.
\
I go back to Mr. Foote’s earlier speech. He asks once
more, Why do we not make a Socialist oasis, and he says:
Because Socialism could not hold its own against competi
tion. It is true that a small number of Socialists, who are
poor, entirely without plant, without accumulated capital,
cannot hold their own against the vast accumulated capital
which is in the hands of the supporters of the competitive
system to-day. (Hear, hear.) The competitors have the
railways, the great carrying companies, the canals; they
have a vast store of goods and of accumulated wealth
of every kind. It is not reasonable that a few of
those who have helped to make this wealth should go
outside, and, practically without capital, begin a fresh
accumulation with the hope of being able to hold
their own against the results of the robbery of their
rights for centuries. (Cheers.) Such a proposal is a pro
posal utterly unworthy of consideration. The Socialists
mean to have the railways and the canals and the plant
that they and their fellows have made, and not to leave
these to the competitive system whilst they go out naked
into the wilderness to make more. (Cheers.) Then Mr.
Foote stated that a very rich man cannot eat his income,
�106
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
and he told us of a not very clear-sighted agricultural
laborer who said that the rich man had not a bigger
stomach than he had. The agricultural laborer wanted
more education, and then he would have seen a little fur
ther, for he would have seen that the rich man with his
servants—the domestics, the gardeners, and the game
keepers—has a hundred stomachs to fill, and fills them all
out of the produce of the laboring classes who support
him. (Cheers.) It is quite true that a Vanderbilt cannot
eat up the whole of his income; but he can get a lot of
lazy persons to hang on to him; and that is where the
mischief of these very wealthy men is shown. And if
the agricultural laborer had been able to see a little fur
ther he would have seen a multiplication of stomachs
feeding on other men’s labor, which is the result of the
very wealthy classes. (Hear, hear.) Then Mr. Foote says
that all the servants and others employed by the wealthy
would be idle if capital were abolished. He threatened
us with 12,000 trades—all the members of which would be
thrown helpless on the world. But why so ? A large
number of trades would, I admit, fall out of existence in
a healthy and rational condition of society. Those trading
in jewels, which have only their value for show; traders
in many articles which are utterly worthless, and which
are simply bought by persons who do not know how to
waste their money fast enough—these useless trades would
fall out under Socialism ; and the men who used to make
so many articles of luxury for the idle and the rich would
be employed in making useful and beautiful articles for
the masses of the community whose wider wealth would
enable them to purchase them, and would multiply a hun
dred fold the commodities which would be wanted for the
comfort of the whole of the community. (Hear, hear.)
For what you have got is so much human labor to be
utilised in the best way ; and while it makes useless articles
and luxuries for the wealthy, you are depriving those who
are wanting absolute necessaries of the results of labor
in which they have a right to share. (Hear, hear.) Mr.
Foote spoke of productive and non-productive work. I
object to the phrase. Useful and useless work are better
terms. It would be far better to speak of useful work,
when the work done supplies anything to society of which
society stands in need. (Hear, hear.) I draw no distinc
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
107
tion in usefulness between the teacher and the grower of
corn, between the author of a great book and the man
who builds a useful house. Society has many needs, and
they all have to be supplied; and any man who fulfils a
function that is useful—that man deserves his place in
society. There is no sense in the distinctions between pro
ductive and non-productive work, which took John Stuart
Mill into the absurdity of calling the work of an artist
who painted a picture productive work, whereas the
work of the man who played a sonata on the piano he
called non-productive work. These distinctions are idle
and useless, and the sooner we get rid of them the better.
(Cheers.)
Then Mr. Foote says to me : I do not care what you do
with the Duke of Westminster, but how will you deal with
the poor men who have their own freeholds and a little
money invested.
Mr. Foote : As a point of order, I did not say I did not
care, but that I did not care much.
Annie Besant : I should suggest to Mr. Foote as I did
before that that lies quite as much on him as a land
nationaliser as on me as a Socialist. I challenged him on
that point, and he avoided it. I said I should have the same
law for the rich as for the poor. I should destroy private
property in land completely and utterly. But I would
make this distinction: Where a man had earned money
and invested his savings in the land, I should admit that
he had a right to the usufruct of that land during his life,
oi’ else to receive back the sum he invested in it—without
payment of interest—if he preferred so to receive it; and
I should certainly in this case give full compensation on
this principle, that you may compensate a man fully when
you are dealing with what he has absolutely earned, but
there is no need to compensate a man fully when you are
taking from him what he did not earn and what he became
possessed of by the labor of others. (Cheers.) Mr. Foote
spoke of dealing with thousands of poor capitalists barely
getting a living now. Socialism will put them in the way
of getting more than a bare living, and so they will profit
by Socialism. And the result, we say, of your competition
is to make the fives of the poor capitalists a burden and
misery; more and more of the wealth is going into the
hands of the few, and all these little fishes will get
�108
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
swallowed up by the big ones. (Hear, hear.) We want
to save them from this misery by placing the distribution
of wealth in the hands of organised societies, so that there
may not be so many competing in getting a living out of
a small amount of capital, but rather that they may be in
the position of acting as functionaries of society, fulfilling
useful work for which they would receive full and complete
remuneration. (Hear, hear.) Then there again I ought
to say that where any small capitalist had made his capital
himself I should be prepared to fully restore to him any
thing he had himself earned. The difference would be that
he would not be able to employ it as he had been used to
do in simply appropriating his neighbor’s labor, but would
have the result of his own work without being able to get
interest upon it—without being able to make money From
another person’s labor. Then Mr. Foote says land is
held under law, but he does not hold his watch under
law. I do not understand in what other fashion he
does hold it. If it were held without law probably that
watch would not remain long in his pocket. As a matter
of fact every right in a civilised community is based
on and defended by law. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Foote says
public opinion grows under Individualism. I have not
denied it. I say that probably it would grow faster under
Socialism if we may draw conclusions from analogy.
Take the force of trade public opinion within a trade
union. Public opinion where men are brought close to
gether works far more strongly on them and influences
them much more than it can do under our present condition
of struggling. (Hear, hear.) And I agree again with Mr.
Foote that public opinion cannot be forced. But public
opinion can be educated, and Socialists are trying to edu
cate the public opinion which they know will bring about
changes in these matters. (Hear, hear.) Then Mr. Foote
says that the Education Act was passed in an Individual
istic State. Not quite so. The Education Act was passed
in a State undergoing transition from Individualism to
Socialism, and it is a mark of the growing Socialist feeling
which is forcing these changed measures on the legislature.
And the thorough Individualists—take men like Auberon
Herbert and Herbert Spencer—admit this with regard to
State education, and point to the growing Socialism in legis
lation, which they contend is a danger. But Mr. Foote, in
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
109
legislation from his Individualistic standpoint, accepts the
fruit of Socialism, and then abuses the very tree from which
it comes. Mr. Foote says, “ We don’t want Collectivism to
raise women”. Don’t you? The Socialist body, as a
body, is the only one that claims complete equality in
every respect for women. (Cheers.) The old Radicals are
not sound upon it; some of them are in favor of it, and
some are against it. You find some Radicals everywhere
denying equality to women, and trying to keep them out
even from the rights of citizenship. There is no body in
the world save the Socialist, whether you take them in
England, or in America, or in Germany, or among the
Nihilists in Russia, there is no other body where you find
the absolute independence and equality of women pro
claimed as one of the cardinal points in their creed.
(Cheers.) That was one of the things that attracted me
to the Socialist party, because they do claim absolute
economical independence for women; because they do
claim absolute equality for her; and because in Russia,
above all, they have never grudged to women the place of
danger, but have stood side by side with her in conspiracy,
in peril, aye, and in the very worst prisons and on the scaf
fold. (Hear, hear.) They have never said, Your sex dis
qualifies you for the post of danger; our strength shall
guard your weakness. And this is the noblest thing which
Socialism has to say—there is no distinction of class, no
distinction of sex. It destroys every distinction and
every enmity, and places men and women on one plat
form of duty and of right. (Cheers.) And when Mr.
Foote tells us we do not need Socialism to do this, my
answer is, only under Socialism is that complete enfran
chisement of women possible. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Foote
says slavery existed under feudalism. It has existed
under every Individualistic condition of society, and it
must so be if the race is always to be to the swiftest and the
victory of the battle always to be with the strongest; for if
this is to be taken as meaning absolute muscular ability and
absolute want of scruples of conscience and human sympathy,
then, indeed, no true equality is possible. But, as I believe,
real individuality will only become possible under Socialism
—(hear, hear)—no Individualism is possible while men are
struggling for bare life. So long as they have to think
•only of food there is no possibility of that brighter day of
�110
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
progress to a higher future. And only as you free them,
from that continual want; only as you secure to them the
necessities of existence; only as you destroy monopoly of
that material for the production of wealth on which this
controversy really turns; only as you destroy that mono
poly can you have the leisure for the possibility of culture,
the possibility of refinement, and the possibility of time,
for that great effort which will change the masses of the
people from the drudges they are to-day into the cultured
men and women who shall form our Socialist Common
wealth. (Cheers.)
Mr. Foote: Mrs. Besant gave us another very glowing
picture of what Socialism would do for women. It is all
future tense with her. She plays the role of the prophet
throughout. Socialism may do this and that, and Socialism
may not do it. But when Mrs. Besant says that Socialists
are the only body who proclaim, and have proclaimed,
equality between man and woman—by which I suppose
she means legal equality, for otherwise the word can have
no meaning—I happen to remember that a body with
which I have had the honor to work for many years, and
with which Mrs. Besant had the honor to work before ever
she joined the Socialists, not only proclaimed that equality,
but in practice made no distinction whatever between the
sexes. (Cheers.) The best way to promote the equality
of the sexes is not to be always shouting it, but to practise
it. If you treat women as though they were men’s equals
you will do far more than by the most ardent declamation.
(Hear, hear.) I happen also to belong to one of the
largest Radical societies in London—the Metropolitan
Radical Federation, which is an organisation of nearly
all the workmen’s and Radical clubs in the metropolis.
When the programme was drawn up one gentleman with
drew because adult suffrage was carried instead of man
hood suffrage. Only one withdrew, and all the rest
laughed at him. So I do not think Mrs. Besant is quite
right in saying that Radicals, here, there, and everywhere,
are opposed to woman suffrage. (Hear, hear.) I know that
Admiral Maxse and Mr. Cremer are opposed to woman suf
frage; but does Mrs. Besant mean to say that every Socialist
is prepared to defend it? (Cries of “Yes”.) I doubt it.
Mt. Belfort Bax, who is one of the leading Socialist
writers, calls woman suffrage a bourgeois superstition, and
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
Ill
says that as women are numerically the majority, it would
be handing over political power absolutely into their hands.
(Cheers.) That is pretty much the view which Admiral
Maxse takes. But I quite agree that neither Radicalism
nor Socialism is to be judged by an individual member.
The great body of Radicals are in favor of woman
suffrage. I do not see what is to be gained by charging
on them what they are not guilty of. (Hear, hear.)
Again, we are told by Mrs. Besant that I claimed for
my Individualism all that has been done from her prin
ciples in a transition state of society. But how does she
know this is a transition state of society ? How does she
know that Socialism is going to win? (Hear, hear.) It
is all prophecy. She cannot know that Socialism is going
to succeed. I don’t say it won’t, but I don’t think it will
—(hear, hear)—and I deny Mrs. Besant’s right to claim
that we are in a transition state of society. Time will
show. I have my opinion about it as well as she, and I
have quite as much right to my opinion as she has to
hers. (Hear, hear.)
As to the difference between productive and non-pro
ductive labor, Mrs. Besant says there is none, or it is not
worth taking notice of. She says the difference is between
useful and useless labor. Permit me to say that in the
long run it comes to very much the same thing. When
John Stuart Mill was dealing with productive and non
productive labor, he was dealing with it simply as an econo
mist, who was considering the laws of the production and
distribution of material wealth. The man who plays a
sonata does not produce a material thing, but the man who
carves a beautiful statue produces something which has
a market value—something which could be put into the
market and sold. Mill was drawing a real and not a
fanciful distinction, without being concerned at all, as an
economist, with the moral or aesthetic aspects of the matter.
(Hear, hear.)
Mrs. Besant comments upon my allusion to the facetious
laborer, and says that he had a good deal to learn. Un
doubtedly he had; but not as to the dimensions of their
respective stomachs. (Laughter.) Mrs. Besant says that
a rich man gets a lot of idle persons about him. They are
not always idle. The real fact is, as I said, that the man
of wealth gets about him a lot of persons whom he employs
�112
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
in labor which in non-productive. That is the whole
gravamen of the charge. I am not sure that all the rich
men who employ labor are idle. Some of them have to
work very hard, and some of the persons they employ have
to work hard, although their labor produces nothing, and
does not help to swell the material, or intellectual, or
moral wealth of the community. (Hear, hear.) Mrs.
Besant thinks that a large number of the twelve thousand
trades I referred to are useless. (Hear, hear.) But if she
looks at the names of many of them she will see that most
of them are not employed by rich persons. They are
trades of all sorts and kinds and descriptions. It appears
to me that Mrs. Besant does not really see the gravity of
the proposals she is making. She does not seem to see
that the labor in these industries will have to be organised.
She does not seem to see that Collectivism, if it were
agreed to, would have to face tremendous difficulties.
She does not seem to see that it would have to provide
by sheer foresight the machinery for carrying out all the
multifarious labors of society, that are now done by indi
viduals finding out the proper spheres for their operations.
(Cheers.)
Socialistic experiments, Mrs. Besant says, could not be
expected to succeed. I know it. I agree with her. I
think they will never succeed, except occasionally here and
there, as in America where the ordinary laws of human
society are contravened. (Hear, hear.) Mrs. Besant
referred to the way in which they dealt with the population
question. Yes, and in one of the communities, owing to
the religious principle, or, as I should prefer to call it, the
principle of fanaticism, they had only two babies in twelve
months among two hundred and fifty adults. (Laughter.)
I know very well, in a small community like that, you can
deal with the population question. I know that in a small
community, which is recruited from all the cranks of the
world, you can hold men together by a principle which
the general run of humanity would not tolerate. Mrs.
Besant says that Socialism would fail because it has not
possession of all the railways, canals, etc. I fail to under
stand this. The railways will carry your Socialist produce,
as well as Individualist produce, and at the same rates
to the same markets. You do not want to take over
the railways in order to be put on an equality with Indi
�113
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
vidualists. If your produce will compete successfully with
theirs you will beat them, but not else. You know better
than to try it. (Cheers.) You say you cannot get capital
now. I pointed in my previous speech to the fact that
trades unions have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds
in their strikes and in resisting lock-outs—in many cases
justifiably, but in some cases not—but they have not started,
as far as I am aware, a single concern for the production
of commodities, under organised, voluntary, co-operative
labor. (Cheers.) And why have they not done it? Because
they are not yet ripe for it. Again, in the co-operative
societies that distribute—and those are the general body
of co-operative societies in our country—that sell goods in
the course of a year to the amount of over £26,000,000 in
value, you find that a great difficulty is to find proper
managers, and a greater difficulty still is, how to keep
them. (Hear, hear.) They have also found it exceedingly
difficult to produce their own goods, for they generally
find that they can buy in the open market the produce of
Individualist enterprise better and cheaper than they can
make for themselves. (Hear, hear.) If they could produce
better and cheaper themselves, they would do so to-morrow.
But distribution is one thing, and production is quite
another. (Hear, hear.) What does the State produce ?
What did the State ever produce ? What can the State
ever produce? Water, gas? When Individualism has
once produced these the question is mainly one of distribu
tion. Mrs. Besant says that somebody has invented an
improvement in water-supply and that municipalities are
taking it up. Well, I have not much information on that
point. Mrs. Besant does not say who the man is, or what
the invention is. I should like to investigate it before I
take a mere statement like that absolutely. Not that I
distrust Mrs. Besant, but when a statement passes from
one to another, although there may be no intention to ex
aggerate, there may be some exaggeration. I should like to
investigate it fully before I dealt with that improved
machine. But meanwhile I will say this : No municipality
invented it. It was invented by an individual seeking his
own gain. (Cheers.) Then again, education is not pro
duction. It is a question of distribution; the State does
not produce its schoolmasters ; the State does not produce
its scholars. All the State does is to put the children and
i
�114
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
the teachers into juxtaposition. It is a question of distri
bution. (Hear, hear.) The Post Office itself is simply a
question of distribution. Our Socialist friends often
attach great importance to it, and I find Mrs. Besant’s
colleagues introducing it as a very fine Socialistic experi
ment. But let us see. The Post Office produces nothing.
It distributes an article which is peculiarly imperishable.
It is not like meat, or fish, or tea, or sugar. Letters,
newspapers, and book-post parcels, whatever the climate
or the temperature may be, whether it be wet or dry,
hot or cold, arrive at their destination pretty much
what they were when they were posted. (Hear, hear, and
a voice : “What about the parcels post ? ”.) I will say a
word about that in a moment. The Post Office is also
protected by law against competition. The Post Office is
allowed to charge its own price. And how is the work
done under these conditions ? There is no datum to go
upon in deciding whether the Post Office is cheap or not.
You have no private enterprise competing with it, for
competition is prevented by law. But here and there
an illustration does sometimes arise which shows that the
Post Office is not so cheap after all. The Post Office says
it carries letters from one part of England to another
for one penny, just as it carries a letter round the corner.
But the cost is nearly the same, whether the letter is
carried round the corner or to Newcastle. The difference
is simply in the cost of the transit paid to the railway
company. The labor of collecting letters, sorting them,
and delivering them, is the same whether they go to the
next street or to Scotland. (Hear, hear.) It was found,
even in the old coaching days, that the cost of taking a
letter to Edinburgh was only the fraction of a farthing,
and that all the other expense was incurred in collecting
and distributing and other forms of labor. The other day
I had to send a parcel across London. The Post Office
wanted eighteenpence, but the Parcels Delivery Company
wanted fourpence. Of course, I sent it by the latter. This
is a good illustration of the advantage of private com
petition. Individualism will beat your Socialist produc
tion or distribution right out. You know it. You are
afraid to compete with it. Therefore you want the law to
crush all rivalry. You would show Socialism the brightest
star by darkening all the rest of the sky. (Cheers.)
�115
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
FOURTH NIGHT.
Mr. 2Eneas Smith in the Chair.
The Chairman : Ladies and gentlemen, I am sure the
debate to-night will require little preface from me. Will
you allow me to impress upon you the absolute necessity
of attention to the speakers ? The turn of a word, or even
an emphasis, may affect the meaning; and as this debate
is intended for others besides those who are here, I am
sure you will see the necessity of paying attention to both
sides. (Hear, hear.) I will now call upon Mr. Foote.
Mr. Foote: Although we have occupied three evenings in
discussing this question, there remains very much still to be
said—so much, indeed, that I shall, if possible, keep straight
on on my own lines this evening, leaving Mrs. Besant to
reply in her speeches to what I say. As on last Wednesday,
I prefer to begin with a few figures. Figures are facts—or
should be ; and there can be little dispute as to the truth
of the old proverb that an ounce of fact is worth a pound
of theory. Mrs. Besant proposes as a Socialist that all
capital as well as land should be appropriated by the State.
(Hear, hear.) And I can quite understand that a large
number of persons who are not much accustomed to
analysing figures, and who see wealth which they cair
never hope to possess often massed in the hands of one
man, fancy that if the State did appropriate all the-land and all the capital, there would be such an extraA
ordinary increase in the earnings, or at any rate in the • y
receipts, of the masses of the people, that the millennium
might almost be thought to have arrived. Now I am
really sorry to say that figures do not support this enchant
ing prospect. The Socialists are very fond of saying that
Mr. Giffen holds a brief for the capitalists. (Hear, hear.)
In fact, Mrs. Besant has said it in this debate. Yet I
notice that whenever Mr. Giffen serves their turn, they use
his figures without the least scruple, and only raise o'bjeci 2
�116
IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
tions when the figures seem to go in the opposite direction.
It seems to me that if Mr. Giffen’s figures are not correct,
and the Socialists know it, they should compile a different
set of statistics, and let us see what, according to Socialistic
research, the real facts of the case are. (Hear, hear.)
But fortunately for my purpose Mrs. Besant has, in one
of her articles in her magazine, virtually admitted, with
respect to Mr. Giffen’s division of the £1,200,000,000 at
which he places the annual income of this country, that he
is practically right. Now the £1,200,000,000 is divided as
follows. Capital, according to Mr. Giffen’s figures, and
according to Mrs. Besant’s admission, receives £400,000,000,
although on that point, I think it only fair to say that Mr
Giffen thinks the amount is relatively exaggerated; but
still he puts it at the highest possible figure. Working
incomes that are taxed amount to £180,000,000; and the
working classes receive incomes which are not assessed
amounting, to £620,000,000. Now that £400,000,000
which capital receives undoubtedly looks a large sum,
At a superficial glance, it may seem that Mrs. Besant is
perfectly right when she contends that what she calls idle
capital ought not to receive this large amount every year
in the shape of interest. (Hear.) But let us look'below
the surface, and see what this £400,000,000 return on
capital really implies. Of this amount, I think, Mrs.
B esant is prepared to admit that something like£100,000,000
comes as return on English capital invested abroad. Now
if the Socialists appropriated all the capital in this country,
unless all the world were socialised at the same time—
which is very much of a dream—it would be impossible
to exploit that hundred millions. It is paid by foreign
countries, and foreign countries would in all probability
continue to pay the interest on these investments to the
persons who made them. This sum must therefore be
deducted. It is not a sum which can by any means be
appropriated. Next, Mr. Giffen states—and I think he
cannot be far from the truth—that about £200,000,000
every year are added to the amount of the national capital,
which is, of course, required to find employment for the
increasing number of the workers; for although the law
of population is going to be dealt with in the Socialist
millenium, it is not dealt with at present, and it requires
more capital to keep a larger number of persons every
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
117
year in productive work. There would, therefore, only
remain £100,000,000, if so much as that, to be seized, or
appropriated, or rescued, according as Mrs. Besant pleases
to term it, and to be distributed among the workers. Now
if we take the workers as the main body of the population,
and I presume Mrs. Besant would agree to that, this
£100,000,000 would only amount to about one shilling a
week, or less than three pounds per year. If the whole
of the £180,000,000 at present received by skilled labor,
either of hand or head, should also be appropriated, there
would be a further sum of from five to six pounds a year
for each person available, the total amount thus obtained
coming to about eight pounds a year per head, or in other
words about three shillings a week. Now is that three
shillings a week anything like what Mrs. Besant’s picture
of the Socialist millenium implies ? To my mind it is
not. And that amount could not be increased unless we
found some means of increasing, first the sum total of the
capital of the country, and next the income of the country
which arises from the productive use of that capital.
(Hear, hear.)
Now let us look at these figures in another way. The total
income of the country, setting aside nearly £100,000,000
derived from foreign investments, and £200,000,000 saved
every year to increase the capital for further production,
amounts to about £900,000,000. Taking the entire popu
lation of the country, it amounts, roughly speaking, to £20
per head. That is, for a family of five there would be an
income of £120. Of course this implies that the present
long hours of labor are to continue, and the extensive
employment of women and children as at present. But if
the hours of labor were shortened, if only the adult males
were employed, if the females and the children were no
longer allowed to engage in industrial pursuits as they
now do, you would probably have little more than half
that sum; that is something over £60 per family of five.
(Hear, hear.) But I will take it at the outside, and regard
the total for a family of five as £120. On the most
sanguine estimate then, by equalising everybody all round,
there would only be £2 6s. a week for every family; and
that wage would have to be made up to the inferior workers
by taking from the reward of skilled labor. There is no
escape from this dilemma that I can perceive. Perhaps
�118
IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
Mrs. Besant. may be more sagacious. If so, all the better
for her position. But if she cannot see any escape it
simply comes to this: that unless you can exploit the
wages of skilled labor, and give a portion of them to
unskilled labor, the millenium would be as far off as ever.
(Hear, hear.) Now I deny that that would be right, to
begin with. And I deny, in the second place, that it would
be economically sound. (Hear, hear.) Not only is skill
necessary, but I venture to say the reward of unskilled
labor is greater where skill directs it than it could be with
out that direction, even if skilled labor takes what seems
to unskilled labor a preposterous share. (Cheers.) If you
contravene this, by all means let us see on what grounds
you contravene it. It will not do simply to say the wages
of superintendence are too high, or that skill receives too
much. I say that skill will be paid. (Hear, hear.) I
say that if you don’t pay in our country for skill it will
emigrate to countries where it would find its proper
reward. (Cheers.)
Now having adduced these figures, which are at least
worthy of some attention, I propose to deal with some
of the practical difficulties of Mrs. Besant’s scheme. You
will perhaps remember that I said she had not by an
effort of constructive imagination attempted to show us
that her scheme would work well in practice. But that is
absolutely necessary. Any scheme can be made to look
well on paper. (Hear, hear.) Any scheme which can put
its good side forward, and never have any of its ill aspects
presented, would naturally gain a great deal of acceptance
among the unthinking, and a good deal of applause among
those whose hearts on this subject are a good deal bigger
than their heads. (Cries of “Oh, oh”.) I am sorry that
any gentleman should resent the idea that he has a big
heart, and if it pains him to think so I will retract the
observation. (Cheers and laughter.) Unfortunatelv what
ever scheme you propose would have to work in practice
with the same old human nature we all know. (Hear,
hear.) I have said that in my opinion Mrs. Besant takes
too optimistic a view of human nature. That is not a matter
we can easily discuss, because all people differ more or
less in their estimate of human nature, and the thing must
be left for overyone to decide for himself. But certainly
there is a great deal of improvidence in human nature.
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
119
There is a great of want of forethought in human nature.
There is a great deal of stupidity in human nature. (Laugh
ter.) There is a great deal of idleness in human nature.
(Hear, hear.) If you have a scheme which looks excellent
on paper, promising to work with a brand-new form of
human nature, in which all the old evils are eliminated
and only its better qualities survive, naturally you have
not a very difficult task before you. But taking human
nature as we know it, leaving a slight margin for probable
improvement in the immediate future, let us see how this
scheme of Mrs. Besants would be likely to work. First
let us deal with its economical aspect. Mrs. Besant holds—
following Gronlund in this, as she follows him in so many
other points—that the industries of the country would be
conducted by groups of workers holding capital—that is
holding all the machinery and all the tools, every kind
of plant and every kind of structure necessary for carrying
on their trade. Now as I pointed out in a previous part of
this discussion there are no fewer than twelve thousand
different trades tabulated by the Registrar General. At
the outset it looks an extremely difficult thing for nominees
of the State, public committees, or what not, to decide how
much capital is the proper amount for each of these twelve
thousand groups. I should be very sorry to sit on the
committee myself. (Laughter.) It would tax more powers
than I possess. But as very sensible persons are going to
turn up in the immediate future, that may not be a very
great difficulty after all. (Laughter and hear, hear.)
Now I put it to Mrs. Besant that these groups would
either be related to each other under a central Board, or
they would be separate. In either case you would have
to face one of two evils. If they are connected together
under one Board, if they have all the capital necessary to
conduct their enterprise, if they also have complete control
over it so that they can fix their wages and decide the
prices of the commodities which they will put into the
market, all the community will be absolutely at the mercy
of any particular group; and if the group be the producers
of one of the prime necessaries of life, in a manufacturing
country like ours, the dependence of the rest of the com
munity upon it would be something shocking to contem
plate. (Hear, hear.) Now suppose the groups are
separate. Then the competition which Mrs. Besant so
�120
IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
much, dreads will simply continue—for group will still
compete with group. I suppose people will not be obliged
to purchase from whatever group the committee may
specify. The better kinds of work would, of course, be
done by the better kinds of workmen, and these would
gradually find each other out. They would group together,
and the most skilled groups would get the largest share
of public support, while the unskilled would be gradually
driven out of employment, and in all periods of commercial
distress they would be thrown upon the community, whowould have to be responsible for their support. (Cheers.)
Even if all your groups were connected under one Board,
you would have the evils of competition, because the groups
of persons in similar industries in other countries would
compete with ours in the general market. In fact, as I
have said before, you could not by any mechanism destroy
that competition, which is not a hindrance to progress, but
rather, as I hold, the very essence of progress, stringing
the faculties of men in the great battle of life, where if
occasionally the sluggish are left behind, there is reward
for those who have the courage and the energy to hold their
own. And this applies to the great mass of the people.
Even in the greatest commercial crisis—and you hear so
much now in the papers about public distress—the great
majority of the workers are in fair remunerative employ
ment. It is only a small percentage who are out of work,
depending upon public or upon private charity. (Hear,
hear.)
I should like to know how these groups are going to
settle prices. Suppose a group fixes the price of an article,
and says, “ That is what it takes us to produce it ” ? Who
is to estimate this ? There is a very good way of estima
ting whether a thing is offered at the right price or not now.
Supply and demand settles it in the open market. But if'
the price is to be fixed by a group, then one of two things
would happen—either that group would be able to exact
something which under the present competitive system
it would not be able to get from the community, or else
all the other groups would raise their prices as well, and I
need not say that a common rise of prices would leave
things exactly the same as before, without the least advan
tage to anybody concerned. (Hear, hear.)
Next, I should like to know whether foreign compe
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
121
tition would not have something to do with the price of
commodities in our own country even under Socialism.
All the world is some day to be Socialised, but still it will
take a good deal of time. Perhaps it may be said that
the Social Democrats are making advances in Germany.
(Cheers.) Well, perhaps so; but if you were to ask the
Social Democrats of Germany to sit down and write out
what they all want, you would find there are large differ
ences between them. In my opinion, the social democracy
of Germany is largely a reaction against the oppressive
militarism of Bismarck and Moltke. (Hear, hear.) If
the country were allowed, not only nominal, but actual
free institutions, we should hear a great deal less of
fanciful schemes and extreme ideas. (Cheers.)
I should also like to know how wages are to be settled.
Mrs. Besant says in one of her pamphlets that the worker
would have control over the price of his own labor,
exactly as he has now. Well, I fail to see this. Wages
would have to be fixed by a committee, and from what I
know of human nature I should think it highly probable,
if there are eleven commonly skilled persons and one
exceptionally skilled person, that they would pull him
down to their economical level. (Hear, hear.) I believe
that if salaries had to be fixed, salaries would be fixed
by the vast majority pretty much on their own level, and
in that case, as I have said before, I believe they would
drive skill out of the market. (Hear, hear.) But how
would the wages of the general run of workers be fixed ?
How could it be fixed, in the long run, except by the
market value of'lhe commodities they produced ? Well,
that is exactly how wages are fixed, in the long run,
now. There would have to be a return on capital, as
there is now. There would have to be, if your industrial
enterprises are to be fairly successful, the same payments
for skill as at present. Then, if the groups were overrun,
as many of them would be, owing to the pressure of popu
lation ; if the lower unskilled labor-market were flooded
by this growth of population—a disaster to which the
higher skilled groups would be less subject; then wages
would gradually get lower and lower. The only remedy
would be to raise prices. But that is impossible. In the
long run the only way of fixing wages is leaving it to be
determined by the price of the commodity; and the price
�122
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
of the commodity in the open market, no matter whatever
Socialism may do, would inevitably be determined by the
great economical law of supply and demand. (Cheers.)
Next, I should like to know how you are going to
settle the question of occupations. Mrs. Besant thinks it
would be pretty much the same as now, and that if a
particular trade were flooded, a man would have to go
into something else—or rather a boy, for that is the end
of life at which you begin learning a business. Well, that
may seem very nice to some people, but to my mind it seems
an intolerable tyranny. (Hear, hear.) Occupations are
not so easily settled. There would, of course, be a rush
for the best kind of work. Who is to settle who shall
have them ? Would it not be a question of first come
first served ? And would not those who got inside stand as
a rampart to guard the rings, and keep outsiders from
coming in and lowering the wages of their privileged
groups. (Cheers.) The inferior groups would naturally take
all the rest. But suppose you had a more ideal system, and
the occupations were determined by fitness. How will
you estimate the fitness ? Who is to decide whether a
gloomy, melancholy youth like James Watt has in him
the capacity which he manifests in after life ? Who is to
decide whether Shakspere, running away from home, is
going to be the mightiest poet in the world ? (Cheers.)
Who is to decide whether Robert Burns at the plough-tail
is to be the greatest glory of Scotland? (Cheers.) Who
is to decide these things ? You cannot decide them by
forethought. You can only allow them to be decided by
Nature herself, giving free play and exercise to all quali
ties, and letting the highest and the best come to the front.
■( Cheers.)
Then, of course, in all societies there is a great deal of
•dirty and irksome work to be done. (Hear, hear.) It is
idle to shun facts. I have said before in this debate, and
I repeat it now, that the sure sign of a man of judgment
is the recognition of a fact as unalterable, and the sure
sign of a fool is the inability to recognise that facts are
unalterable. Now, this dirty and irksome work would
have to be performed by somebody. Mrs. Besant thinks
that in the Socialist State there will be a much greater
mixture of labor than at present. She says the clerk will
be as ready to fill the cart as a carter, and that the carter
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
123
will be as ready to handle the pen as the clerk. (Laughter.)
I do not believe it. Still, I do not deny Mrs. Besant her
right to believe it. What is the fact at present ? The fact
is, human nature consists of all levels—from Newton and
Shakspere to the lowest forms of mentality outside the
walls of a lunatic asylum. There are all grades. What
to one man is utterly disgusting, to another man is scarcely
irksome. What to a man of very fine tastes and feelings
would be simply intolerable, to another man would be
simply something which he would perhaps rather avoid,
but it does not make his daily life a burden, and his nightly
life sleepless. (Hear, hear.) Now, at present the lower
forms of human nature fall into positions where they do
the more irksome and dirty work, and it is less irksome
and disagreeable to them than to others. (Hear, hear,
and “Oh, oh.”) If you were to put Shakspere, if you
were to put a highly skilled physician, or a consummate
artist, to the same kind of labor which is done as a matter
of course by some of the coarser human organisms, it
would be infinitely more distressing to them. (Hear,
hear.) And I say that generally the finer intellect goes
with finer tastes. (Hear, hear.) But suppose this dirty
work, this irksome work—as Mrs. Besant proposes—
should be divided among all. What would be the result ?
Here is a skilled surgeon who has to perform the most
delicate operations. With a sensitive touch, the lancet
being inside the skin and invisible, he has to discriminate
between one tissue and another, and the life or death of
the patient depends upon his hand not swerving a hair’sbreadth from the right line. To tell me that that man can
go out for half-an-hour to fill the place of a carter, and
come back retaining his previous fine skill, is to tell me
something utterly repugnant to common-sense. (Cheers.)
I shall conclude this half-hour’s speech—for I have a
good deal more to urge—by dealing with the question of
amusements. All theatres, concert rooms, parks, public
galleries, museums, etc., are to be regulated by State com
mittees. Fancy a State committee trying to manage the
Lyceum Theatre. (Laughter.) Fancy a State committee
dictating what Mr. Irving shall play. Fancy a State
committee deciding all these things. What would happen ?
The great general average of low taste would swamp the
better taste. The average taste, I believe, would not be
�124
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
for Patti, but for Jenny Hill. (Hear, hear.) Those whowanted the higher and better forms of amusement would
be asked if they were so much better than their neighbors,
and whether what was good enough for Smith, Brown,
Jones, and Robinson, was not good enough for all the rest.
(Cheers, and hear, hear.) I am not surprised at that “ hear,
hear ”, but I am sorry. I say that the better forms of amuse
ment suit the better natures. The highest natures require
the highest forms of recreation. Under the present system
they can gratify their tastes. But if all the means of pro
duction, all the capital of the country, all the halls, and
all the theatres, are to be under State regulation, the
great mass of lower tastes will swamp the superior. In
stead of the world being advanced in all those higher
qualities that are of the very essence of progress, it would
be driven back, generation after generation, until in the
course of time we should return to the savagery and
anarchy from which we have emerged. (Great cheers.)
Annie Besant : Friends, in making my last half hour’s
speech in this debate, I propose to mark exactly the stage
that we have reached; to note what are the difficulties
that I have put before Mr. Foote, which he has not met,
and to point out also how many of the difficulties that he
has raised are difficulties of the nature of a nightmare
rather than of reality. The position that I put first in
this debate was, that so long as private property existed
in the material necessary for wealth-production then
whether you take the theory of political economy, or
whether you take the facts of society around you, you find
that that property in the material of wealth-production
must result in the continued subjection of the wage
earners, and in the impossibility of the masses rising far
above the level of subsistence. I put that to Mr. Foote
first as a fair deduction made by the leading economists of
our own times ; and next, as proved by the facts of society
visible to us as we study the pheenomena around us. I
pointed out to him thefactthat in every civilised country that
result had followed from the appropriation, that in every
civilisation around you, you had the extreme of wealth and
the extreme of poverty. That central proposition has only
been met by raising difficulties in the details of its possible
application, and not by grappling with it; not by showing
us how these evils might be prevented while private pro
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
125
perty in those materials remained, but only by asking us
how, in a variety of minute details, are you going to try to
apply it, and how are you going to try to work out your
new system; and my answer to that is, that difficulties in
the way of application are difficulties in the way of every
veforming body—(cheers)—and that while those difficulties
are, as I put it to you the first night, a reason for caution
in our movement, they are no reason for despair. And I
pointed out to him, and he never tried to answer the diffi
culty^—that every difficulty of detail that he put to me with
regard to the total material for wealth-production was an
equal difficulty on his own shoulders with respect to the
nationalisation of the land, or to that half-and-half Socialism
which he advocates without knowing the principle which
underlies it, and the results that would flow from it.
(Cheers.) I put to him on the next night on which I led
the debate the historical difficulty, that every civilisation
in which this private property had existed had its pro
prietary and its slave classes. I pointed out to him that
on that division of classes each civilisation in its turn had
been wrecked; that the upper classes grew effeminate,
lazy, and luxurious, while the lower class were degraded,
helpless, without self-respect. I pointed out to him that
in the older ones we had chattel slaves, in the Middle Ages
we had serfs, and in our own times we have wage slaves ;
and I showed him that the difficulties on which the other
civilisations had been wrecked were difficulties in our own
time. Yet he never tried to meet that position, but simply
sneered at my raising a historical question. (Cheers.) I
submit to you that in dealing with a question like this you
must try and go to the root of the matter. I submit to you
that the causes which have destroyed every previous Indi
vidualistic society are at work in your own society. Take
America, where the land in proportion to the population is
practically boundless. The difficulties in America are as
great as in our own country, the same extremes of wealth
and poverty, the same sub] ection of the workers, the same
■divorcebetween classes; even wider divisions than we have
here; for here they are modified by some of the old
traditions of feudal duty on the one sideband feudal looking
for help on the other; whereas in America you have your
modern Individualistic system utterly naked, utterly un
ashamed, and you have the whole mass of society there
�126
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
restless and troubled, and giving rise to the same Socialist
agitation that you find yourself face to face with at your
own doors. (Cheers.) Your Individualistic society is being
destroyed from within more than it is in danger of being
overthrown from without. The causes of its failure are
within itself, and those causes are becoming more and more
palpable, and their results more clear. The result of the
international capitalism is the driving of our home trades
down to the lowest level of the worst paid foreign work
men. (Hear, hear.) Even during the last week, with all
the difficulties in our own coal trade, the difficulty is in
creased by the joining together of a number of capitalists
to bring over Belgian coal raised by Belgian miners at the
starvation wage paid in the Charleroi basin; this is to be
put on the London market at 2s. 6d. per ton cheaper than
any coal which can be brought from South Wales. How
are you going to deal with that under the Individualistic
system ? It can only be met in two ways : either by your
capital, or so much of it as can do so, leaving the country
to be invested in lands where labor is cheaper than at
home ; or in the way it will be chiefly done, by the sinking
of your mining population to the level of the worst paid
workmen; and the degradation of our Northumberland,
of our Durham, of our Yorkshire, and of our South
Wales miners to the miserable condition in which the
Belgian miners are starving at the present time.
(Cheers.) Not only so, but I say that the present system
of competition leads to monopoly more and more. Your
great industries are falling into fewer hands, more and
more they are passing into joint stock companies, and in
America you see this system carried further yet. But when
they become monopolies, as they are becoming; when the
smaller men are crushed out, as they are being crushed out
at the present time ; then you will be face to face with an
absolute tyranny over society as you have got it in America,
where a ring of capitalists simply plays with the market
for its own profit and plunders the community for its own
gain. You must either submit to that or you must adopt
the Socialist plan, and take over those monopolies into the
power of the community, and make them social instead of
anti-social as they are under your Individualistic system.
(Cheers.)
And at this point I naturally come to those figures with
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
127
which. Mr. Foote dealt in the early part of his speech.
Mr. Foote stated—and stated accurately enough—that there
would not be an enormous increase of wage if the pro
portion of land and of capital he mentioned were divided
up among the workers. But he will pardon me, I am sure,
for saying that he very much understated it, because I
have the figures here to prove the contention that I shall
put to you. In the first place the 400 millions which
Mr. Giffen gives include not only interest on capital,
as Mr. Foote was putting it, but the whole of the rental
also which goes into the pocket of the landlord. (Hear,
hear.) These do not include the wages of superintendence
at all. I am not dwelling on the fact that Mr. Giffen
gives his figures on one occasion as 407 millions,
and at another as 400 millions, because seven millions,
are a trifle for the purpose of this argument. But
I would point out to you that you practically get400 millions to dispose of by the admission of Mr.
Giffen, and that Mr. Foote in his argument managed to
whittle the 400 millions down to 100 millions, and
then to base the rise that would take place in the wages
of workers on the lower figure. And let me say why
it is I take Mr. Giffen’s figures, although I—to quote
his own phrase—think that he was fairly accused of holding
a brief for the capitalists. I take them because, although
they are understated and unfair to our side of the question,
they are quite strong enough to bear the weight of the
whole of the Socialists’ contention. (Hear, hear.) Out of
our enemies’ mouth we can prove our case. For what are
Mr. Giffen’s figures ? According to Mr. Giffen 400
millions go for rent and interest to idle capitalists—
(cries of “Shame”)—out of the total income of 1,200
millions, from which we are to take 100 millions forinterest on foreign investments. The wages for special
ability are variously reckoned by Mr. Giffen, Mr. Mulhall,
and Professor Leoni Levi, but we find that they comeroughly to 350 millions. That is to say: that out of theproduce of the country, when you have taken interest on
capital and rent of land, when you have taken higher salaries
and wages, which are sometimes called rent of ability, then
you have left to divide amongst the manual labor class only
450 millions out of 1,250 millions, with which you started ;
that is 800 millions of pounds made by the workers go
�128
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
completely out of their hands. And now what does that
mean ? It means in the first place that those who get these
three rents, as the economists call them—of land, of
capital, and of special ability—numbering, as they do, ac
cording to Mr. Giffen’s computation, two millions of
families, take 800 millions out of the national income ; and
the producers, numbering five million families, get
450 millions; that is, that the two million families get
800 millions, and the 5,000,000 get 450 millions. Then I
find Mr. Giffen again stating that out of the 16^ millions
of separate incomes, which are made in this country only
millions are over £150 a year. I find Mulhall, in the
‘ ‘ Dictionary of Statistics, ’ ’ giving 222,000 families of the very
rich, that is with incomes over £1,600 a year, and 604,000
families of the rich, that is with incomes of £320 a year,
and 1,220,000 in the middle and trading classes; and that
if those figures are added together you get two-thirds of the
total income of the country. Now I submit that if you
recovered even one-third of the income of the country for
the producers, and distributed it among them in addition
to the one-third already held by them, no twisting of figures
can leave the wages at the point at which they are to-day,
for you would at least increase them by bringing that onethird more within the workers’ reach to be used for their
benefit. (Cheers.) No Socialist pretends that the whole
of that rent and the whole of that interest on capital can
ever under a Socialistic condition go directly into the hands
of manual workers: but it says this—that while your
economic rent must remain, while your payment for ad
vantages in productivity in machinery must remain, to
equalise the condition of the workers ; that that rent, and
that interest on capital, instead of going to the support of
the class who are absolutely idle, and who therefore act as
a poison to the community, will go into the national
exchequer to be used for national purposes, to remove the
burden of taxation from labor, and to be utilised for the
benefit of those from whom it came, and to whom it should
go. (Cheers.)
Now what is the result of your present industrial
system ? Compare your death-rate of rich and poor.
Mr. Foote wants figures. I intend to-night to give him
some. You can go to the Registrar-General’s report and
•compare the death-rates of rich and poor. I will first take
�129
IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
children under five years of age; you will find that ac
cording to Dr. Playfair the death-rate of children of the
upper classes is only 18 per cent., as against tradesmen 36
per cent., and workmen 55 per cent. (A Voice : “ Hor
rible.”) That is, more than half the children of the workers
die before they reach the age of five years. And it is not
only amongst the children. The children, inheriting feeble
frames from underfed parents, die very fast, and the un
derfeeding, the slow starvation, of the parents shortens their
lives even when they reach the adult condition; and I
find in the report made by Dr. Drysdale to the Industrial
Remuneration Conference that, comparing the average age
at death among the nobility and professional classes with
that of some classes of the poor, that the average age of
death of the so-called higher classes was fifty-five years,
while the average age amongst the artisan class of Lam
beth only amounted to twenty-nine years. Now, I want
to know why that is, if everything is for the best in this
best of all possible worlds; if the division of profits is so
admirably made by the law of supply and demand, and by
those laws of which we hear so much, why is it that those
who supply the demand supply death also with so many ?
(Cheers.) Why is it that the poor man’s child has so much
less chance of life than the rich man’s, if it is not that your
society is built up on the plan of putting at the base of
your social pyramid a class which you exploit to the utter
most, and of whose life you are absolutely careless ; while
at the apex you have persons whom you point to as pro
ducts of your magnificent civilisation, and who are as use
less in their lives as they are mischievous in their action on
society. (Cheers.) I admit that under any conditions life
for some time to come will be a hard struggle. I admit
that the conditions that surround us are such that life
without hard labor is impossible; and I say that that
fact is no reason for allowing a class that earns nothing to
appropriate so much, and that the very fact that much
work is wanted to produce the necessities of life is a reason
for getting rid of the drones who eat so much honey while
they do nothing to increase the store. (Cheers.) I will go
a step further. I find Mr. Mulhall, reckoning the pauper
class from the figures of paupers receiving relief in Eng
land, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, and reckoning the
whole pauper class, put it at three million persons, or one
K
�130
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
in eight of the manual labor class. I find Mr. Giffen, the
great authority, talking of the residuum of five millions
whose condition is a stain on our civilisation. Mr. Foote
talks of a small minority, but one in eight is not a small
minority—when that means a pauper class in the midst of
industrial civilisation, and when you take five millions of
residuum whose condition is a disgrace to our civilisation.
When you remember that the total number of manual
workers in the country only amounts to not quite
16 millions, I ask you to think of the five millions who are,
according to Mr. Giffen’s own account, a stain on our
civilisation. (Cheers.)
Well, but, says Mr. Foote, when you deal with this
question how are you going to get on with your change ?
I submit that if I show a grave cause for change; if I
prove that the result of the present economical and indus
trial system is the degradation which we see around us,
and which is proved by figures, that then the question is
no longer—“ is the change needed ?” but “ how shall that
change be made in the most rapid and most efficient way?”
(Cheers.) And I come to the points which were put by
Mr. Foote. Mr. Foote states that I take a too optimistic
view of human nature. No, it is because I do not take an
optimistic view of human nature that I advocate Socialism.
(Hear, hear.) I believe that men are selfish; I believe
that men are apt to trample on their fellows; I believe
that the result of centuries of struggling for life has been
to make men much more hard-hearted than they ought to
be, and that when they can take advantage of their fellows
they will do so ; and therefore I want to do away with the
opportunities of living on other persons which human
selfishness, sloth, and greed will most certainly take ad
vantage of. (Hear, hear.) I want to say to the selfish
man living on his brother, “We will take away from you
the possibility of living upon another by making you work
for anything you desire to get ”. It is because I do not be
lieve that human nature is perfect that I want to take
away the opportunities of exploitation which are enjoyed
by men under the present conditions of society. But Mr.
Foote goes on to say that an unskilled man gets more by
being directed by the skilled; and I am not prepared to
challenge that statement. I believe the working together
of skilled and unskilled is good for both, but I do not want
�131
IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
to try to keep the unskilled, class where they are, but to
raise them up into the skilled ; and while I admit the value
of skilled over unskilled, labor, I say that the amount it
gets as proved by the figures of the other side is far too
high. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Foote says that skilled, labor
will emigrate ; but there are two sides to that question. If
all the skilled persons go out of the country to foreign
countries they will become a drug in the foreign market,
and will drive down their own wages by competition among
themselves. If they desert us, they will at least no
longer exploit the laborers. (Hear, hear.) But I am in
clined to think that it may be worth our while to keep
some of them, and that until they are civilised into beings
with higher sense of duty to society than they have now,
it may be worth while to grant them some exceptional pay
for the work that they do, and so keep some of them to
direct our industrial enterprises. I believe amongst Social
ists I am in a minority in thinking that the various forms
of labor should be equally paid; I believe the majority are
in favor of unequal payment, so that you may still be able
to give some extra advantages to the extra skill. But
however that may be, equal or unequal remuneration is
not of the essence of Socialism. But it is of the essence
of Socialism that you should not have any payment what
ever made to an idle class. (Hear, hear.) And that is
why I pointed out before that Mr. Foote was confusing
wages of superintendence with the interest paid on capital
to persons who do nothing at all. That 407 millions are
rent and interest on capital without one stroke of work
being done in return; and it is not fair to speak as though
the whole or any of that came as remuneration for skill,
when really it only comes as remuneration for being born
the eldest son of your father and your mother.
Let us take a step further. Mr. Foote raised a great
many difficulties about occupations. He wanted to know
how Socialists were going to manage the 12,000 trades;
he wanted to know how prices were to be fixed either by
the groups or federations of groups; he said if one group
stood out you would have the whole community at its
mercy, or the groups thrown on the community for support.
But is there any reason why the Socialists should be such
fools as Mr. Foote supposes ? He is good enough to tell us
that our hearts are bigger than our heads, and then he
G 2
�132
IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
complained that his sneer was not taken as a compliment,
as if he had dealt with the largeness of our hearts and not
with the smallness of our heads. But I would point out
to Mr. Foote that Socialists are not fools enough to believe
that they can settle beforehand every detail of a future
condition of society. (Hear, hear.) What the Individualist
prefers to do is to get away from the central principle on
which we stand, and put conundrums of this kind to which
he challenges us to find an answer. Our answer is that
you will have working then the natural laws of society as
you have them now. Demand and supply will still exist;
prices will still be fixed by demand and supply ; and when
you deal with foreign goods taken in exchange for your
own products, if the foreigner has a more limited amount
to exchange and you are in need of it, his price will go up,
that is, you will have to give more of your commodities in
exchange for his goods ; and you will have to require more
labor here from those who desire to possess a portion of that
which has been obtained at the higher price. We do not
propose to start a new heaven and a new earth with laws
different from what they are now. (Hear, hear.) We
propose to destroy private property in the material of
production, and then to let economic forces mould the
details of the new condition of things, as they have
moulded the old. But we say, if we start on a basis which
is sound instead of on one that is rotten, we may reason
ably hope that the structure will be sounder than the one
you have to-day. (Cheers.) Then Mr. Foote put the
difficulty of the division of labor, and spoke about the refined
man feeling the intolerable burden of heavy work and the
lower human organism who is only fit for the work he does.
Then I ask Mr. Foote whether he deliberately means that
his Individualist society is based on the existence of a
helot-class, in which every taste, every feeling of art, every
longing for beauty and refinement, is to be crushed out in
order that a small minority may usurp all. (Hear, hear.)
If that be what he means, then the moral difference
between us is indeed deep and wide. (Hear, hear.) We
deny that there should be a helot-class. We do not ask
that a physician with his delicate fingers should go into the
streets and sweep up, nor do the scavanger’s work there,
for every society must have division of labor. But we say
that the physician is useful to society and the scavenger is
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
133
useful to society; that under Socialism the scavenger’s
work will be honorable ; that he shall not be a mere helot,
a mere drudge, but shall have the enjoyment of hearing
a Patti and of higher art, and we say that the civilisation
which is based on helotry will fall. (Cheers.)
Mr. Foote : Sometimes I envy Mrs. Besant’s power of
appealing to people’s feelings. (Hear, hear.) Fortunately
this debate will be reported verbatim, and will be read in
cold blood. Mrs. Besant says that she objects to a helot
class. At the same time she says that under Socialism
there will be men set apart for surgery and men set apart
for scavenging. Exactly so. And why ? Because some
are fit for surgery and some are fit for scavenging. Other
wise you are going to appoint them because they are unfit
for the special work they have to do. (Hear, hear.) But
mark. Mrs. Besant says the scavenger who does this—I
am but speaking the plain truth—disgusting work—
(Interruption)—why this complaint, when under Socialism
somebody will have to do it ? Mrs. Besant says that the
scavenger shall, under Socialism, hear Patti. Well, if he
has a taste for Patti, he can hear her now. (Cries of
“ No, no ”.) Can’t he ? I can remember the time when
my earnings were not greater than any scavenger’s in the
country, yet I still saved my two shillings for a treat at
the Italian opera, climbing the flight of stairs that led to
the gallery. Although I did not sit in a luxurious seat,
I heard Patti and Albani as well as the man who paid
his guinea. (Cries of “No, no”.) I say, yes. I heard
the music and the singing, and he could do no more.
(Cheers.)
Mrs. Besant says that if we do not pay for skill, and it
emigrates, it will bring down the value of the skill abroad.
But that depends upon where the skill goes. There is
Australia, there is South Africa, there are large parts of
North America, there are other portions of the globe at
present being colonised by the English-speaking race,
which could take as much skill as ever the old countries
could send them. (Hear, hear.) It is not skill that they
object to. Skill can always find its reward. (Cries of
“ No, no ”.) It is persons going there with no skill and no
means that they object to. (Hear, hear, and “No, no”.)
Why, even now, on the landing-stage at New York they
turn emigrants back if they have not a fair prospect before
�134
IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
them, and make them return to the country they camefrom or anywhere else they can go to.
Mrs. Besant also says there is a great deal of selfishness
in human nature. She believes that human nature has a
large amount of ingrained selfishness. Yet she proposes
to take away all opportunity for using a faculty which is
more or less in everybody. You will need a very stringent
law to frustrate a faculty in everybody, and a faculty which
has hitherto been legitimate, and will not therefore feel
criminal all at once. It is very much like saying that be
cause persons sometimes cut their throats with razors,
no more razors shall be made. Is selfishness a bad thing ?
It is more than selfishness when it steps out of its way to
inflict suffering upon others. That is not mere selfishness,
but crime. It is aggressive egoism, which the law of every
civilised society represses and punishes. But that is not a
bad selfishness which enables a man to work hard, to fore
see consequences, to make provision for the morrow, toforego a present gratification for a more important future
one, and to strive to make provision for the wife and
children in his own home, whom he must love more
than the wives and the children of society in general.
That selfishness is not a crime. If you could eliminate
it from society you would kill society. But the passion is
indestructible and society is safe. (Cheers.)
I did not say in any part of this debate that everything
was for the best. I said that man was a gradually im
proving creature. I did not say there was no room for
improvement. Mrs. Besant cannot deplore more than I do
the evils that afflict mankind. (Hear, hear.) And I have
in my own way done my little share towards making the
world a trifle better. (Cheers.) The question between us
is not whether the world requires reform, but what is the
kind of reform it requires. (Hear, hear.) If a patient is
sick, Mrs. Besant and I may both deplore his condition,
but the question of what is the best remedy for his dis
order is entirely independent of our appreciation of the
fact that he is ill. You may as well say there is no use in
discussing the merits of allopathy and homoeopathy while
patients are sick. I say our patient must be treated care
fully in cold blood, by persons who subordinate their
feelings to their skill. You may work as much mischief
by good feeling wrongly directed as by bad feeling itself.
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
135
If you could measure all the evil done in society by mis
directed benevolence it would appal you. (Hear, hear.)
Pauperism itself is intensified by this evil. I admit that
society requires change; but how is the change to be
brought about ? Mrs. Besant says let us turn over a brandnew leaf. I say there is plenty of good message on the
leaf we have not yet exhausted. It is not a fact that in
our present system we have merely exchanged the old
slavery for a new one. (Cries of “ Oh, oh”.) It is not a
fact. Words often cheat people. They fancy that two
different things, because they can be called by the same
word, are really identical. Do you mean to tell me there
is any identity between the black slave, put up in the mar
ket for sale, and knocked down to the highest bidder,
separated from his wife and family probably never to see
them more, driven to work in the fields with a whip, and
not having a single thing to call his own, even his life
being almost absolutely at the mercy of his master—and
the skilled mechanic—(Cries of “ Oh, oh ”.) One moment.
If there are persons who are unskilled, whose fault is it ?
Cannot the unskilled laborer become a skilled laborer ?
(Cries of “ No, no ”.) Is there any penal statute in the
wide universe to prevent any man with the capacity getting
as much skill as any other man with the same capacity.
(Cheers.) I repeat, then, What analogy is there between
that black slave and the skilled or half-skilled mechanic,
who goes to work five and a half days in the week, and has
his evenings to himself ; who, if he does not live altogether
on the fat of the land, at least has his own inviolable domi
cile, where he can shut his door, and enjoy unmolested the
society of those he loves ? It may not be quite so large as
he might like ; but it is his. (Hear, hear.) Why, if you
were to call half the working men in this country in their
own workshops slaves, they would feel insulted. (Hear,
hear.) Although I daresay some will go to a public hall
and cheer the utterance when it serves their side of the
dispute. These workers are not slaves. (Cries of “We
are ”.) Well, if any gentleman feels he is a slave, I will
not dispute the fact any further. (Laughter.)
Now is it a fact that the working classes have no means
of redress ? I said before that they had. I say their
proper road to salvation is not through enforced co-opera
tion, but through voluntary co-operation. (Cheers.) No
�136
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
State co-operation, can. succeed until the necessary qualities
are there ; and if they were there, they would make volun
tary co-operation possible to-morrow. (Hear, hear.) Volun
tary associations have succeeded; succeeded with picked
men it is true, but no new enterprise, no progressive
movement, can ever succeed except with picked men.
(Hear, hear.) The mass of mankind go on doing pretty
much the same thing from the cradle to the grave. It is
only the exceptional persons who strike out in fresh direc
tions, and they are followed by-and-bye when the experi
ment they began has proved a success. Many co-operative
societies have succeeded. Mill mentions some of them in
his chapter on the Probable Future of the Working Classes.
Others are mentioned by Thornton. You will also find
others in the Government' “Report on Co-operation in
Foreign Countries ” issued last summer. Mrs. Besant says
the workers cannot obtain capital, but she is entirely
wrong. These experiments prove the very opposite. Nay
more, while nearly all—I believe absolutely all—the State
subventioned enterprises failed in France in 1849, the
successful ones were those animated wholly by the spirit
of self-help. Let me cite a few instances from the Govern
ment Report:
“In 1849, fifty-nine tailors started with some assistance
from outsiders, a co-operative tailors’ shop. They soon
raised a business capital of 200,000 francs in fifty franc
shares, which were to be paid for in weekly one franc instal
ments. In 1851 this association was doing work on a large
scale, and had at the same time a benefit fund formed by re
taining five per cent, on salaries, and ten per cent, on profits.”
“ Fourteen piano makers in 1848, without any means of
their own, or Government aid, after great hardships and
difficulties in starting, founded and carried on successfully,
a business which two years afterwards owned 40,000 francs’
worth of property.”
“A small association of armchair makers, which started in
1849 with 135 francs, made 37,000 francs of net profits, and
could afford to pay 5,500 francs per annum for their work
shop.”
“A co-operation of file-makers, starting with fourteen
members and 500 francs, acquired a capital of 150,000
francs, and two houses of business, one in Paris, the other
in the provinces.”
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
137
“A successful co-operation of boot-form makers began
with two francs. One of spectacle makers, with 650 francs,
had in 1883 a capital of over 1,270,000 francs.” (Cheers.)
You see, then, that the statement that labor, if it be
energetic, earnest, possessed with the necessary intellectual
and moral qualities, cannot get capital, is belied by these
facts, which are of infinitely more value than all the de
clamations and theories in the world. (Cheers.)
Now just a word in concluding this speech. Mrs. Besant
says she is not here to solve conundrums. I never asked
her to. She says she is not going to trouble herself about
details, as it is not necessary to work them out. But
everything in the long run consists of details. (Hear,
hear.) Great masses are made up of small quantities.
Details mean everything in the end. Mind you, the ques
tion between us is, not whether society requires improve
ment, but whether Mrs. Besant’s particular scheme for
improvement is likely to turn out a good one. You may
as well say that a Prime Minister should bring in a Bill
for Home Rule, without telling the House or the country
any of the details of the scheme by which he proposes to
carry his principles out, as shirk the practical details of
a question like Socialism. Mr. Gladstone was opposed
by many who approved his object but disapproved his
method. They agreed on the principle, but split on the
ways and means. So I approve Mrs. Besant’s principle
of agitating for the improvement of society, but I object
to her method. I know that reform is wanted, but I also
know that to shirk the details of new proposals is to over
look the fact that life is made up of details, and that men
must be guided by experience. H you will shirk the prac
tical difficulties of your scheme, you have no right to ask
us to accept it. (Applause.)
Annie Besant : Let me say at once that I thoroughly
and gladly admit that Mr. Foote is as earnest for social
reform as I am myself. (Hear, hear.) I should be
sorry in the strictures I level against the system of
society he supports, to be supposed in any way to
make any kind of imputation against his sincerity or
against his earnest desire to see improvement. It is
the system he advocates I am attacking, without throwing
any kind of slur on his own desire of making any
improvement. And on the question of detail there is
�138
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
one more word I should like to say. Suppose a naturalist
desires to breed to any particular type, he will select
his type, and then basing his actions on scientific prin
ciples, he will try to breed towards that type, knowing
generally what he desires to attain. But he will not be
able to tell you the exact length of the animal’s ears, the
number of curls there will be in his tail, or the particular
direction in which his eyes may slope. (Laughter.) Those
are the kind of details about which the scientific naturalistwould not try to prophesy. (Hear, hear.) He would take
his general type as I have done in this subject, but he
would not commit himself to prophecies for which the
foundation is not in any way attainable. Mr. Foote gives
me an illustration of the present Socialist policy by refer
ring to a Prime Minister. He says that a Prime Minister
must not bring in a mere abstract of a Bill without details;
but I ask Mr. Foote whether anything is more common
than that a statesman should bring in an abstract resolution
embodying some particular principle, and try to carry that
resolution, and thus to gather the general sense of the
House before he passes into the details of the Bill, details
which are, I grant, necessary, when it becomes a project
for immediate legislation. (Cheers.) That is exactly our
Socialist position at the present time. (Hear, hear.)
We are trying to carry a resolution before the public in
favor of the Socialist principle; and, mark you, we are
giving our definite reason for doing it. We have said over
and over again, and I say it now for the last time in
this debate, that we allege that private property in
the material of wealth-production is at the root of
poverty. (Hear, hear.) That as long as that lasts you
must have your propertied and your slave classes. We
allege that this is the source from which the evils flow, and
we must fight out that question of principle before it is
even worth while to go into minute details, which must be
considered, I thoroughly accept that, before you can make
a Socialist community; but it is idle to discuss the details
so long as the main principle of difference between the
Individualists and the Socialists remains undecided by the
public voice. (Hear, hear.) I go back to the speech of
Mr. Foote, which, he very fairly said, I did not completely
answer. There was a slight error in quotation Mr. Foote
made in connexion with the question—How wages should
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
13^
be settled, when he quoted me as saying the worker
should have control over the value of his labor. The whole
context of the passage shows that what I was arguing wasthat when the workmen had received a return for the labor
he had done, that amount which he received would beentirely under his own control. Just as now, a man re
ceiving wage from an employer can spend that wage as hepleases; so the workman employed, as he may be, by a
group of workers, or by whatever other phrase you may
use, when he receives the recompense of his labor, would
be able to use that recompense as he chose, as he thought
best. (Hear, hear.) That is the point I put in my essay,
and it appears that Mr. Foote has entirely misconceived it,
and has turned it into the man fixing his own wage instead
of controlling the equivalent for his own labor. (Hear,
hear.) Then Mr. Foote asks us to take a case which we
find in our present society—take the case of men like
Burns or Watt—what shall they do, and who shall decidein what way they shall be employed ? One of the reasons
why we want to press the Socialist solution is because,
under your present Individualistic system, you crush out
such an enormous amount of talent that might make its
way if it only had the opportunity. (Cheers.) If, as the
Socialists propose, the people were educated thoroughly
and completely in the years of their childhood and of their
youth, do you mean to say that it would be possible that
the talent of a Burns would escape notice, as it did when
he was sent to the plough-tail in his childhood, and had no
possibility of education which would enable him to show
his literary power ? (Hear, hear.) Under your present
system it is but a mere chance whether the child
of great ability succeeds or not. It depends largely
on the rank of society in which he is born. (Hear,
hear.) I do not say that you may not here and there havea child born under unfavorable conditions, who has talent
which amounts to absolute genius, and a strength of will
as of iron, so that even circumstances cannot break it. I
do not say that such a one amongst a myriad may not fight
his way to the front despite all that is against him. But
I do say that under your present system you practically
lose to society thousands upon thousands of personsdowered with real ability, whose ability would have been
discovered had they had a reasonable and rational educa
�140
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
tion, but whose ability is crushed out of them in their
•childhood and their youth by the hard circumstances of
their life. (Cheers.) And that is why we say that your
Individualistic system crushes Individualism. That is
why we say that only under Socialism can you hope to get
all the benefit through individual development which
■comes from removing persons from the constant strain and
struggle for existence, and, by securing the means of liveli
hood to all, give time and opportunity for the development
of the particular capacity. (Hear, hear.)
Then Mr. Foote asks, are you going to have all your
amusements arranged by public committees, because if so
their low tastes will swamp the higher tastes for the fine
arts. Now that is exactly what happens at the present
time, because the managers are now ruled by the receipts,
and the receipts come from the majority. Mr. Foote says
that low tastes are the tastes of the majority, and that it is
only the small minority that have the higher tastes. And
what is the result ? Your wretched melodrama and the
• comic opera are what the manager readily accepts, because
they appeal to the majority. (Hear, hear.) And even
Irving, great as he is, has his genius stunted, and, like a
fine jewel in tawdry setting, he has to fall back on fine
upholstery and limelight because he dares not trust to the
attraction of his own genius, for he knows it would not
pay. (Hear, hear.) It is the testimony of everyone who
has looked into the subject—(cries of “No, no”)—I am
going to give you a fact—(cries of “ Question! ”)—the
question is that of amusements under Socialism, and I am
dealing with that. (Hear, hear.) It is a fact which
everyone knows who has looked into the subject that the
only countries in which new genius—either dramatic or
artistic of any kind—can really make its way and be heard
by the public are those countries where theatres and places
of amusement are endowed by the State. (Hear, hear.)
The French stage is the very model of the other European
theatres. And why ? Because there a man of genius can
really bring forward a play that has to wait before it is
. appreciated. But your stage here falls back upon the off
scourings of the French theatres, and plays adapted from
the lower stage of France are played at your best theatres
here. (Hear, hear.) And so in Germany. Take the case
of Wagner. He was on the verge of starvation, was nearly
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
141
killed by your Individualistic system, until an endowed
theatre made it possible for him to get his music heard.
And these are facts for Mr. Foote to deal with instead of
theorising and floating about in the clouds. (Hear, hear.)
But Mr. Foote argues that the scavenger can hear Patti if
he is prepared to pay his two shillings, and to wait two
hours at the doors. But the scavenger cannot easily pay
that money and wait two hours or more. I have paid that
and waited—(A Voice : “It’s half-a-crown”)—the gentle
man is quite right, it is half-a-crown and not two shillings,
(Laughter.) But I do not think that a scavenger with a
small family of hungry children at home, can afford to
spend 2s. 6d. and to wait two hours, and then spend three
or four more in listening to Patti. (Cheers.) And what
is worse, he does not want to do so. He has not had the
education which would make it possible for him to enjoy
such music ; and he won’t have the desire until the educa
tion given by the community includes art and literary
culture as well as the mere elements it now gives. (Cheers.)
I pass on to yield my perfect agreement to Mr. Foote’s
statement of what we are seeking—viz., the best remedy.
And that is why I complain that he has not tried to deal
with the fundamental remedy of Socialism, and has ap
pealed to feeling and prejudice instead of dealing with my
proposals. (Hear, hear.) I pointed out to Mr. Foote that,
if he speaks of words leading to mistakes, that is the very
complaint which the Socialists make. We say that the
word “freedom”, applied to any laborer who has only a
choice of accepting the contract offered him and starvation,
is but a word, and is not a thing. (Hear, hear.) When
freedom of contract is spoken of, I say that that can only
take place between persons tolerably equal; and when Mr.
Foote speaks of the tension of muscles caused by compe
tition, I answer that such benefit can only result when each
competitor has a chance of reaching the winning-post.
There is no stimulating competition, but only a crushing
feeling of disqualification, if you set to race one man who
is only allowed to go on one leg and is carrying a heavy
chain, and another man who is allowed to use a bicycle to
get round the course. (Hear, hear.) The man with the
disadvantage finds it practically impossible for him to race
at all. And I allege that in your modern society the man
of the bicycle is the landlord and the capitalist who has
�142
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
everything made easy for him in the life-race ; and the man
with one leg and the chain, who is asked to compete with
him, and to feel the benefit of freedom of competition and
free contract, is the laborer who has nothing whatever but
his labor to sell, and who must starve unless he can sell
it. (Cheers.)
Mr. Foote : Mrs. Besant says that if a naturalist wishes
to produce a particular variety of dog, he does not before
hand say what length its tail is going to be, or how many
hairs it is going to have on its body. But if he proposes
to breed a long-tailed dog, surely the length of the tail
would have something to do with his prevision. If that
naturalist proposed to produce a special variety of dog,
and made it a condition of his experiment that he should
have every dog in the country under his control, the rest
of us would want to know what he was going to do before
■consenting to allow him to make such a vast experiment.
(Hear, hear.)
Mrs. Besant'reiterates that private property in capital is
at the root of all the poverty there is. Now we have had
three nights of this debate already. This point has been
•debated over and over again, and why Mrs. Besant wants
that particular point debated afresh to-night I do not
understand. I contravene it. I say there is no one root,
but many roots of evil, and the cause of all the roots of
evil lies in the fact that man is as yet only partially
evolved. He has advanced a long way from his brutish
progenitors, but he has yet higher ranges of capacity, of
thought, and of feeling, to reach in his development.
(Hear, hear.) You cannot do with your present human
nature what you could do with a better human nature.
The better human nature will come in time, for the Dar
winian theory which gives us a certitude of progress in the
past gives us a reasonable guarantee of progress in the
future.
I gave as one of the causes of poverty the pressure of
population on the means of subsistence. (Cheers.) Mrs.
Besant herself has given it. She has to-night told you
that the death-rate is lower among the upper classes than
among the lower classes. (Hear, hear.) If I had known
that Mrs. Besant was going to use those particular
statistics to-night, instead of following my lead, I should
have come prepared with some counter statistics. But I
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
143
now make the broad statement that the birth-rate among
the lower classes is as high as their death-rate relatively
to the upper classes. (Hear, hear.) They marry earlier,
breed faster, and therefore their numbers are kept down
by a heavy death-rate. I never said that the poor man
was in as good a condition as the man who is better off.
(Laughter.) But that is not our argument. How are the
great mass of people to be improved ? is the question at
issue. And after all, it is not my remedy, but Mrs.
Besant’s remedy, that is under discussion. When she
says I have not dealt with the difficulties she raised, I beg
to say that she has to deal with the difficulties which I have
raised against the system she wants us to embrace. (Hear,
hear.) . She says that, under the Individualist system,
talent is crushed down for want of education. We all
know that to some extent, but we did not wait for
Socialism to provide education in the Board Schools for
every boy and girl. We did not wait for Socialism to
found our system of secondary education, and we shall not
wait for Socialism to realise the dream of Radicals that
the endowments of the universities shall be put to their
right purposes, and applied to the education of those
higher capacities that are selected from the lower schools
to which all the mass of the children go. (Cheers.)
It is perfectly true that to some extent the lower taste
at present swamps the higher taste. But if the lower
taste gets the reins of power in its hands it will be an
overwhelming deluge. Now you can paddle your own boat,
but then you will have no boat to paddle. (Hear, hear.)
It is perfectly true that what pays best is put on the stage ;
but I said that there was a select circle of finer tastes, and
that they can get what they want. It may be true that
Mr. Irving has too much recourse to upholstery and lime
light, but that may be due to his melodramatic instincts.
He has played in many Shaksperian characters, however,
and in other legitimate dramas, and I do not see how his pos
turing in “Faust ” proves that he is a panderer to the lowest
tastes of the day. (Hear, hear.) If you can go and see
low comedy, you can also go and see high comedy. Tf
you want your tastes gratified with the best music, or
drama, or literature, you can have it. Shakspere is brought
into our homes, decently printed, for a shilling; and in
all sorts of ways the highest taste in such things can be
�144
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
gratified without a very great expenditure. The poorest,,
even, can sometimes have the pleasure of hearing a great
singer like Patti ; and even under Socialism she could not
sing every night to everybody, unless the opera house
were large enough to hold the nation. Wagner was a
poor illustration. He was outlawed for fighting on behalf
of liberty against what turned out to be the majority of
his countrymen. Mrs. Besant says his musical genius
stood no chance till he was endowed. But the person who
assisted him with money was the mad King of Bavaria.
That fact does not favor Mrs. Besant’s position. It rather
tells, if at all, on behalf of the monarchy which she and I
are both opposed to. (Hear, hear.)
I will now take a few more difficulties. I do not know
much about carpentering, and I think Mrs. Besant knows
as little. (Laughter.) I have no practical knowledge of
a variety of trades. But I do know something about
writing and publishing, and so does Mrs. Besant. Under
Socialism, Mrs. Besant would like to write and publish
articles and pamphlets maintaining her Freethought, Mal
thusian, and other views. Yet if all the means of produc
tion were in the hands of State officials, or under the
control of industrial groups, how does she know that she
would be able to do what she wanted ? Gronlund says
that society would not allow anything and everything to
be printed. It would draw the line somewhere. Yes,
and I think the line would be very hard upon the minority
and all unpopular ideas. It would seriously hamper the
advanced few who are the cream of every generation, and
whose thought to-day decides the action of to-morrow.
(Cheers.) Mrs. Besant knows very well that she is not in
the majority at present. Her Malthusianism is unpopular
with general society, and she regrets to say that among
her Socialist friends it is more unpopular still. She and !
would continne to hold unpopular opinions, and if we did
not, other persons would. Now those opinions would have
to be ventilated, and in a highly organised society like
ours they cannot be ventilated, except through the press
and the pl at,form. But all the halls, all kinds of meeting
places, are to be controlled by public committees, and all
printing plant is to be under similar management. Would ,
Mrs. Besant get what she wanted printed, if it were
generally distasteful? Would not the managers of the
�145
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
printing group be very reluctant to offend their constituents
and imperil their prospect of re-election to office ? She
would also probably find that if the hall she wanted was
not absolutely refused, it would be required for something
else on that date. The free play of mind would thus be
checked. But upon that very thing all progress hinges.
What is progress ? The only valuable, or indeed intelli
gible definition I know of is Sir Henry Maine’s “progress
is the constant production of fresh ideas”. Fresh ideas
might be produced, but they would be absolutely abortive,
unless there were the means of disseminating them and
carrying them out. Could those means be counted on when
all the agencies were in the hands of the majority who
would naturally be content with the state of things in
which they exercised supreme power ? How can you praise
liberty, when under your system liberty would be arrested
at its source ? Mrs. Besant may smile at this. She may
say, as she has said, that if you cannot get a hearing in a
hall you must go to some open space. But if the officials
would not let you speak in public halls, they would put
obstacles in the way of your speaking in public places of
other kinds. (Hear, hear.) You would then have to hold
forth on Dartmoor or the Yorkshire wolds, where the
chances of finding an audience are exceedingly limited
(Laughter.) I really wish Mrs. Besant would tell us how
these difficulties are to be surmounted.
Individualism will produce all the benefits Socialism
could possibly bestow, and it gives us other benefits which
Socialism would destroy. It was finely said by Channing
that you may spring a bird into the air by mechanism,
but its flight is only admirable when it soars with its own
vital power. So the mechanism which would elevate
people despite themselves does not really elevate them.
They are only lifted up when their life is improved by
their own energy, foresight, and capacity. (Cheers.) If
you gave a man with the lowest tastes ten times his present
income, do you mean to tell me that he would be ten times
better ? He would probably spend it all very much as he
spends his money now. But if he got more by voluntary
co-operation with his fellows, his character would be
elevated in the very process of bettering his material con
dition. (Cheers.)
Mrs. Besant complains that competition is impossible
L
�146
IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
with those who have personal advantages. Yes, and I
know that without riding on bicycles there are some
stronger and fleeter than others. Those with the most
powerful and subtle brains must win the first prizes in the
race of life. But there are many competitions and millions
of minor prizes of all degrees. We cannot all run in the
race for the Premiership. Only a few can compete for
that, and let us hope the best man gets it. But if a man
cannot compete for the Premiership, he may be first in the
making of good honest boots. (Hear, hear.) There are
thousands of races, and if a man cannot succeed in one he
may enter another. Competition is not the frightful
thing Mrs. Besant supposes. It does not imply that only
one wins and all the rest absolutely lose. In our com
petition there is a first prize, a second, a third, a fourth,
and'so on down to the point at which there really is com
plete failure, and a man is thrown out of employment.
But the great mass of workers are in employment, and
there is something even for those who are farthest behind.
The vast majority get what is worth having, though all
cannot be first. (Hear, hear.)
Now, in conclusion, let me say a word as to what Indi
vidualism has done. There was a time when man fought
for the possession of caves with his brute contemporaries.
There was a time when man was so low in the scale of life
that he could scarcely be discriminated from his ape-like
progenitor. Through countless ages he has advanced to
his present position. And that position gives only a fore
taste of what he will realise in the days to come. The science
which affords us so many benefits is still in its childhood,
and what it has done is but “ an earnest of the things
that it shall do ”. Individualist competition, man wrest
ling with nature and the brutes, man matched against
man, thrift against improvidence, sagacity against dulness,
energy against indolence, courage against cowardice, sense
against stupidity—this has brought civilisation to its pre
sent pitch. Individualism has constructed railways, made
the steam-engine, bridged rivers, covered the ocean with
ships, invented the printing press, and given us all our
science and art. Individualism has given to “the poor”
what they consider necessaries of life, but what once were
luxuries to princes and kings. And what has your State
done? It has always been trying to “ regulate ” things,
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
147
making mistake after mistake with the best intentions, and
failing again and again because it could not possibly succeed.
It has tried to take men’s religion under its control; it has
tried to take all their thoughts and all their actions under
its control. It decreed the status in which men should
remain from the cradle to the grave. It hemmed them in
on every side. And while individual Europeans have gone
all over the world, colonising and founding new empires,
what have the Europeans States done ? They have hurled
people against people. They have contracted four thou
sand five hundred millions of debt in senseless quarrels.
The 1 ‘ State ’ ’ has done more harm than good. Individualism
has made progress. Without it none is possible. Col
lectivism, State control, crushes liberty, hinders Indi
vidualism, and prevents that noble progress which we all
see brightening and heightening in the great future before
us. (Prolonged applause.)
Annie Besant : I did not state in my last speech that
the present system of private property in the material of
wealth production is at the root of all the poverty. Mr.
Eoote has put in the word all. I quite admit that there
are other influences at work as well; and you know that
in dealing with the question of population I have pointed
to that cause. But Mr. Eoote rightly said in an earlier
speech that under the present system that difficulty was
not dealt with, because it is to the interest of the capitalist
that the workers should rapidly increase, that he may play
off the one against the other. (Hear, hear.) Then Mr,
Eoote stated—and I agree with him—that society will
improve by evolution. And it is because I am an evolu
tionist that I am a Socialist; it is because I see that society
is evolving in the direction of Socialism, and that the
tendency of the most Radical legislation is to promote the
growth of Socialism. (Hear, hear.) And then Mr. Eoote
says that the birth-rate and the death-rate balance each
other. But surely Mr. Eoote must have noticed that I
gave percentages, and not absolute numbers, of deaths,
and that brief answer of his does not deal with my diffi
culty, which really was the price that society pays for the
maintenance of the present system. (Hear, hear.) Then
Mr. Foote says we don’t wait for Socialism to get educa
tion. But your education is founded on the Socialist
principle ; you tax the community for a special benefit of
�148
IS SOCIALISM SOUND?
which, some only take advantage; the State compels
parents to do their duty towards their children, forcing
upon them that which otherwise they would not do, and
intruding even within the circle of the home; in fact, you
treat the children as belonging in the highest sense to the
community rather than to the parents, and you forbid the
parent to inflict an injury upon the community by keeping
the child in ignorance, and therefore in degradation.
(Cheers.) I admit in that good work has been done; but
it is work done by society—by the State that Mr. Foote
attacks—and not by Individualistic effort. (Hear, hear.)
The voluntary school system was the growth of Indi
vidualism ; the national system is the growth of the
tendency towards Socialism in the State.
Mr. Foote goes on to say a word about publishing
papers and pamphlets : Here are Mrs. Besant and Mr.
Foote. Their opinions are in a minority. How are they
to publish their views under Socialism? But we are
in a minority now, and we have paid for it under your
Individualistic system. (Hear, hear.) We have found
not only that it is very difficult to get a hearing for the
views of the minority, but that a man may be sent to gaol
for putting his views in print. What worse tyranny than
this can Socialism inflict ? (Hear, hear.) Individualistic
society shuts up a man in prison because he dared to print
something against the views of the majority. (Cheers.)
What more could Socialism do ? But let us be frank in
this matter. Socialism will not at once quite alter human
nature. These difficulties which Mr. Foote speaks of are
the difficulties of minorities everywhere, and there is no
way of getting over them save by courage on the part of
the minority, and the gradual growth of education and of
a feeling of respect in the majority for the opinions of
others. (Hear, hear,) But I can tell you why we think
that under Socialism the minority would have a better
chance of making itself heard than it has now. It is
because even under the present condition of things those
institutions which are most nearly on the road to Socialism
are those where the greatest liberty is already permitted.
(Hear, hear.) Co-operation, for instance, which is the
grouping of many together to work side by side and there
fore is only in a small way—when it is real, and not mere
dividend hunting—what the Socialist State will be in a
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
149
large form—co-operation may serve as an instance. Mr.
Foote knows that it is the halls scattered over the country
which have been built by the co-operative societies, and
which are controlled by committees and not by individual
owners, which are most readily granted for the propaga
tion of the opinions of the minority. (Hear, hear.) Often
when an individual owner refuses to let me his hall, I find
the co-operative society readily grant it, although many
members of their committee are in opposition to my views.
(Hear, hear.) The truth is that where an individual refuses
to let any views be heard but his own, the clash of opinions
on a committee makes each member disposed to give others
a hearing in order that his own views may obtain a hearing
in turn. Take another case. You speak of the tyranny
of the State. I take as an illustration of the difference
between being under a State and being under the indi
vidual, an incident that happened at the British Museum.
There was a gardener there who committed the horrible
crime of calling by his first name the son of one of the
officials—he called him George instead of Master George.
(Laughter.) Such a piece of gross insolence on the part of
a gardener could not be overlooked, and the result was that
he was dismissed. So far he shared the fate which would
have befallen him had he been hired by an individual owner.
But as he was a servant of the State and not the mere
hired servant of an individual owner, his complaint was
listened to, an inquiry ordered, and the result was that a
fresh post was found for the gardener to compensate him
for the loss he had undergone. H he had called an indi
vidual’s son George he would have been thrown out into
the world to seek a fresh livelihood for himself; but as he
called the State functionary’s son George, the State inter
fered in order to protect him, and gave him another place
instead of the one he lost. (Cheers.)
But Mr. F oote points to what Individualism has done—
it has covered the sea with ships. Aye, with coffin ships,
which went to the bottom until the State interfered to save
life. (Hear, hear.) Individualism has done much. On
my very first night I said that being an evolutionist I
recognised the fashion in which society had grown ; from
my point of view it is idle to find fault with what has been
done in the past; it is for us to try with the experience of
the race, by the study of history, by the growing knowledge
�150
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
of man, and by our increased scientific ability, to find a
better road for the future, than our ancestors have struggled
along in the past. (Hear, hear.) And the difference
between Mr. Foote and myself is this—that I recognise
that evolution has brought us to the point where this
Individualistic struggle must give way to organised action.
And I notice that we have grown from the Individualism
of the savage up to the co-operative Socialism of civilisa
tion : because as Mr. Foote truly says—civilisation is co
operation ; that is, it is the raising of the group and the
group interests above the interests of the units who compose
the group.
I put to you now in closing this debate one or two points
which I venture to think are not unworthy your careful
■consideration. Mr. Foote says that we have been making
progress, we have been improving in the past. I have
urged on him, on the other side, that the improvement has
been far slower than it need be, and that the root of the question of poverty must be dealt with if improvement is
to go on. I have pointed out to him that while there is
improvement in one part of society there is retrogression
in another. I have pointed out to him the ever-widening
of the gulf between the rich and the poor—the evergrowing division between the cultured and the masses of
the people—the ever-increasing danger of that which
Sidgwick pointed out, viz., that the tendency of our
present industrial system is to make the rich grow richer
and the poor grow poorer. (Cheers.) That I hold to be
the position in which we stand to-day; and I, a Socialist,
come forward, and pointing to these evils in modem
society say they are evils which are inherent in the system.
Under a Socialist system—and only under that system—
is the change and the remedy for us possible. Mr. Foote,
I recognise, desires that improvement should go on. He
says to us: Your Socialism will fail when it is tried. I
answer him: Your Individualism has been tried and
has failed—(cries of “No, no!”)—and our wars, our
poverty, our misery, our ignorance, our wretchedness,
are the proofs of the failure of an Individualistic
system of society. (Cheers.) You say it has not
failed. How then is it that in every civilised country
the millionaire and the pauper stand side by side ? How
is it, if it be a success, that in this great metropolis of ours
�IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
151
where thousands of pounds are given for a china dish
hundreds of men and women are dying of slow starvation ?
(Hear, hear, and cries of “ Shame ”.) Go down to Shadwell
High Street when the crowds are turning out of the music
rooms and gin palaces, and next morning go to the Ladies’
Mile; see how the West End differs from the East End,
and then ask yourself, can a civilisation last where the
contrasts are so glaring, where the divisions are so
extreme? (Hear, hear.) Eor remember that you have
no longer the safety of the past—the safety of the ignorance
of the masses of your people. (Hear, hear.) While there
was no penny press, while there was no public education,
much of the luxury of the rich man remained hidden from
the eyes of the poor, starving in their cellars and in their
garrets. But to day your halfpenny paper takes the news
everywhere. The sempstress reads of the great ladies
decked in diamonds at a Court ball, and the costermonger
•reads of the millionaire giving thousands for a race horse,
spending thousands in luxury and in vice. These are
beginning to think—beginning to ask questions ; beginning
to ask, must these things always be ? is there not something
fundamentally wrong in a condition of society where such
things exist ? And that is not all. Your idle classes are
the very cancer of society. (Hear, hear.) The luxury in
which they live makes them rotten by its very idleness.
They consume without producing; they enjoy without
discharging a duty; they live easily, smoothly, without
difficulty, and society takes nothing from them in ex
change for what they take from it. And what is the
result ? Your higher classes with their profligacy are
the scandal of the whole civilised world at the present
time. A press, greedy for profit, tears down every curtain
in the desecrated home, and exhibits it to the eyes of the
whole of Europe, until the very noblest of human passions
becomes as filth, fit only to roll through the sewer which
runs beneath your streets. (Cheers.) And this is the
outcome of the Individualistic system. This is the result of
luxury and idleness, the result of the neglecting of duty,
and of the making possible of luxury without service done
in exchange for those who give it. And one plea I make
to you—to you, the majority of whom in this Hall are
against me—the large majority of whom judge us harshly
and blame us sternly, because looking at the misery, and
�152
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
the luxury of society we strive to bring about a remedy
which may make things other than they are to-day. (Hear,
hear.) Many of us are ignorant; most of us are poor.
Tongues of education and of culture are but here and
there amongst us, and rough men speak for us out of the
miseries that they feel. What wonder that sometimes the
tongues should be reckless; what wonder that some
times the speech should be bitter; what wonder that
men, feeling what they might have been, and knowing
what they are, speak words that may not be measured as
carefully as the perfectly cultured and the unsuffering
may measure theirs; what wonder if their indignation
grows hot against the wrongs they know. But this I ask
of you. If sometimes we speak too hotly; if sometimes
our passion gets the better of our judgment; if sometimes
the misery of the poor voices itself too sharply in our
words and rings out in a fashion that the easy and idle
class may not like ; at least do us this justice: that in a
society where the stronger trample upon the weak ; in a
society where most men seek for power, for luxury, or for
money; at least admit this to the despised Socialists
amongst you—that in that society we have withdrawn from
the strife for gold, we have turned aside from the struggle
for power, and we have eyes that see and hearts that love
some nobler ideal of society than you have yet found
possible in your Individualistic life. (Great cheering.)
Mr. Foote : I rise to propose with great pleasure a very
hearty vote of thanks to the chairman.
‘ Annie Besant : I second that.
The motion was carried, and the meeting dispersed.
�
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 & 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
Is socialism sound? : verbatim report of a four nights' debate between Annie Besant and G. W. Foote : at the Hall of Science, Old St., London, E.C. : on February 2nd, 9th, 16th and 23rd, 1887
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood
Foote, G. W. (George William)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 152 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Stamp on title page: 'South Place Chapel Finsbury, Lending Library'.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought 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
T404
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 (Is socialism sound? : verbatim report of a four nights' debate between Annie Besant and G. W. Foote : at the Hall of Science, Old St., London, E.C. : on February 2nd, 9th, 16th and 23rd, 1887), 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
Debates and Debating
Socialism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/942bcdae16dcac69905eac62b6a49dd7.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=IAdbR44QStw%7Ett%7EGiPv57YkSVYcBVZrCk0awylRS%7Ed5EaJG3nvpECbYfLTCS3AQESaWf1VfnYffkcUhReQYyaAQ5-Ngmmk2omuyPAkYA71AOBkvNzRwUY5b27kOkdDZBOr7Cp20MmReksN-kFtY7lp%7EkFjIu4ZTGshrHxaB8HDaZAU0bL%7E29AahYS3mg4MC2wuNDgeB4YxhPufS5AI60jiNrzalfmVA4yRdbbdgGlxo-aDR1X8Zt5a1ZPxYhlXbnh1RAGtxqG2u3lMHEwaNwlLS4oVQT5NEBSLpO8F4JrzQaao9OHemzxwDjrmerUILmbkgpgZb201a8yaVvpgjzpA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c4c9abe3107a61cd27706315954dd420
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
AND FACT
4
A Letter
to
The Rev. Henry M. Field, D.D.
BY
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
REPRINTED FROM
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW
(November 1887).
Price Twopence,
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING ¡COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1887.
:
�LONDON :
FEINTED AND FUFIISHED BY U. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.U.
�N'34-4-
FAITH AND FACT.
My Dear Mr. Field,—I answer your letter because it is
manly, candid and generous. It is not often that a minister of the
gospel of universal benevolence speaks of an unbeliever except in
terms of reproach, contempt and hatred. The meek are often
malicious. The statement in your letter that some of your brethren
look upon me as a monster on account of my unbelief, tends to
show that those who love God are not always the friends of their
fellow men.
Is it not strange that people who admit that they ought to be'
eternally damned, that they are by nature totally depraved, and
that there is no soundness or health in them, can be so arro
gantly egotistic as to look upon others as “ monsters ? ” And- yet
“some of your brethren,” who regard unbelievers as infamous,
rely for salvation entirely on the goodness of another, and expect
to receives as alms an eternity of joy.
The first question that arises between us, is as to the innocence
of honest error—as to the right to express an honest thought.
You must know that perfectly honest men differ on many im
portant subjects. Some believe in free trade, others are the
advocates of protection. There are honest Democrats and sincere
Republicans. How do you account for these differences? Edu
cated men, presidents of colleges, cannot agree upon questions
capable of solution—questions that the mind can grasp, concerning
which the evidence is open to all, and where the facts can be with
accuracy ascertained.
How do you explain this ?
If such
differences can exist consistently with the good faith of those who
differ, can you not conceive of honest people entertaining different
views on subjects about which nothing can be positively known ?
You do not regard me as a monster. “ Some of your brethren ”
do. How do you account for this difference? Of course, your
brethren—their hearts having been softened by the Presbyterian
God—are governed by charity and love.
They do not regard
me as a monster because I have committed an infamous crime,
but simply for the reason that I have expressed my honest
thoughts.
What should I have done ? I have read the Bible with great
�care, and the conclusion has forced itself upon my mind not only
that it is not inspired, but that it is not true. Was it my duty to
speak or act contrary to this conclusion ? Was it my duty to
remain silent ? If I had been untrue to myself, if I had joined
the majority—if I had declared the book to be the inspired word
of God—would your brethren still have regarded me as a monster ?
Has religion had control of the world so long that an honest man
seems monstrous ?
According to your creed—according to your Bible—the same
being who made the mind of man, who fashioned every brain, and
sowed within those wonderous fields the seeds of every thought and
deed, inspired the Bible’s every word, and gave it as a guide to all
the world. Surely the book should satisfy the brain. And yet
there are millions who do not believe in the inspiration of the
Scriptures. Some of the greatest and best have held the claim of
inspiration in contempt. No Presbyterian ever stood higher in the
realm of thought than Humboldt. He was familiar with nature
from sands to stars, and gave his thoughts, his discoveries and
conclusions, “ more precious than the tested gold,” to all mankind.
Yet he not only rejected the religion of your brethren, but denied
the existence of their God. Certainly Charles Darwin was one of
the greatest and purest of men—as free from prejudice as the
mariner’s compass—desiring only to find amid the mists and clouds
of ignorance the star of truth. No man ever exerted a greater
influence on the intellectual world. His discoveries, carried to their
legitimate conclusion, destroy the creeds and sacred scriptures of
mankind. In the light of Natural Selection, The Survival of the
Fittest, and The Origin of Species, even the Christian religion
becomes a gross and cruel superstition. Yet Darwin was an honest,
thoughtful, brave, and generous man.
Compare, I beg of you, these men, Humboldt and Darwin, with
the founders of the Presbyterian Church. Read the life of
Spinoza, the loving Pantheist, and then that of John Calvin, and
tell me, candidly, which, in your opinion, was a “ monster.” Even
your brethren do not claim that men are to be eternally punished
for having been mistaken as to the truths of geology, astronomy,
or mathematics. A man may deny the rotundity and rotation of
the earth, laugh at the attraction of gravitation, scout the nebular
hypothesis, and hold the multiplication table in abhorrence, and
yet join at last the angelic choir. I insist upon the same freedom
of thought in all departments of human knowledge. Reason is the
supreme and final test.
If God has made a revelation to man, it must have been ad
�dressed to his reason. There is no other faculty that could even
decipher the address. I admit that reason is a small and feeble
flame, a flickering torch by stumbiers carried in the starless night
—blown and flared by passion’s storm—and yet it is the only light.
Extinguish that, and naught remains.
You draw a distinction between what you are pleased to call
“ superstition ” and religion. You are shocked at the Hindoo
mother when she gives her child to death at the supposed com
mand of her god. What do you think of Abraham, of Jephthah ?
What is your opinion of Jehovah himself ? Is not the sacrifice of
a child to a phantom as horrible in Palestine as in India ? Why
should a god demand a sacrifice from man ? Wh y should the
infinite ask anything from the finite ? Should the sun beg of the
glow-worm, and should the momentary spark excite the envy of
the source of light ?
You must remember that the Hindoo mother believes that her
child will be for ever blest—that it will become the special care of
the god to whom it has been given. This is a sacrifice through a
false belief on the part of the mother, She breaks her heart for
love of her babe. But what do you think of the Christian mother
who expects to be happy in heaven, with her child a convict in the
eternal prison—a prison in which none die and from which none
escape ? What do you say of those Christians who believe that
they, in heaven, will be so filled with ecstasy that all the loved of
earth will be forgotten—that all the sacred relations of life and all
the passions of the heart will fade and die, so that they will look
with stony, unreplying, happy eyes upon the miseries of the lost ?
You have laid down a rule by which superstition can be distin
guished from religion. It is this : “ It makes that a crime which
is not a crime, and that a virtue which is not a virtue.” Let us
test your religion by this rule.
Is it a crime to investigate, to think, to reason, to observe ? Is
it a crime to be governed by that which to you is evidence, and is
it infamous to express your honest thought ? There is also another
question : Is credulity a virtue ? Is the open mouth of ignorant
wonder the only entrance to Paradise ?
According to your creed, those who believe are to be saved, and
those who do not believe are to be eternally lost. When you con
demn men to everlasting pain for unbelief—that is to say, for
acting in accordance with that which is evidence to them—do you
not make that a crime which is not a crime ? And when you
reward men with an eternity of joy for simply believing that which
happens to be in accord with their minds, do you not make that a
�( 6 )
virtue which is not a virtue ? In other words, do you not bring
your own religion exactly within your own definition of superstition ?
The truth is, that no one can justly be held responsible for his
thoughts. The brain thinks without asking our consent. We
believe, or we disbelieve, without an effort of the will. Belief is a
result. It is the effect of evidence upon the mind. The scales
turn in spite of him who watches. There is no opportunity of
being honest or dishonest in the formation of an opinion. The
conclusion is entirely independent of desire. We mnst. believe, or
we must doubt, in spite of what we wish.
That which must be, has the right to be.
We think in spite of ourselves. The brain thinks as the heart
beats, as the eyes see, as the blood pursues its course in the old
accustomed ways.
The question then is not, have we the right to think,—that
being a necessity,—but have we the right to express our honest
thoughts? You certainly have the right to express yours, and you.
have exercised that right. Some of your brethren, who regard me
as a monster, have expressed theirs. The question now is, have I
the right to express mine ? In other words, have I the right to
answer your letter ? To make that a crime in me which is a virtue
in you, certainly comes within your definition of superstition. To
exercise a right yourself which you deny to me is simply the act of
a tyrant. Where did you get your right to express your honest
thoughts ? When, and where, and how did I lose mine ?
You would not burn, you would not even imprison me, because
I differ with you mn a subject about which neither of us knows
anything. To you the savagery of the Inquisition is only a proof
of the depravity of man. You are far better than your creed.
You believe that even the Christian world is outgrowing the fright
ful feeling that fagot, and dungeon, and thumb-screw are legitimate
arguments, calculated to convince those upon whom they are used,
that the religion of those who use them was founded by a God of
infinite compassion. You will admit that he who now persecutes
for opinion s sake is infamous. And yet, the God you worship will,
according to your creed, torture through all the endless years the
man who entertains an honest doubt. A belief in such a God is
the foundation and cause of ’ all religious persecution. You may
reply that only the belief in a false God causes believers to be
inhuman. But you must admit that the Jews believed in a true
God, and you are forced to say that they were so malicious, so cruel,
so savage, that they crucified the only Sinless Being who ever lived.
This crime was committed, not in spite of their religion, but in
�accordance with it. They simply obeyed the command of Jehovah.
And the followers of this Sinless Being, who, for all these centuries,
have denounced the cruelty of the Jews for crucifying a man on
account of his opinion, have destroyed millions and millions of their
fellow men for differing with them. And this same Sinless Being
threatens to torture in eternal fire countless myriads for the same
offence. Beyond this, inconsistency cannot go. At this point
absurdity becomes infinite.
Your creed transfers the Inquisition to another world, making
it eternal. Your God becomes, or rather is, an infinite Torquemada, who denies to his countless victims even the mercy of death.
And this you call a “consolation.”
You insist that at the foundation of every religion is the idea
of God. According to your creed, all ideas of God, except those
entertained by those of your faith, are absolutely false. You are
not called upon to defend the gods of the nations dead, nor the
gods of heretics. It is your business to defend the God of the
Bible—the God of the Presbyterian Church. When in the ranks
doing battle for your creed, you must wear the uniform of your
Church. You dare not say that it is sufficient to insure the
salvation of a soul to believe in a god, or in some god. According
to your creed a man must believe in your god, All the nations
dead believed in gods, and all the worshippers of Zeus, and
Jupiter, and Isis, and Osiris, and Brahma prayed and sacrificed in
vain. Their petitions were not answered, and their souls were
not saved. Surely you do not claim that it is sufficient to believe
in any one of the heathen gods.
What right have you to occupy the position of the Deists, and to
put forth arguments that even Christians have answered ? The
Deist denounced the God of the Bible because of his cruelty, and
at the same time lauded the god of Nature. The Christian
replied that the god of Nature was as cruel as the God of the
Bible. This answer was complete.
I feel that you are entitled to the admission that none have been,
that none are, too ignorant, too degraded, to believe in the super
natural ; and I freely give you the advantage of this admission.
Only a few—and they among the wisest, noblest and purest of
the human race—have regarded all gods as monstrous myths. Yet
a belief of “ the true god ” does not seem to make men charitable
or just. For most people, theism is the easiest solution of the
universe. They are satisfied with saying that there must be a
being who created and who governs the world. But the universality
of a belief does not tend to establish its truth. The belief in the
�( 8 )
existence of a malignant devil has been as universal as the be lief in
a beneficent god, yet few intelligent men will say that the universality
of this belief in an infinite demon even tends to prove his existence.
In the world of thought majorities count for nothing. Truth has
always dwelt with the few.
Man has filled the world with impossible monsters, and he has
been the sport and prey of these phantoms born of ignorance and
hope and fear. To appease the wrath of these monsters man has
sacrificed his fellow man. He has shed the blood of wife and child ;
he has fasted and prayed ; he has suffered beyond the power of
language to express, and yet he has received nothing from the gods
—they have heard no supplication, they have answered no prayer.
You may reply that your God “ sends his rain on the just and
on the unjust,” and that this fact proves that he is merciful to all
alike. I answer, that your God sends his pestilence on the just
and on the unjust—that his earthquakes devour and his cyclones
rend and wreck the loving and the vicious, the honest and the
criminal. Do not these facts prove that your God is cruel to all
alike ? In other words, do they not demonstrate the absolute im
partiality of the divine negligence ?
Do you not believe that any honest man of average intelligence,
having absolute control of the rain, could do vastly better than is
being done ? Certainly there would be no droughts' or floods ; the
crops would not be permitted to wither and die, while rain was
being wasted in the sea. Is it conceivable that a good man with
power to control the winds would not prevent cyclones ? Would
you not rather trust a wise and honest man with the lightning ?
Why should an infinitely wise and powerful God destroy the
good and preserve the vile ? Why should he treat all alike here,
and in another world make an infinite difference ? Why should
your God allow his worshippers, his adorers, to be destroyed by his
enemies ? Why should he allow the honest, the loving, the noble,
to perish at the stake ? Can you answer these questions ? Does
it not seem to you that your God must have felt a touch of shame
when the poor slave mother—one that had been robbed of her
babe—knelt and with clasped hands, in a voice broken with sobs,
commenced her prayer with the words “ Our Father ” ?
It gave me pleasure to find that, notwithstanding your creed,
you are philosophical enough to say that some men are incapaci
tated, by reason of temperament, for believing in the existence of
God. Now, ,if a belief in God is necessary to the salvation of the
soul, why should God create a soul without this capacity ? Why
should he create souls that he knew would be lost ? You seem to
�think that it is necessary to be poetical, or dreamy, in order to be
religious, and by inference, at least, you deny certain qualities to
me that you deem necessary. Do you account for the Atheism of
Shelley by saying that he was not poetic, and do you quote his
lines to prove the existence of the very God whose being he so
passionately denied ? Is it possible that Napoleon—one of the
most infamous of men—had a nature so finely strung that he was
sensitive to the divine influences ? Are you driven to the neces
sity of proving the existence of one tyrant by the words of another?
Personally, I have but little confidence in a religion that satisfied
the heart of a man who, to gratify his ambition, filled half the
world with widows and orphans. In regard to Agassiz, it is just
to say that he furnished a vast amount of testimony in favor of the
truth of the theories of Charles Darwin, and then denied the
correctness of these theories—preferring the good opinion of
Harvard for a few days to the lasting applause of the intellectual
world.
I agree with you that the world is a mystery, not only, but that
everything in Nature is equally mysterious, and that there is no
way of escape from the mystery of life and death. To me, the
crystallization of the snow is as mysterious as the constellations.
But when you endeavor to explain the mystery of the universe by
the mystery of God, you do not even exchange mysteries—you
simply make one more.
Nothing can be mysterious enough to become an explanation.
The mystery of man cannot be explained by the mystery of God.
That mystery still asks for explanation. The mind is so that it
cannot grasp the idea of an infinite personality. That is beyond
the circumference. This being so, it is impossible that man can be
convinced by any evidence of the existence of that which he can
not in any measure comprehend. Such evidence would be equally
incomprehensible with the incomprehensible fact sought to be es
tablished by it, and the intellect of man can grasp neither the one
nor the other.
You admit that the God of Nature—that is to say, your God—
is as inflexible as Nature itself. Why should man worship the in
flexible ? Why should he kneel to the unchangeable ? You say
that your God “ does not bend to human thought any more than
to human will,” and that “ the more we study him, the more we
find that he is not what we imagined him to be.” So that after
all, the only thing you are really certain of in relation to your
God is, that he is not what you think he is. Is it not almost, ab
surd to insist that such a state of mind is necessary to salvation,
�( 10 )
or that it is a moral restraint, or that it is the foundation of
social order ?
The most religious nations have been the most immoral, the
I. cruellest, and the most unjust. Italy was far worse under the
Popes than under the Caesars. Was there ever a barbarian nation
more savage than the Spain of the sixteenth century ? Certainly
you must know that what you call religion has produced a thousand
civil wars, and has severed with the sword all the natural ties that
produce “ the unity and married calm of States.” Theology is
the fruitful mother of discord ; order is the child of reason. If you
will candidly consider this question, if you will for a few moments
forget your preconceived opinions, you will instantly see that the
instinct of self-preservation holds society together. People, being
ignorant, believed that the gods were jealous and revengeful.
They peopled space with phantoms that demanded worship and
delighted in sacrifice and ceremony, phantoms that could be
flattered by praise and changed by prayer. These ignorant people
wished to preserve themselves. They supposed that they could
in this way avoid pestilence and famine, and postpone perhaps the
day of death. Do you not see that self-preservation lies at the
foundation of worship? Nations, like individuals, defend and
protect themselves. Nations, like individuals, have fears, have
ideals, and live for the accomplishment of certain ends. Men
defend their property because it is of value. Industry is the
enemy of theft. Men as a rule desire to live, and for that reason
murder is a crime. Fraud is hateful to the victim. The majority
of mankind work and produce the necessities, the comforts, and
the luxuries of life. They wish to retain the fruits of their labor.
Government is one of the instrumentalities for the preservation of
what man deems of value. This is the foundation of social order,
and this holds society together.
Religion has been the enemy of social order because it directs
the attention of man to another world. Religion teaches its
votaries to sacrifice this world for the sake of that other. The
effect is to weaken the ties that hold families and states together.
Of What consequence is anything in this world compared with
eternal joy ?
You insist that man is not capable of self-government, and
that God made the mistake of filling a world with failures—in
other words, that man must be governed not by himself, but by
your God, and that your God produces order, and establishes and
preserves all the nations of the earth. This being so, your God is
responsible for the government of this world. Does he preserve
�(11)
S>
order in Russia ? Is he accountable for Siberia ? Did he establish
the institution of slavery ? Was he the founder of the Inquisition ?
You answer all these questions by calling my attention to
“the retributions of history.” What are the retributions of
history ? The honest were burned at the stake ; the patriotic,
the generous and the noble were allowed to die in dungeons ;
whole races were enslaved ; millions of mothers were robbed of
their babes. What were the retributions of history ? They who
committed these crimes wore crowns, and they who justified these
infamies were adorned with the tiara.
You are mistaken when you say that Lincoln at Gettysburg
said: “Just and true are thy judgments, Lord God Almighty.”
Something like this occurs in his last inaugural, in which he says__
speaking of his hope that the war might soon be ended—“ If it
shall continue until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be
paid by another drawn by the sword, still it must be said, ‘ The
judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’ ” But
admitting that you are correct in the assertion, let me ask you one
question : Could one standing over the body of Lincoln, the blood
slowly oozing from the madman’s wound, have truthfully said :
“Just and true are thy judgments, Lord God Almighty ” ?
.Do you really believe that this world is governed by an infinitely
wise and good God ? Have you convinced even yourself of this ?
Why should God permit the triumph of injustice ? Why should
the loving be tortured ? Why should the noblest be destroyed ?
Why should the world be filled with misery, with ignorance and
with want ? What reason have you for believing that your God
will do better in another world than he has done and is doing in
this ? Will he be wiser ? Will he have more power ? Will he
be more merciful?
When I say “your God,” of course I mean the God described in
the Bible and the Presbyterian confession of faith. But again, I
say, that, in the nature of things, there can be no evidence of the
existence of an Infinite Being.
An Infinite Being must be conditionless, and for that reason
there is nothing that a finite being can do that can by any possibility
affect the well-being of the conditionless. This being so, man can
neither owe nor discharge any debt or duty to an Infinite Being.
The infinite cannot want, and man can do nothing for a Being
who wants nothing. A conditioned being can be made happy or
miserable by changing conditions, but the conditionless is absolutely
independent of cause and effect.
I do not say that a God does not exist, neither do I say that a
�( 12 )
God does exist; but I say that I do not know—that there can be no
evidence to my mind of the existence of such a Being, and that my
mind is so that it is incapable of even thinking of an infinite
personality.
I know that in your creed you describe God as
“ without body, parts, or passions.” This, to my mind, is simply
a description of an infinite vacuum. I have had no experience
with gods. This world is the only one with which I am acquainted,
and I was surprised to find in your lettter the expression that
“ perhaps others are better acquainted with that of which I am so
ignorant.” Did you, by this, intend to say that you know any
thing of any other state of existence—that you have inhabited
some other planet—that you lived before you were born, and that
you recollect something of that other world, or of that other state ?
Upon the question of immortality you have done me, unintention
ally, a great injustice. With regard to that hope, I have never
uttered a flippant or a trivial ” word. I have said a thousand
times, and I say again, that the idea of immortality, that, like a
sea, has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, with its countless
waves of hope and fear beating against the shores and rocks of time
and fate, was not born of any book, nor of any creed, nor of any
religion. It was born of human affection, and it will continue to
ebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and darkness
as long as love kisses the lips of death.
I have said a thousand times, and I say again, that we do not
know, we cannot say, whether death is a wall or a door—the
beginning or end of a day—the spreading of pinions to soar, or the
folding forever of wings—the rise or set of a sun, or an endless life,
that brings rapture and love to every one.
The belief in immortality is far older than Christianity. Thou
sands of years before Christ was born billions of people had lived
and died in that hope. Upon countless graves had been laid in
love and tears the emblems of another life. The heaven of the
New Testament was to be in this world. The dead, aftei’ they
were raised, were to live here. Not one satisfactory word was said
to have been uttered by Christ—.-nothing philosophic, nothing clear,
nothing that adorns, like a bow of promise, the cloud of doubt.
According to the account in the New Testament, Christ was dead
for a period of nearly three days. After his resurrection, why did not
some one of his disciples ask him where he had been ? Why did
he not tell them what world he had visited ? There was the opportu
nity to “bring life and immortality to light.” And yet he was
silent as the grave that he had left—speechless as the stone that
angels had rolled away.
�( 13 )
How do you account for this ? Was it not infinitely cruel to
leave the world in darkness and in doubt when one word could
have filled time with hope and light ?
’
The hope of immortality is the great oak round which have
climbed the poisonous vines of superstition. The vines have not
supported the oak—the oak has supported the vines. As long as
men live, and love, and die, this hope will blossom in the human
heart.
All I have said upon this subject has been to express my hope
and confess my lack of knowledge. Neither by word nor look
have I expressed any other feeling than sympathy with those who
hope to live again—Tor those who bend above their dream of life
to come. But I have denounced tjbf, selfishness and heartlessness
of those who.'expect for themselves an eternity of joy, and for the
rest of mankind predict, 'Without a tear, a world of endless pain.
Nothing can be more contemptible thair, such a hope—a hope that
can give satisfaction only to the hyenas of the human race.
When I say that>1 do not know^tfheh'dh.deny the existence of
perdition, you-reply that “therefis something very cruel in this
treatment of the,belief of my fellow creatures.”
You have had the goodness to inyijte me to a grave over which a
mother bends an^v^ps for
only son.1 I accept your invitation.
We will go togetlj^r. £ Do not, pray yon,'Ideal in splendid generali
ties. Bh. explicit. Bemember fhat the son for whom the loving
mother weeps was not a Christian, not a believer in the inspiration
of the Bible nor in the divinity of Jesus Christ. The mother turns
to you for consolation, for some star of hope in the midnight of
•her grief. What must you say ? Do not desert the Presbyterian
creed. Do not forget the threatenings of Jesus: Christ. What
must you say ? Will you read a portion of the Presbyterian con
fession of faith ? Will you read this ?
“ Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and provi"
deuce, do so far maniflfc the goodness, wisdom, and power of God as
to leave man inexcusably yet they are not sufficient to give that know
ledge of God and of his will which is necessary to salvation.”
Or, will you read this ?
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men
and angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained
to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestined and
foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their
number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or
diminished.”
Suppose the mother, lifting her tear-stained face, should say:
�( 14 )
“ My son was good, generous, loving and kind. He gave his life
for me. Is there no hope for him ?” Would you then put this
serpent in her breast ?—
“ Men not professing the Christian religion cannot be saved in any
other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to conform their lives
according to the light of nature. We cannot by our best works meA^
pardon of sin. There is no sin so small but that it deserves damnation’
Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of that they
may be things which God commands, and of good use both to them
selves and others, are sinful and cannot please God or make a man meet
to receive Christ or God.”
And suppose the mother should then sobbingly ask : “ What has
become of my son ? Where is he now ?” Would you still read
from your Confession of Faith, or from your Catechism, this ?—
“The souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in
torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.
At the last day the righteous shall come into everlasting life, but the
wicked shall be cast into hell, to be punished with unspeakable torment,
both of body and soul, with the Devil and his angels forever.”
If the poor mother still wept, still refused to be comforted, would
you thrust this dagger in her heart ?—
“ At the Day of Judgment you, being caught up to Christ in the
clouds, shall be seated at his right hand and there openly acknowledged
and acquainted, and you shall join with him in the damnation of your
son.”
If this failed to still the beatings of her aching heart, would you
repeat these words which you say came from the loving soul of
Christ ?—
“ They who believe and are baptised shall be saved, and they who
believe not shall be damned; and these shall go away into everlasting
fire prepared for the Devil and his angels.”
Would you not be compelled, according to your belief, to tell
this mother that “ there is but one name given under heaven and
among men whereby ” the souls of men can enter the gates of
paradise ? Would you not be compelled to say : “Your son lived
in a Christian land. The means of grace were within his reach.
He died not having experienced a change of heart, and your son is
for ever lost. You can meet your son again only by dying in your
sins ; but if you will give your heart to God you can never clasp
him to your breast again.”
What could I say ? Let me tell you.
“ My dear madam, this reverend gentleman knows nothing of
another world. He cannot see beyond the tomb. He has simply
�( 15 )
stated to you the superstitions of ignorance, of cruelty and fear.
If there be in this universe a God, he certainly is as good as you
are. Why should he have loved your son in life—loved him,
according to this reverend gentleman, to that degree that he gave
his life for him ; and why should that love be changed to hatred
the moment your son was dead ?
“My dear woman, there are no punishments, there are no
rewards—there are consequences ; and of one thing you may
rest assured, and that is, that every soul, no matter what sphere it
may inhabit, will have the everlasting opportunity of doing right.
“ If death ends all, and if this handful of dust over which you
weep is all there is, you have this consolation: Your son is not
within the power of this reverend gentleman’s God—that is some
thing. Your son does not suffer. Next to a life of joy is the
dreamless sleep of death.”
Does it not seem to you infinitely absurd to call orthodox Chris
tianity “ a consolation ” ? Here in this world, where every human
being is enshrouded in cloud and mist—where all lives are filled
with mistakes—where no one claims to be perfect, is it “ a conso
lation ” to say that “ the smallest sin deserves eternal pain ” ? Is
it possible for the ingenuity of man to extract from the doctrine of
hell one drop, one ray, of “ consolation ” ? If that doctrine be
true, is not your God an infinite criminal ? Why should he have
created uncounted billions destined to suffer for ever ? Why did
he not leave them unconscious dust ? Compared with this crime,
any crime that any man can by any possibility commit is a virtue.
Think for a moment of your God—the keeper of an infinite
penitentiary filled with immortal convicts—your God an eternal
turnkey, without the pardoning power. In the presence of this
infinite horror, you complacently speak of the atonement—a
scheme that has not yet gathered within its horizon a billionth
part of the human race—an atonement with one-half the world
remaining undiscovered for fifteen hundred years after it was
made.
If there could be no suffering, there could be no sin. To un
justly cause suffering is the only possible crime. How can a God
accept the suffering of the innocent in lieu of the punishment
of the guilty ?
According to your theory, this infinite being, by his mere will,
makes right and wrong. This I do not admit. Right and wrong
exist in the nature of things—in the relation they bear to man,
and to sentient beings. You have already admitted that “ Nature
is inflexible, and that a violated law calls for its consequences.”
�( 16 )
I insist that no God can step between an act and its natural
effects. If God exists, he has nothing to do with punishment,
nothing to do with reward. From certain acts flow certain con
sequences ; these consequences increase or decrease the happiness
of man ; and the consequences must be borne.
A man who has forfeited his life to the commonwealth may be
pardoned, but a man who has violated a condition of his own
well-being cannot be pardoned—there is no pardoning power.
The laws of the State are made, and, being made, can be changed;
but the facts of the universe cannot be changed. The relation
of act to consequence cannot be altered.
This is above all
power, and consequently, there is no analogy between the laws of
the State and the facts in Nature. An infinite God could not
change the relation between the diameter and circumference of the
circle.
A man having committed a crime may be pardoned, but I deny
the right of the State to punish an innocent man in the place of
the pardoned—no matter how willing the innocent man may be to
suffer the punishment. There is no law in Nature, no fact in
Nature, by which the innocent can be justly punished to the end
that the guilty may go free. Let it be understood once for all:
Nature cannot pardon.
You have recognised this truth. You have asked me what is
to become of one who seduces and betrays, of the criminal with
the blood of his victim upon his hands. Without the slightest
hesitation I answer, whoever commits a crime against another
must, to the utmost of his power in this world and in another, if
there be one, make full and ample restitution, and in addition
must bear the natural consequences of his offence. No man can
be perfectly happy, either in this world or in any other, who has
by his perfidy broken a loving and a confiding heart. No power
can step between acts and consequences—no forgiveness, no atone
ment.
But, my dear friend, you have taught for many years, if
you are a Presbyterian, or an evangelical Christian, that a man
may seduce and betray, and that the poor victim, driven to
insanity, leaping from some wharf at night where ships strain
at their anchors in storm and darkness—you have taught that this
poor girl may be tormented for ever by a God of infinite com
passion. This is not all that you have taught. You have said to
the seducer, to the betrayer, to the one who would not listen to her
wailing cry—who would not even stretch forth his hand to catch
her fluttering garments—you have said to him : “ Believe in the
�( 17 J
Lord Jesus Christ; and you shall be happy forever; you shall live
iu the realms of infinite delight, from which you can, without a
shadow falling upon your face, observe the poor girl, your victim,
writhing in the agonies of hell.” You have taught this. For my
part, I do not see how an angel in heaven meeting another angel
whom he had robbed on the earth, could feel entirely blissful.
I go further. Any decent angel, no matter if sitting at the right
hand of God, should he see in hell one of his victims, would leave
heaven itself for the purpose of wiping one tear from the cheek of
the damned.
You seem to have forgotten your statement in the commence
ment of your letter, that your God is as inflexible as Nature—that
he bends not to human thought nor to human will. You seem to
have forgotten the line which you emphasised with italics : “ The
effect of everything which is of the nature of a cause, is eternal.” In
the light of this sentence, where do you find a place for your for
giveness—for your atonement ? Where is a way to escape from the
effect of a cause that is eternal? Do you not see that this sen
tence is a cord with which I easily tie your hands ? The scientific
part of your letter destroys the theological. You have put “ new
wine into old bottles,” and the predicted result has followed. Will
the angels in heaven, the redeemed of earth, lose their memory ?
Will not all the redeemed rascals remember their rascality ?
Will
not all the redeemed assassins remember the faces of the dead ?
Will not the seducers and betrayers remember her sighs, her tears,
and the tones of her voice, and will not the conscience of the
redeemed be as inexorable as the conscience of the damned ?
If memory is to be for ever “ the warder of the brain,” and if
the redeemed can never forget the sins they committed, the pain
and anguish they caused, then they can never be perfectly happy ;
and if the lost can never forget the good they did, the kind actions,
the loving words, the heroic deeds ; and if the memory of good
deeds gives the slightest pleasure, then the lost can never be per
fectly miserable. Ought not the memory of a good action to live
as long as the memory of a bad one ? So that the undying memory
of the good, in heaven, brings undying pain, and the undying
memory of those in hell brings undying pleasure. Do you not see
that if men have done good and bad, the future can’ have neither
a perfect heaven nor a perfect hell ?
I believe in the manly doctrine that every human being must
bear the consequence of his acts, and that no man can be justly
saved or damned on account of the goodness or the wickedness of
another.
�( 18 )
If by atonement you mean the natural effect of self-sacrifice,
the effects following a noble and disinterested action ; if you mean
that the life and death of Christ are worth their effect upon the
human race—which your letter seems to show—then there is no
question between us. If you have thrown away the old and bar
barous idea that a law had been broken, that God demanded a
sacrifice, and that Christ, the innocent, was offered up for us, and
that he bore the wrath of God and suffered in our place, then I
congratulate you with all my heart.
It seems to me impossible that life should be exceedingly joyous
to anyone who is acquainted with its miseries, its burdens, and its
tears. I know that as darkness follows light around the globe,
so misery and misfortune follow the sons of men. According to
your creed, the future state will be worse than this. Here, the
vicious-may reform ; here, the wicked may repent; here, a few
gleams of sunshine may fall upon the darkest life. But in your
future state, for countless billions of the human race, there will
be no reform, no opportunity of doing right, and no possible gleam
of sunshine can ever touch their souls. Do you not see that your
future state is infinitely worse than this ? You seem to mistake
the glare of hell for the light of morning.
Let us throw away the dogma of eternal retribution. Let us
“ cling to all that can bring a ray of hope into the darkness of this
life.”
You have been kind enough to say that I find a subject for cari
cature in the doctrine of regeneration. If, by regeneration, you
mean reformation—if you mean that there comes a time in the
life of a young man when he feels the touch of responsibility, and
that he leaves his foolish or vicious ways, aud concludes to act like
an honest man—if this is what you mean by regeneration, I am a
believer. But that is not the definition of regeneration in your
creed—that is not Christian regeneration. There is some mys
terious, miraculous, supernatural, invisible agency, called, I
believe, the Holy Ghost, that enters and changes the heart of
man, and this mysterious agency is like the wind, under the con
trol, apparently, of no one, coming and going when and whither it
listeth. It is this illogical and absurd view of regeneration that I
have attacked.
You ask me how it came to pass that a Hebrew peasant, born
among the hills of Galilee, had a wisdom above that of Socrates
or Plato, of Confucius or Buddha, and you conclude by saying,
“ This is the greatest of miracles—that such a being should live
and die on the earth.”
�( 19 )
I can hardly admit your conclusion, because I remember that
Christ said nothing in favor of the family relation. As a matter
of fact, his life tended to cast discredit upon marriage. He said
nothing against the institution of slavery; nothing against the
tyranny of government; nothing of our treatment of animals;
nothing about education, about intellectual progress ; nothing of
art, declared no scientific truth, and said nothing as to the rights
and duties of nations.
You may reply that all this is included in “ Do unto others as
you would be done by,” and “ Resist not evil.” More than this
is necessary to educate the human race. It is not enough to say
to your child or to your pupil, “ Do right.” The great question
still remains : What is right ? Neither is there any wisdom in
the idea of non-resistance. Force without mercy is tyranny. Mercy
without force is but a waste of tears. Take from virtue the right
of self-defence, and vice becomes the master of the world.
Let me ask you how it came to pass that an ignorant driver
of camels, a man without family, without wealth, became master
of hundreds of millions of human beings? How is it that he
conquered and overran more than half of the Christian world?
How is it that on a thousand fields' the banner of the cross went
down in blood while that of the crescent floated in triumph ?
How do you account for the fact that the flag of this impostor
floats to-day above the sepulchre of Christ ? Was this a miracle ?
Was Mohammed inspired ? How do you account for Confucius,
whose name is known wherever the sky bends ? Was he inspired
—this man who for many centuries has stood first, and who has
been acknowledged the superior of all men by thousands of
millions of his fellow-men ? How do you account for Buddha, in
many respects the greatest religious teacher this world has ever
known, the broadest, the most intellectual of them all; he who
was great enough, hundreds of years before Christ was born, to
declare the universal brotherhoood of man, great enough to say
that intelligence is the only lever capable of raising mankind ?
How do you account for him, who has had more followers than
any other ? Are you willing to say that all success is divine ? How
do you account for Shakespeare, born of parents who could neither
read nor write, held in the lap of ignorance and love, nursed at the
breast of poverty—how do you account for him, by far the greatest
of the human race, the wings of whose imagination still fill the
horizon of human thought; Shakespeare, who was perfectly ac
quainted with the human heart, knew all depths of sorrow, all
heights of joy, and in whose mind was the fruit of all thought, of
�( 20 )
all experience, and a prophecy of all to be ; Shakespeare, the
wisdom and beauty and depth of whose words increase with the
intelligence and civilisation of mankind ? How do you account
for this miracle ? Do you believe that any founder of any religion
could have written “ Lear ” or “ Hamlet ” ? Did Greece pro
duce a man who could by any possibility have been the author of
“ Troilus and Cressida ” ? Was there among all the countless
millions of almighty Rome an intellect that could have written
the tragedy of “ Julius Caesar ” ? Is not the play of “ Antony
and Cleopatra ” as Egyptian as the Nile ? How do you account
for this man, within whose veins there seemed to be the blood of
every race, and in whose brain there were the poetry and philo
sophy of a world ?
You ask me to tell my opinion of Christ. Let me say here,
once for all, that for the man Christ—for the man who, in the
darkness, cried out, “My God, why hast thou forsaken me ? ”—for
that man I have the greatest possible respect. And let me say,
once for all, that the place where man has died for man is holy
ground. To that great and serene peasant of Palestine I gladly
pay the tribute of my admiration and my tears. He was a reformer
in his day—an infidel in his time. Back of the theological mask,
and in spite of the interpolations of the New Testament, I see a
great and genuine man.
It is hard to see how you can consistently defend the course
pursued by Christ himself. He attacked with great bitterness
“ the religion of others.” It did not occur to him that “ there was
something very cruel in his treatment of the belief of his fellow
creatures.” He denounced the chosen people of God as a “ gene
ration of vipers.” He compared them to “ whited sepulchres.” How
can you sustain the conduct of missionaries ? They go to other
lands and attack the sacred beliefs of others. They tell the people
of India and of all heathen lands, not only that their religion is a
lie, not only that their Gods are myths, but that the ancestors of
these people, their fathers and mothers, who never heard of God,
of the Bible, or of Christ, are all in perdition. Is not this a cruel
treatment of the belief of a fellow-creature ?
A religion that is not manly and robust enough to bear attack
with smiling fortitude is unworthy of a place in the heart or brain.
Aireligion that takes refuge in sentimentality, that cries out: “Do
not, I pray you, tell me any truth calculated to hurt my feelings,”
is fit only for asylums.
You believe that Christ was God, that he was infinite in power.
While in Jerusalem he cured the sick, raised a few from the
�( 21 )
dead, and opened the eyes of the blind. Did he do these thingsbecause he loved mankind, or did he do these miracles simply to
establish the fact that he was the very Christ ? If he was actuated
by love, is he not as powerful now as he was then ? Why does he
not open the eyes of the blind now ? Why does he not, with a
touch, make the leper clean ? If you had the power to give sight
to the blind, to cleanse the leper, and would not exercise it, what
would be thought of you? What is the difference between one
who can, and will not cure, and one who causes disease?
Only the other day I saw a beautiful girl—a paralytic, and yet
her brave and cheerful spirit shone over the wreck and ruin of her
body like morning on the desert. What would I think of myself
had I the power by a word to send the blood through all her
withered limbs freighted again with life, should I refuse ?
Most theologians seem to imagine that the virtues have beenproduced by and are really the children of religion.
Religion has to do with the supernatural. It defines our duties
and obligations to God. It prescribes a certain course of conduct
by means of which happines s can be attained in another world.
The result here is only an incident. The virtues are secular.
They have nothing whatever to do with the supernatural, and are
of no kindred to any religion. A man may be honest, courageous,
charitable, industrious, hospitable, loving and pure without being
religious—that is to say, without any belief in the supernatural;
and a man may be the exact opposite and at the same time a sincere
believer in the creed of any church—that is to say, in the existence
of a personal God, the inspiration of the scriptures and the divinity
of Jesus Christ. A man who believes in the Bible may or may not
be kind to his family, and a m an who is kind and loving in his
family may or may not believe in the Bible.
In order that you may see t he effect of belief in the formation
of character, it is only necessa ry to call your attention to the fact
that your Bible shows that th e Devil himself is a believer in the
existence of your God, in the inspiration of the scriptures and in
the divinity of Jesus Christ. He not only believes these things,
but he knows them, and yet, in spite of it all, he remains a devil
still.
Few religions have been bad enough to destroy all the natural
goodness in the human heart. In the deepest midnight of super
stition some natural virtues, like stars, have been visible in the
heavens. Man has committed every crime in the name of Christi
anity—or at least crimes th at involved the commission of all
others. Those who paid for labor with the lash, and who made
�"blows a legal tender, were Christians. Those who engaged in the
slave trade were believers in a personal God. One slave ship was
called “The Jehovah.” Those who pursued, with hounds, the
fugitive led by the northern star, prayed fervently to Christ to
crown their efforts with success, and the stealers of babes, just
before falling asleep, commended their souls to the keeping of
the Most High.
As you have mentioned the Apostles, let me call your attention
to an incident.
You remember the story of Ananias and Sapphira.
The
Apostles, having nothing themselves, conceived the idea of having
all things in common. Their followers, who had something, were
to sell what little they had, and turn the proceeds over to
these theological financiers. It seems that Ananias and Sapphira
had a piece of land. They sold it, and after talking the matter
over, not being entirely satisfied with the collaterals, concluded to
keep a little—just enough to keep them from starvation if the good
and pious bankers should abscond.
When Ananias brought the money, he was asked whether he had
kept back a part of the price. He said that he had not; where
upon God, the compassionate, struck him dead. As soon as the
corpse was removed, the apostles sent for his wife. They did not
tell her that her husband had been killed. They deliberately set
a trap for her life. Not one of them was good enough or noble
enough to put her on her guard : they allowed her to believe that
her husband had told his story, and that she was free to corroborate
what he had said. She probably felt that they were giving more
than they could afford, and, with the instinct of a woman, wanted
to keep a little. She denied that any part of the price had been
kept back. That moment the arrow of divine vengeance entered
her heart.
Will you be kind enough to tell me your opinion of the apostles
in the light of this story ? Certainly murder is a greater crime
than mendacity.
You have been good enough, in a kind of fatherly way, to give
me some advice. You say that I ought to soften my colors, and
that my words would be more weighty if not so strong. Do you
really desire that I should add weight to my words ? Do you really
wish me to succeed ? If the commander of one army should send
word to the general of the other that his men were firing too high,
do you think the general would be misled ? Can you conceive of
his changing his orders by reason of the message ?
I deny that “ the Pilgrims crossed the sea to find freedom to
�( 23 )
worship God in the forests of the new world.” They came not in
the interest- of freedom. It never entered their minds that other
men had the same right to worship God according to the dictates
of their consciences, that the pilgrims had. The moment they had
power they were ready to whip and brand, to imprison and burn.
They did not believe in religious freedom. They had no more
idea of religious liberty of conscience than Jehovah.
I do not say that there is no place in the world for heroes and
martyrs. On the contrary, I declare that the liberty we now have
was won for us by heroes and by martyrs, and millions of these
martyrs were burned, or flayed alive, or torn in pieces, or assassi
nated by the Church of God. The heroism was shown in fighting
the hordes of religious superstition.
Giordano Bruno was a martyr. He was a hero. He believed
in no God, in no heaven and in no hell, yet he perished by fire.
He was offered liberty on condition that he would recant. There
was no God to please, no heaven to preserve the unstained white
ness of his soul.
For hundreds of years every man who attacked the Church was
a hero. The sword of Christianity has been wet for many cen
turies with the blood of the noblest.
Christianity has been
ready with whip and chain and fire to banish freedom from the
earth.
Neither is it true that “ family life withers under the cold sneer
—half pity half sneer—with which I look down on household
worship.”
Those who believe in the existence of God, and believe that they
are indebted to this divine being for the few gleams of sunshine in
this life, and who thank God for the little they have enjoyed, have
my entire respect. Never have I said one word against the spirit
of thankfulness. I understand the feeling of the man who gathers
his family about him after the storm, or after the scourge, or after
long sickness, and pours out his heart in thankfulness to the sup
posed God who has protected his fireside. I understand the spirit
of the savage who thanks his idol of stone, or his fetish of wood.
It is not the wisdom of the one nor of the other that I respect, it
is the goodness and thankfulness that prompt the prayer.
I believe in the family. I believe in family life, and one of my
objections to Christianity is that it divides the family. Upon this
subject I have said hundreds of times, and I say again, that the
roof-tree is sacred, from the smallest fibre that feels the soft, cool
clasp of the earth, to the topmost flower that spreads its bosom to
the sun, and like a spendthrift gives its. perfume to the air. The
�( 24)
home where virtue dwells with love is like a lily with a heart of
fire, the fairest flower in all this world.
What did Christianity in the early centuries do for the home ?
What have nunneries and monasteries, and what has the glorifica
tion of celibacy done for the family ? Do you not know that Christ
himself offered rewards in this world and eternal happiness in
another to those who would desert their wives and children and
follow him ? What effect has that promise had upon family life ?
As a matter of fact, the family is regarded as nothing. Christi
anity teaches that there is but one family, the family of Christ,
and that all other relations are as nothing compared with that.
Christianity teaches the husband to desert the wife, the wife
to desert the husband, children to desert their parents for the
miserable and selfish purpose of saving their own little, shrivelled
souls.
It is far better for a man to love his fellow men than to
love God. It is better to love wife and children than to love
Christ. It is better to serve your neighbor than to serve your God
—even if God exists. The reason is palpable. You can do nothing
for God. You can do something for wife and children, you can
add to the sunshine of life. You can paint flowers in the pathway
of another.
It is true that I am an enemy of the orthodox sabbath. It is
true that I do not believe in giving one-seventh of our time to the
service of superstition. The whole scheme of your religion can be
understood by any intelligent man in one day. Why should he
waste a seventh of his whole life in hearing the same thoughts
repeated again and again ?
Nothing is more gloomy than an orthodox Sabbath. The
mechanic who has worked during the week in heat and dust, the
laboring man who has barely succeeded in keeping his soul in his
body, the poor woman who has been sewing for the rich, may go to
the village church which you have described. They answer the
chimes of the bell, and what do they hear in this village church ?
Is it that God is the father of the human race ; is that all ? If
that were all, you never would have heard an objection from my
lips. That is not all. If all ministers said : Bear the evil of this
life ; your Father in heaven counts your tears ; the time will come
when pain and death and grief will be forgotten words—I should
have listened with the rest. What else does the minister say to
the poor people who have answered the chimes of your bell
He
says : “The smallest sin deserves eternal pain.” “ A vast majority
of men are doomed to suffer the wrath of God for ever.’ He fills
�( 25 )
the present with fear and the future with fire. He has heaven for
the few, hell for the many. He describes a little grass-grown path
that leads to heaven, where travellers are “ few and far between,”
and a great highway worn with countless feet that leads to ever
lasting death.
Such Sabbaths are immoral. Such ministers are the real sav
ages. Gladly would I abolish such a Sabbath. Gladly would I
turn it into a holiday, a day of rest and peace, a day to get ac
quainted with your wife and children, a day to exchange civilities
with your neighbors ; and gladly would I see the church in which
such sermons are preached changed to a place of entertainment.
Gladly would I have the echoes of orthodox sermons—the owls and
bats among the rafters, the snakes in crevices and corners—
driven out by the glorious music of Wagner and Beethoven. Gladly
would I see the Sunday-school, where the doctrine of eternal fire
is taught, changed to a happy dance upon the village green.
Music refines. The doctrine of eternal punishment degrades.
Science civilises. Superstition looks longingly back to savagery.
You do not believe that general morality can be upheld without
the sanctions of religion.
Christianity has sold, and continues to sell, crime on credit. It
has taught, and still teaches, that there is forgiveness for all. Of
course it teaches morality. It says : “ Do not steal, do not mur
der
but it adds : “ but if you do both, there is a way of escape ;
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” I in
sist that such religion is no restraint. It is far better to teach that
there is no forgiveness, and that every human being must bear the
consequence of his acts.
The first great step toward national reformation is the universal
acceptance of the idea that there is no escape from the consequences
of our acts. The young men who come from their country homes
into a city filled with temptations, may be restrained by the
thought of father and mother. This is a natural restraint. They
may be restrained by their knowledge of the fact that a thing is
evil on account of its consequences, and that to do wrong is always
a mistake. I cannot conceive of such a man being more liable to
temptation because he has heard one of my lectures in which I have
told him that the only good is happiness—that the only way to
attain that good is by doing what he believes to be right. I can
not imagine that his moral character will be weakened by the
statement that there is no escape from the consequences of his
acts.' You seem to think that he will be instantly led astray —
that he will go off under the flaring lamps to the riot of passion.
�( 26 )
Do you think the Bible calculated to restrain him ? To prevent
this would you recommend him to read the lives of Abraham, of
Isaac, and of Jacob, and the other holy polygamists of the Old
Testament ? Should he read the life of David, and of Solomon ?
Do you think this would enable him to withstand temptation?
Would it not be far better to fill the young man’s mind with facts,
so that he may know exactly the physical consequences of such
acts ? Do you regard ignorance as the foundation of virtue ? Is
fear the arch that supports the moral nature of man ?
You seem to think that there is danger in knowledge, and that
the best chemists are the most likely to poison themselves.
You say that to sneer at religion is only a step from sneering at
morality, and then only another step to that which is vicious and
profligate.
The Jews entertained the same opinion of the teachings of
Christ. He sneered at their religion. The Christians have en
tertained the same opinion of every philosopher. Let me say to
you again—and let me say it once for all—that morality has
nothing to do with religion. Morality does not depend upon the
supernatural. Morality does not walk with the crutches of miracles
Morality appeals to the experience of mankind. It cares nothing
about faith, nothing about sacred books. Morality depends upon
facts, something that can be seen, something known, the product
of which can be estimated. It needs no priest, no ceremony, no
mummery. It believes in the freedom of the human mind. It
asks for investigation. It is founded upon truth. It is the enemy
of all religion, because it has to do with this world, and with this
world alone.
My object is to drive fear out of the world. Fear is the gaoler
of the mind. Christianity, superstition—that is to say, the super
natural—makes every brain a prison and every soul a convict.
Under the government of a personal deity, consequences partake of
the nature of punishments and rewards. Under the government of
Nature, what you call punishments and rewards are simply conse
quences. Nature does not punish.
Nature does not reward.
Nature has no purpose. When the storm comes, I do not think :
“ This is being done by a tyrant.” When the sun shines, I do not
say : “ This is being done by a friend.” Liberty means freedom
from personal dictation. It does not mean escape from the relations
we sustain to other facts in Nature. I believe in the restraining
influences of liberty. Temperance walks hand in hand with freedom.
To remove a chain from the body puts an additional responsibility
upon the soul. Liberty says to the man: You injure or benefit
�yourself ; you increase or decrease your own well-being. It is a
question of intelligence. You need not bow to a supposed tyrant,
or to infinite goodness. You are responsible to yourself and to
those you injure, and to none other.
I rid myself of fear, believing as I do that there is no power
above which can help me in any extremity, and believing as I do
that there is no power above or below that can injure me in any
extremity. I do not believe that I am the sport of accident, or
that I may be dashed in pieces by the blind agency of Nature.
There is no accident, and there is no agency. That which happens
must happen. The present is the child of all the past, the mother
of all the future.
Does it relieve mankind from fear to believe that there is some
God who will help them in extremity ? What evidence have they
on which to found this belief ? When has any God listened to the
prayer of any man ? The water drowns, the cold freezes, the flood
destroys, the fire burns, the bolt of heaven falls—when and where
has the prayer of man been answered ?
Is the religious world to-day willing to test the efficacy of
prayer ? Only a few years ago it was tested in the United States.
The Christians of Christendom, with one accord, fell upon their
knees and asked God to spare the life of one man. You know the
result. You know just as well as I that the forces of Nature pro
duce the good and bad alike. You know that the forces of Nature
destroy the good and bad alike. You know that the lightning feels
the same keen delight in striking to death the honest man that it
does or would in striking the assassin with his knife lifted above
the bosom of innocence.
Did God hear the prayers of the slaves ? Did he hear the
prayers of imprisoned philosophers and patriots ? Did he hear the
prayers of martyrs, or did he allow fiends, calling themselves his
followers, to pile the fagots round the forms of glorious men ?
Did he allow the flames to devour the flesh of those whose hearts
were his ? Why should any man depend on the goodness of a
God who created countless millions, knowing that they would suffer
eternal grief ?
The faith that you call sacred—“ sacred as the most delicate or
manly or womanly sentiment of love and honor ”—is the faith that
nearly all of your fellow men are to be lost. Ought an honest man
to be restrained from denouncing that faith because those who
entertain it say that their feelings are hurt ? You say to me :
“ There is a hell. A man advocating the opinions you advocate
will go there when he dies.” I answer : “ There is no hell. The
�( 28 )
And you say : “ How can
Bible that teaches that is not true.”
you hurt my feelings ? "
You seem to think that one who attacks the religion of his
parents is wanting in respect to his father and mother.
Were the early Christians lacking in respect for their fathers and
mothers? Were the Pagans who embraced Christianity heartless
sons and daughters ? What have you to say of the Apostles ?
Did they not heap contempt upon the religion of their fathers and
mothers? Did they not join with him who denounced their people
as a “ generation of vipers ” ? Did they not follow one who offered
a reward to those who would desert father and mother ? Of course
you have only to go back a few generations in your family to find
a Field who was not a Presbyterian. After that you find a Presby
terian. Was he base enough and infamous enough to heap con
tempt upon the religion of his father and mother? All the
Protestants in the time of Luther lacked in respect for the religion
of their fathers and mothers. According to your ideas, progress is
a prodigal son. If one is bound by the religion of his father and
mother, and his father happens to be a Presbyterian and his mother
a Catholic, what is he to do ? Do you not se.e that your doctrine
gives intellectual freedom only to foundlings ?
If by Christianity you mean the goodness, the spirit of forgive
ness, the benevolence claimed by Christians to be a part, and the
principal part, of that peculiar religion, then I do not agree with
you when you say that <l Christ is Christianity and that it stands
or falls with him.” You have narrowed unnecessarily the founda
tion of your religion. If it should be established beyond doubt
that Christ never existed all that is of value in Christianity would
remain, and remain unimpaired. Suppose that we should find that
Euclid was a myth, the science known as mathematics would not
suffer. It makes no difference who painted or chiseled the greatest
pictures and statues so long as we have the pictures and statues.
When he who has given the world a truth passes from- the earth
the truth is left. A truth dies only when forgotten by the human
race. Justice, love, mercy, forgiveness, honor, all the virtues that
ever blossomed in the human heart, were known and practised for
uncounted ages before the birth of Christ.
You insist that religion does not leave man in “ abject terror ’ —
does not leave him “ in utter darkness as to his fate.”
Is it possible to know who will be saved ? Can you read the
names mentioned in the decrees of the infinite ? Is it possible to
tell who is to be eternally lost ? Can the imagination conceive a
worse fate than your religion predicts for a majority of the race ?
�( 29 )
Why should not every human being be in “ abject terror ” who be
lieves your doctrine ? How many loving and sincere women are in
the asylums to-day fearing that they have committed “ the un
pardonable sin”—a sin to which your God has attached the penalty
of eternal torment, and yet has failed to describe the offence ?
Can tyranny go beyond this—fixing the penalty of eternal pain for
the violation of a law not written, not known, but kept in the
secrecy of infinite darkness ? How much happier it is to know
nothing about it, and to believe nothing about it! How much
better to have no God.
You discover a “ great intelligence ordering our little lives, so
that even the trials that we bear, as they call out the finer elements
of character, conduce to our future happiness.” This is an old
explanation—probably as good as any. The idea is, that this
world is a school in which man becomes educated through tri
bulation—the muscles of character being developed by wrestling
with misfortune. If it is necessary to live this life in order to
develop character, in order to become worthy of a better world,
how do you account for the fact that billions of the human race
die in infancy, and are thus deprived of this necessary education
and development ? What would you think of a schoolmaster who
should kill a large proportion of his scholars during the first day,
before they had even an opportunity to look at A ?
You insist that “ there is a power behind nature making for
righteousness.”
If nature is infinite, how can there be a power outside of nature ?
If you mean by a “ power making for righteousness ” that man, as
he become civilised, as he become intelligent, not only takes ad
vantage of the forces of nature for his own benefit, but perceives
more and more clearly that if he be happy he must live in harmony
with the conditions of his being, in harmony with the facts by
which he is surrounded, in harmony with the relations he sustains
to others and to things; if this is what you mean, then there is
“ a power making for righteousness.” But if you mean that there
is something supernatural at the back of nature directing events,
then I insist that there can by no possibility be any evidence of the
existence of such a power.
The history of the human race shows that nations rise and fall.
There is a limit to the life of a race ; so that it can be said of every
nation dead, that there was a period when it laid the foundations
of prosperity, when the combined intelligence and virtue of the
people constituted a power working for righteousness, and that
there came a time when this nation became a spendthrift, when it
�( 30 )
ceased to accumulate, when it lived on the labors of its youth, and
passed from strength and glory to the weakness of old age, and
finally fell palsied to its tomb.
The intelligence of man guided by a sense of duty is the only
power that makes for righteousness.
You tell me that I am waging “ a hopeless war,” and you give
as a reason that the Christian religion began to be nearly two thou
sand years before I was born, and that it will live two thousand
years after I am dead.
Is this an argument ? Does it tend to convince even yourself ?
Could not Caiaphas, the high priest, have said substantially this
to Christ ? Could he not have said : “ The religion of Jehovah
began to be four thousand years before you were born, and it will
live two thousand years after you are dead ?” Could not a follower
of Buddha make the same illogical remark to a missionary from
Andover with the glad tidings ? Could he not say: “You are
waging a hopeless war. The religion of Buddha began to be
twenty-five hundred years before vou were born, and hundreds of
millions of people still worship at Great Buddha’s shrine ?”
Do you insist that nothing except the right can live for two
thousand years ? Why is it that the Catholic Church “ lives on
and on, while nations and kingdoms perish ? ” Do you consider that
the survival of the fittest ?
Is it the same Christian religion now living that lived during the
Middle Ages? Is it the same Christian religion that founded the
Inquisition and invented the thumb-screw ? Do you see no differ
ence between the religion of Calvin and Jonathan Edwards and the
Christianity of to-day ? Do you really think that it is the same
Christianity that has been living all these years ? Have you
noticed any change in the last generation? Do you remember
when scientists endeavored to prove a theory by a passage from
the Bible, and do you now know that believers in the Bible are
exceeding anxious to prove its trurn by some fact that science has
demonstrated? Do you know that the standard has changed?
Other things are not measured by the Bible, but the Bible has to
submit to another test. It no longer owns the scales. It has to
be weighed—it is being weighed—it is growing lighter and lighter
every day. Do you know that only a few years a go “the glad
tidings of great joy ” consisted mostly in a description of hell ?
Do vou know that nearly every intelligent minister is now ashamed
to preach about it, or to read about it, or to talk about it ? Is
there any change ? Do you know that but few ministers now be
lieve in “the plenary inspiration ” of the Bible, that from thou
�( 31 )
sands of pulpits people are now told that the creation according to
•Genesis is a mistake, that it never was as wet as the flood, and that
the miracles of the Old Testament are considered simply as myths
or mistakes ?
How long will what you call Christianity endure, if it changes
as rapidly during the next century as it has during the last ? What
will there be left of the supernatural ?
It does not seem possible that thoughtful people can, for many
years, believe that a being of infinite wisdom is the author of the Old
Testament, that a being of infinite purity and kindness upheld
polygamy and slavery, that he ordered his chosen people to mas
sacre their neighbors, and that he commanded husbands and fathers
to persecute wives and daughters unto death for opinion’s sake.
It does not seem within the prospect of belief that Jehovah, the
cruel, the jealous, the ignorant, and the revengeful, is the creator
and preserver of the universe.
Does it seem possible that infinite goodness would create a world
in which life feeds on life, in which everything devours and is
■devoured ? Can there be a sadder fact than this : Innocence is not
a certain shield ?
It is impossible for me to believe in the eternity of punishment.
If that doctrine be true, Jehovah is insane.
Day after day there are mournful processions of men and women,
patriots and mothers, girls whose only crime is that the word
Liberty burst into flower between their pure and loving lips, driven
like beasts across the melancholy wastes of Siberian snow. These
men, these women, these daughters go to exile and to slavery, to a
land where hope is satisfied with death. Does it seem possible to
you that an “ Infinite Father ” sees all this and sits as silent as a
god of stone ?
And yet, according to your Presbyterian creed, according to your
inspired book, according to your Christ, there is another procession,
in which are the noblest and the best, iu which you will find the
wondrous spirits of this world, the lovers of the human race, the
teachers of their fellow men, the greatest soldiers that ever battled
for the right; and this procession of countless millions in which
you will find the most generous and the most loving of the sons and
daughters of men, is moving on the Siberia of God, the land of
eternal exile, where agony becomes immortal.
How can you, how can any man with brain or heart, believe this
infinite lie ?
Is there not room for a better, for a higher philosophy ? After
all, is it not possible that we may find that everything has been
�( 32 )
necessarily produced, that all religions and superstitions, all mis
takes and all crimes were simply necessities ? Is it not possible
that out of this perception may come not only love and pity for
others, but absolute justification for the individual ? May we not
find that every soul Jias; like Mazeppa, been lashed to the wild
horse of passion, or like Prometheus, to the rocks of fate ?
You ask me to take the “sober second thought.” I beg of you
to take the first, and if you do you will throw-away the Presby
terian creed ; you will instantly perceive that he who commits the.
smallest sin ” no more deserves eternal pain than he who does;
the smallest virtuous deed deserves eternal bliss you will becomj*
convinced that an infinite God who creates billions of men
knowing that they will suffer through all the countless years is ah
infinite demon ; you will be satisfied that the Bible, with its
philosophy and its folly, with its goodness and its cruelty, is but
the work of man, and that the supernatural does not and cannot
exist.
For you personally I have the highest regard and the sincerest
respect, and I beg of you not to pollute the soul of childhood, not«
to furrow the cheeks of mothers, by preaching a ereed- that should
be shrieked in a mad-house^ Do not make the cradle as terri-blbj
as the coffin. Preach, I.pxay you, the gospel of intellectwj
hospitality—the liberty of thought and speech. Take from loving^
hearts the awful fear. Have mercy on your fellow men. Do not
drive to madness the mothers whose tears are falling on the pallid
faces of those who died in unbelief. ‘ Pity tbp,erring, wayward", I
suffering, weeping world. Do not proclaim as “ tidings of greatj
joy ” that an Infinite Spider*is weaving webs to catch the souls of
men.
1
I
�
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 & 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
Faith and fact : a letter to the Rev. Henry M. Field
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: 32 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Reprinted from the North American Review, Nov. 1887. No. 22e in Stein checklist. Printed and published by G.W. Foote.
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
N344
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
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 (Faith and fact : a letter to the Rev. Henry M. Field), 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
Religion