3
10
51
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/32fec4d75196d01c58bcb1c84dccd5d9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=OhCNamv5FDKAKOAD8TDDKeDbP1SLKMxf23e7G1tWdLEnfoiox0rRU9taTibIyWZSPCKLDl0IBaq%7EAkUtkSibpuqQzWljA8h4uFM3cTuCE6BNIGuaQXJhhKpwwvOafmkSA5SOc8xCfR5qIZBnwVV9CX8xytlGITafN5x4P2aIk0AGA12Gw7GTmj5jazpiik%7E8YWB1WOxpKCDXJACWbv6GnJtMcn-n7YkyP2pfAHNdFpEsQs-vhypM9rnbSSVCy7BGsV5PSCMNRjSlSna7KdRsKkmnbxxMPfBC9Yv7O2tQpQGvlcZwf91baJPmVMmlGgF3fWG9gu5M3R3eRD52vNiVxw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6b176ba6489d36144bcad42c421e5084
PDF Text
Text
Labor Parties
AND
LABOR REFORM.
BY
SAMUEL JOHNSON.
BOSTON:
REPRINTED FROM “THE RADICAL.”
1871.
�Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871,
By S. H. MORSE,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Cochrane, Printer, 25 Bromfield St.
�LABOR PARTIES AND LABOR REFORM.
HE Council of the “Workingmen’s International Association,” in their Defense of the Paris Communists,
define what they call “the true secret” of the world-wide
movement which they represent. It signifies, we learn, essen
tially “ a working-class government, the product of the strug
gle of the producing against the appropriating class,” — the
function of which shall be “ to transform the means of pro
duction, land and capital, into the mere instruments of free,
associated labor.” And its authorized organs, while disclaim
ing for the present any intention of appealing to violence, yet
already announce the purpose, in Europe and America alike,
to “transform all land, forests, railroads, canals, telegraphs,
quarries, and all great properties, such as manufactories, in
favor of the State,” which is to “work them for the benefit of
every person engaged in producing; ” in other words, “ for
such as earn by the sweat of the brow.” *
However startling for America, the substance of this “ true
secret” is familiar enough to French experience; being but
a new phase of the “ coercive communism ” of Babeuf, St.
Simon, and Louis Blanc. It is to make short work with pri
vate liberties and responsibilities, and apply the forces of
modern materialism in constructing such an autocracy as the
world has never seen. It would in fact substitute the State
g
* The Statement of Dr. Marx, its Secretary, is given in The New-York
Herald, of Aug. 3, 1871. For a fuller account, see Mr. Hinton’s valuable
article in The Atlantic Monthly, for May, 1871, or Eichhoff’s pamphlet,
Die Internationale Arbeiterassociation, Berlin, 186S.
3
�4
for the Person, and forcibly “transform” man, — not the
poorest men only, as monied and titled monopoly must, but
even worse, — man as such, every living soul, into a creature
of legislation, a mere functionary and machine. Such a result
would be none the less destructive, whatever the kind of leg
islation that had led to it. Here, however, we have the abso
lutist legislation of a class.
Let us do this Society justice. It denounces war; demands
education for all; adopts a noble motto, — “No rights with
out duties, no duties without rights.” It did good service to
our Union in the war with slavery. It is, moreover, the natu
ral recoil of their own enginery on the oppressing classes in
Europe. The victim of “regulation” has but grasped the
weapon which has proved so effective against him; he will
see now what it can do to make him in his turn the master.
We fully recognize also the miseries of low-paid labor, that
disgrace the most enlightened sections of our own country.
We hear its cry of endless dependence and hopeless compe
tition ; its demands that can no longer be suppressed or
ignored. And therefore we mean to enter our protest against
a method of dealing with it that would, we believe, not only
aggravate every industrial evil, but strike at the very sub
stance of manhood.
As its career is just opening in this country, this great
organizing force will doubtless be hailed as promise of relief
from their bitter burdens by thousands who can have but
slight conception of its tendencies. Many programmes of
labor reform, too, are drifting in the same direction, which
have not yet reached its principle of absolute coercion. They
contain elements already which forbid them to represent the
real interests and rights of labor much better than feudalism
or caste. They play into the very hands of monopoly, by fol
lowing its example, in putting oppressive burdens for free op
portunity and empty formulas for the laws of social science
and the forces of civilization. The era of social justice will
not be ushered in by those who have nothing better to urge
�5
than the old strife of classes for supremacy, and who make
arrogant assumption of exclusive right to the honorable title
of “ working-men.” It is in these points of view, which most
deeply concern the liberties of labor itself, that I propose to
criticise these methods of reform.
We cannot, to use an expressive phrase, “go back on” civ
ilization and reject the results of ages. The wrongs of the
worst-paid workman are not to be righted by ignoring that
breadth of meaning, which the terms of the question have
now fairly attained. To discuss rights and interests of “the
laboring class,” on the understanding that we are to exclude
from the category of labor every form of industry but manual
toil, is to ignore the whole sense of American civilization. Is
it credible that a humane and intelligent people should assume
that the work of men’s hands has an industrial value as such,
beyond that which belongs to their intellectual and sympa
thetic activities ? Will it define productive labor as work by
the job, or by the day, and refuse the name to processes of
invention that cost the mental wear of lifetimes, and even
supply the motive forces of material civilization? Will it
consent to narrow its “ laboring class,” so that the term shall
not include the professions whose toils minister, however
imperfectly, to constant demands of soul, body, and estate;
so that educators of the young and counselors of the old shall
be set off as drones in the industrial hive ? Are we to throw
out of the list of “ working-men ” the philosopher, who ex
plores moral and spiritual problems, and states the laws of
intelligence, the economies that cannot be foregone ? Or the
poet, who cheers the day with insight that brings health and
sweetness to all thought and work ? Or the artist, whether
musician, painter, sculptor, or dramatist, whose embodiments
of nature and feeling refine taste, and broaden sympathy, and
concentrate the undefined aspirations of the age into living
form and purpose ? Does labor exclude the scholar’s func
tion, — to present man under different phases of religion and
culture, and enforce universality by tracing the movement of
�6
ideas and laws through the ages of his development ? Are we
to reckon out the cares of maternity, the mutual offices of
domestic life, social efficiencies, the subtle forces of charac
ter, the friend, the lover, the “fanatic,” whose lonely dream
prospects the track for coming generations ? Are we to count
as outside of labor contribution all work that reforms the
vicious, relieves the helpless, or sets the poor in the way to
self-help ?
Stated thus, these questions may seem to answer them
selves. Yet it is easy for parties to break away from princi
ples that few of their members would theoretically deny.
This will become at once evident if we bring our test closer
to what is now technically called the labor question, and ask
further, if labor is definable as that kind of service for which
wages are paid, in distinction from-that kind of service which
consists in providing the fund out of which they are to be paid ;
from that kind of service which plans and directs the opera
tion, and bears the risk and responsibility ? In other words,
is labor as such so clearly distinguishable from capital in this
sense, that the toils of mind as well as body involved in the
application of the latter do not deserve to enter into our estitimate of “the rights of labor” ? We must be very far from
the track of science or freedom, if our definitions threaten to
fall into such arbitrariness as this.
Yet I cannot but note that the ordinary tone of labor-reform
programmes and appeals, so far, involves the assumption that
production consists in the direct creation of material values
only. Values that cannot be measured, tabulated, invoiced,
and made the basis of governmental direction, are excluded
at the very threshold. Yet every admission that purely intel
lectual or moral forces need not enter into estimates of pro
ductive industry is an admission that these forces have no
claim to share in the wealth that results from production. To
teach, as most philosophers of the new “positive” schools
do, in one or another form, teach, that arithmetical and me
chanical values are the mainsprings of civilization, is simply
V
�7
to sow the seeds of barbarism in the fields of political econ
omy.
The sweat of honest thought and just self-discipline is, to
say the least, quite as essential to the preservation of that
social order, by which all industry is maintained as that which
falls from the brow in »earning the daily bread: and for a citi
zen, whether rich or poor, to be ignorant or reckless of this
truth proves him to be, so far, socially and politically a de
structive. It is, therefore, but the dictate of common pru
dence that every sign of a tendency to depreciate invisible
production should be met at once by all trades and profes
sions as a source of demoralization to the whole body politic.
Peace, order, credit, mutual help, are as truly the contribution
of spiritual labor as the Order of Nature is a temple not
made with hands. The spur that industry feels from the
family and the home, — economy and thrift, all honest and
handsome work, waste avoided, the bitterness of competition
tempered, the conflict of interests counteracted by conscience
and good-will, —these are all products of moral and spiritual
ideas subtly circulating in the atmosphere of the time. And
these immeasurable sources of public good can only be
guarded by a jealous loyalty, sensitive to every slur cast
upon the value of non-material productive forces, whether in
the name of capital or labor, of the rich or of the poor.
And in this spirit we must demand of those who rally for a
<£ producing class,” as against the rest of the community,
where or how they will draw the line which justifies their
use of this anti-republican name of “ class.” Every one is a
producer in those respects in which he is a contributor to the
public wealth, in the broadest sense of wealth, in whatever
other respects he may fail to render service. How many
men, women, children, are there in a country like ours who
are not producers in this sense ? Whose work is of a kind so
inconspicuous that you can afford to count it out ? Even the
child in a kindergarten school is a producer, in combining
pretty colors, or constructing rude forms and figures that em
�8
body the first essays of that aesthetic sense which shall here
after make our artisans artists and all labor an education of
the higher faculties. • Every great thought and every good
thought is a source of public wealth: helping to make true
men or women, it helps to create and to save even material
values, steadying the hands that move machinery, and foster
ing real co-operation. For one, I recognize no “laboring
class ” as distinct from the great body of producers in this
largest sense, and hold it a pure delusion to suppose that our
civilization affords any basis for forming one. There are rich
laborers and poor laborers; there are laborers whose wages
do not supply their daily needs, and laborers who lay by
something from their wages ; and from this all the way on to
those who put large capital to productive service there is a
continuous line of laboring men. No movement can really
represent the interests of labor which does not recognize the
common interests of all these different human conditions. It
is radically mischievous to make this a question between
classed of persons. Labor is the grand creative energy Oi
society, the wisdom whose voice is to all the sons and daugh
ters cf men, calling them to that steady application of all pow
ers to right and helpful uses, which shall stamp each person’s
doing with productive value, and make it a common good.
This universality alone can define the word, and the lofty
claims must all pay allegiance to this.
Amidst the confused battle-cries of labor parties organizing
to put down “ the appropriating class,” the vital point of the
problem secures, it is to be feared, but an imperfect hearing.
There is surely nothing in mere labor, or production either,
as such, that can claim our allegiance : since labor may be for
mischief, as that of overspeculation, which ruins a commu
nity by the most wearing and frenzied personal toil; and pro
duction may be of things destructive, as the distiller’s prod
uct, when it swells into tide-waves of delirium and crime.
Productive labor is not that which makes one man rich by
making another poor; robbing Peter to pay Paul adds noth-
�*
9
♦
ing to the sum of wealth. But on the other hand, all labor
which increases the means of well-being in the community,
whether in the material, social, intellectual, moral, aesthetic,
or religious sphere, is productive labor, and deserves respect.
The capitalist, who contributes such increase, whatever the
form of his capital may be, is a productive laborer, in every
respectable sense; and the laborer for wages who does the
same thing is a productive capitalist in just the same sense
with the other; at once through the strength and skill which
he applies, and through that which he may lay up to invest
productively in the creation of a home, or a business, or in
the education of his children, or in any other honest way of
benefit to society, or of cultlire to himself. So that the first
step towards justifying our American “honor to labor” is to
recognize that God hath joined labor and capital, and that no
man or party has authority to put them asunder, or to declare
them foes. And the next is to recognize that what entitles
labor to honor and authority is not to be limited by any arbi
trary definition of labor, since it is for all forms thereof essen
tially one and the same thing. So that the workman who
helps produce an article of manufacture does not respect that
which really deserves respect in his own productive work,
unless he recognizes the similar claims on behalf not only
of the capitalist in business, but of th^ teacher, the artist, the
scientist, the poet, the moral reformer, the producer of any
non-material value whatever.
And the sum is that public or private movements are to
be regarded as in the interest of labor in proportion to the
breadth of their estimate of the elements of individual and
social well-being, and in that proportion only.
I cannot believe that we shall make any progress towards
solving the difficult problem of the relations of labor, until we
start with appreciating those aims and motives in which every
one, whatever his special work, is bound to share, and which
constitute the common cause. The intelligence needed for
counteracting that terrible force of natural selection, that
�IO
weeding out of the weak by the strong which holds as true of
the world of trade as of the world of species, can never receive
one genuine impulse, so long as this duty remains unrecog
nized. No body of men can be intellectually benefited by
combination with a view to their isolated interests only; it is
but individualism intensified, a leaven of mental as well as
social dissolution. They are educated in social functions only
by that spirit and by that work which adds to the sum of mu
tual understanding and mutual help. The industrial wisdom
we want most is that which understands how much more nu
merous and vital are the points of common interest which
unite different forms of industry than those antagonisms, ac
tual or supposed, upon which it is now sought to array their
representatives in definitely hostile classes. It will not improve
either the morals or the sense of the laborer for wages, any
more than it will right his wrongs, to inveigh against capital
as such, while it is in fact capital which he is constantly draw
ing on in himself, and seeking to accumulate for himself, and
applying, so far as he can obtain it, in investments which are
wise or foolish, for the general good or harm, according to the
character of his own private habits and tastes. It does not
help his cause to be ignorant that capital injures him only in
those instances in which it injtires itself; that is, where an
unfair use is made of greater capital to suppress the oppor
tunities of less.
And on the other hand it is equally mischievous for the
capitalist, whose accumulated money fund gives him every
advantage in the labor market over the man who has nothing
to sell but his wasting muscles and his fleeting time, to be
ignorant or regardless of the fact that his own capital is a part
of the great labor fund of the community, and that its devel
opment depends wholly on the free development of labor in
every form. It will not add to his security to forget that he
has no right to quarrel with such combinations as may be
necessary for the protection of wages-labor, except in so far
as these are injurious to labor itself: that is, where they em-
�II
p’oy the power of combination to cripple men in the use of
their own labor-capital, whether of muscles or of mind.
I have hope in those reformers only who can {each us to
emphasize our common interests ; to drop the old-world slo
gan, “ Labor and Capital are natural enemies,” and start with
this pass-word to an age of brotherhood, “ Labor and Capital
are interdependent forces in each and every personality, and
constitute every one a natural guardian ot their common
cause.” Let those meanings of the words have rule which
point to culture and civilization. A problem so universal in
its relations cannot dispense with ideal tests and standards,
and hastens to enforce them upon all experiment. The key
to every position is already found to be, not antagonism, but
co-operation. No other chemistry has hitherto solved a sin
gle dilemma of the industrial world. There is a class, we are
well aware, of whose utter weakness it would be pure mock
ery to bid them co-operate. And to make possible for these
the leisure, the education, the homes, the wages, that shall
permit them to do so, is the instant duty of monied capital
and manual labor alike. If they neglect it, both capital and
labor will reap the whirlwind. But the common sense and
good feeling which the freedom of our social relations makes
easy for all, can open right paths at will. This is the genius
to devise all requisite forms of partnership and mutual guar
antee. But so long as this is foreclosed, there is no step in
legislation, and no measure of compromise, that can escape
subserving the ancient greed whose record is written in social
demoralization and the misery of nations.
Of all necessities involved in the problem of labor, there is
none so practical, none so pressing, as this for which we
plead. What shall we gain, so long as the appeals of labor
reformers are made to motives which lie in the same moral
plane with those which they denounce ; so long as they cover
out of sight the essential fact that the pursuit of private or
class interest alone is equally mischievous in every condition
and form of work? By this spirit of rapacity all parties, how
�ever they may charge each other with the exclusive responsi
bility for the results of financial self-seeking, are equally liable
to be tempted. The avaricious capitalist cripples the free
development of capital. The hand workman who looks no
further than the aggrandizement of his labor club or his
aggressive pdlicy cripples the free development of labor.
The most industrious men, combining for clannish purposes,
hasten to set up the very monopoly they assail as the source
of their own wrongs. Is it intolerable that speculators, com
bining to hoard and hold back the products of nature, should
stimulate the prices of food till a great multitude are threat
ened with famine ? Where is the practical difference in mo
tive or result when men associate tor the purpose of artificially
limiting the supply of labor by restricting the number of work
men ; depriving the individual of his liberty to find education
and employment in branches of industry wherein he might,
but for such class interference, have taken his chance with his
neighbors, and enforcing obedience to organized dictation, as
the condition on which he shall be allowed to practice his
honest calling and earn his daily bread? Can labor resist
oppression without the sphere of its control by oppression
within it ?
What right have a body of workmen, engaged in a special
branch of industry, to assume themselves to be the supreme
regulators of that branch, and to vote down the equal right of
any man to engage in it, upon such terms as his honest effort
can command ? The very pretense of such authority threat
ens a social slavery infinitely worse than any form of political
absolutism yet known; all the worse because it exploits the
machinery of free institutions themselves to annihilate per
sonal freedom.
The one plausible ground fir arbitrarily limiting liberty of
access to the practice of a craft ^s the importance of disci
plines which shall guarantee excellence in the product. But
this desirable result is not to be accomplished, under modern
institutions, by antagonizing labor and capital, nor by shut
�ting out laborers for their refusal to combine in operations to
secure larger profits for the whole. It demands the most cor
dial relations between capital and labor. It involves procur
ing every form of personal talent, by opening opportunities
of culture and employment to all seekers. A high order of
product is the bloom of a genial summer of co-operative
industry. It has, moreover, its moral conditions, which no
external arrangements can secure. It requires a different
order of motives from those which find play in organizing
labor parties or managing controversies with capital,. It
depends, after all that can be said and done, upon con
science; upon the sense of a spiritual and aesthetic value in
production ; upon just that thing in which, it is but common
place to repeat, large capitalists and small capitalists gener
ally, buyers and sellers of work, managers and operatives, are
equally deficient, namely, the preference of quality to quan
tity, of faithful to gainful methods; upon the love of doing
honest, thorough, handsome, serviceable work, in the firm
conviction that this is what makes one a genuine laborer and
producer, not the mere working a given number of hours,
without regard to the character of the performance. This
real respect for labor is the one great lack, amidst all our
manifestoes of its rights and ovations to its name. This,
when it comes, will be true labor reform, to be hailed with
enthusiasm and faith. Its approach would be felt, first of all,
in an awakening of shame and indignation at the base and
ignorant work of all kinds which constantly wastes our re
sources with leakage that no man can measure, and demor
alizes social relations with petty annoyances at every turn,
while it slaughters life and sows disease on a portentous
scale.
Most of what is now called labor reform consists, in fact,
whatever the theory, in the partisan manipulation of societies
devoted to isolated interests and exclusive claims. It tends
to embitter the antagonism to capital with contempt for all
rights of vested property, even for those returns which natu-
�14
ral uses will command. The absence of feudal institutions
might seem to secure America against socialist revolution, in
Europe the natural reaction upon ages of organized wrongs.
Yet this would be but a superficial view of the grounds of
such revolution. America has no Vendome Column to over
turn, no palaces to fire, no priesthood to spoil and slay. But
it is none the less true that there lies a perilous fascination
for intensely democratic instincts in the theory that property
has no rights which the majority may not abrogate at will.
The authority of numbers, the worship of popular desire, is
pushed to its extreme in the phase of republicanism through
which we are passing. The true industrial problem for our
politics is not, how shall majorities prove the extent of their
power, but how shall they learn to respect the principle that
rights of labor and rights of property are mutual guarantees.
But there is need of something more than zeal for equality
and the “ vox populi, vox Dei,” to render a community the
true guardian of this safeguard of individual freedom. Only
as the lesson of a mature self-control, such as the Celt, for
example, has hitherto even failed to conceive, can it realize
the primal truth, that security of ownership is labor’s indis
pensable motive power, and reckless violation of ownership,
its suicide.
Respect for all real rights and uses of property is as truly
the basis of free industry as contempt for all but its spurious
ones is the basis of slavery. I know the logic that would
repeal all private ownership in land in the name of mankind.
But I know that such shift of title would also repeal the Fam
ily and the Home, which forever rest thereon. Nor is the
practical repeal of ethical relations between men to be greatly
desired. Yet the International Labor Congress last year, at
Basel, representing the democracy of labor reform, not only
indulged in denunciation of landed property as such, but
voted that society had the right, by decision of the majority,
to abolish it altogether: mere rapine seriously proposed in
the name of liberty. Proposals to abolish rent, interest, and
�!5
the profits of capital generally, have been heard at similar
meetings in this country. The crusade against rent, of which
Proudhon was the great French apostle, meant for him an
assault on the very principle of ownership. And what, in
fact, do all measures of this latter kind substantially mean ?
They would deprive property of the returns which it naturally
yields its owners, when transferred for a time in the shape of
opportunities to other persons, instead of being expended
upon present enjoyment. Rent and interest represent legiti
mate profits of capital: being payment for accommodations
absolutely required for the production of fresh values. If they
were abolished, not only would labor lose an important stimu
lus, but all mutual aid would necessarily be resolved into the
form of outright gift; so that the laborer would be stripped
of his self-respect, having become a dependent on bounty for
the supply of proper facilities in his avocation. And such
demoralization would result that it would be necessary as a
next step to abolish the benefaction, by denying the owner
ship claimed to reside in the giver. All private capital that
would natural find its uses as investment, or else as bounty,
would thus have to be declared public property, and to be dis
tributed where it is wanted, each needy applicant receiving a
part of these confiscated surplus earnings of others, as if it
were his own. How much earning there would be upon such
tenures, or absence of tenure rather, and how much produc
tive force, with this systemalic spoliation in prospect or opera
tion, it is easy to estimate.
All communistic systems have involved Proudhon’s prem
ise, “ Property is theft; ” some seeking to abolish it by free
co-operation, others by coercive means, appealing to the
State. As regards the latter class, by the way, two questions
are pertinent. If property be theft, what must the State be
in making itself sole proprietary ? And who has ever consti
tuted the joint body of producers, under the name of commu
nity, or whatever other name, prime owner of those laws and
elements of nature which are the basis of all production?
�Yet all anti-property movements are clearly associated with
this belief in politico-industrial absolutism : either as tending
towards it, intentionally or not, or else as flowing by natural
inference from it.
With us the theoretic rejection of property is rare. But the
undermining of its natural rights and uses is among the prac
tical results of a theory which already inspires political organ
izations in the supposed interest of labor. I mean the theory
that all personal rights flow from popular will, and that full
industrial justice can be extemporized and enforced in the
name of the State.
Note the radical vice of this theory. It ignores two essen
tial facts. The first is that the public virtue which men can
effect by outward regulation will not rise above the level of
their own motive, and may fall far below it. And the second
is that the great natural laws, which govern the complex rela
tions of free men, cannot be made to run in predetermined
grooves of policy. These laws must have the margin that
becomes the vastness of their sphere, and the freedom of the
individual minds and wills whose processes are their mate
rial. There are, of course, limits within which votes and
laws for the regulation of the status of labor are effective
and useful ; but it is easy to overstep these limits, and to
trench upon those organic natural methods which are larger
and wiser than our plans. And when this is done, political
manipulation and manœuvre have a clear track for working
the widest and deepest demoralization ; labor being at once
the most private and the most public of spheres, feeding
every spring of personal motive and universal good.
Organized “ labor reform ” in America is rapidly assuming
the aspect here indicated. It is becoming an unrestrained
appeal to the forces of political combination ; an absolute
faith in the all-sufficiency of programmes drawn up in the
interest of a “ laboring class,” and enacted into laws, to settle
every element of this most delicate and complex of problems.
It seems to have no conception of the existence of any limits,
�17
either to what political autocracy, thus exercised, can accom
plish, or to what the community may properly ask or expect it
to accomplish. Thus the National Labor Party proposes that
Congress should perform the function of “so regulating the
interest on bonds and the value of currency as to effect an
equitable distribution of the products of labor between money
or non-producing capital and productive industry ” ! An om
nipotent Congress indeed, and omniscient too, that shall effect
a just division of the profits of industry, and equitable rela
tions in trade, by declaring from time to time, through some
mysterious divination of the public mind, that a piece of paper
currency shall pass for so much in the market, or that govern
ment loans shall pay so much or so little to the lender ! What
conception of the laws of human nature, or of its liberties, or
of the sources of industrial inequalities and injustice can men
have, who expect such legislation, fluctuating, imperfect, itself
dependent on party interests and the strongest forces in the
market, to impose these vast results upon that whole complex
of competitive passions and untraceable relations which we
call the business world ? The same programme in which this
stupendous regeneration is laid out as the work of Congress
proposes that laws enacted for the purpose shall be executed
through the wisdom of a “board of management,” to be se
lected, it- would seem, by the “ labor party v itself, when it
shall have reached the political ascendency requisite for its
aims. As a further result of these and other political meas
ures, “ all able-bodied intelligent persons ” are to be caused
to “contribute to the common stock, by fruitful industry, a
sum equal to their own support; ” and legislation in general
is to be “ made to tend as far as possible to equitable distri
bution of surplus products.” To what extent the confiscation
of such surplus of personal property by popular majorities
shall be needed for the accomplishment of this last result is
not yet in question. But the substance of the belief is this.
A ready-made system of regulations, covering the whole field
of industrial activity, can take up the motive forces of civili
an
�18 '
zation in its hands, and shape them like potter’s clay into an
unknown equity, whose very determination nevertheless defies
all our existing social wisdom, and depends on a spirit of co
operation yet to be created and diffused 1
The managers of the Eight-hour movement promise yet
greater things. The enactment of their programme is not
only to effect the increase of wages and intelligence, needed
to undermine the whole wages system, but will “ secure such
distribution of wealth that poverty shall finally become im
possible.” * Such the miracles of legislation. It can decide
the terms on which labor shall be bought and sold; abolish
competition among laborers; set aside the working of demand
and supply ! It shall even reconstruct human nature; make it
impossible for men to wrong or to be wronged, and free them
from the natural penalties for indolence, thriftlessness, and
vice ! Can the illusions of materialism further go ?
This dream of political autocracy especially busies itself
with treating the currency as an independent element whose
character is to be fixed, like everything else, by pure force
of legislation. Settle by law what precise value this represen
tative of all values shall represent, and are we not in a way to
abolish at once the crime of being rich and the outrage of
being poor ? If only our money medium would stand for just
what we legislate it to be ! Not long since, labor reformers
proposed what was called a “ labor-currency,” to be substi
tuted for gold and silver, as well as for bank-notes supposed
to represent specie, because incapable of being made like
these, the material of monopoly, and speculation. The circu
lating medium recognized in all the markets of the world was
to be set aside for legal-tender “ certificates of service,” or
“ free money, based on commodities to be furnished anywhere
at cost; ” as if such ambiguities of phrase and arbitrary pro
cesses could suggest any guarantee for a circulating medium,
or such narrow theories of its representative value answer the
* Letter of Boston Eight-hour League to the Working-men of New York.
1871.
�I9
demands of trade. What “ commodities ” may mean in the
dialect of our labor parties it may be possible in some degree
to imagine ; but how should a currency of commodity-notes,
from free banks or elsewhere, help abolish monopoly and
speculation ? The whole basis of the expectation must lie in
assuming a superior virtue in the control of the circulating
medium by a commodity-making class, in comparison with all
owners of surplus means under the present forms of cur
rency. Alas ! the real problem is a deeper one : how to free
labor in all forms from the spirit of monopoly and over-spec
ulation. It is but an aggravation of the general misery to
invite us to escape these vices by assuming that the direct
producer of material commodities alone is free from them,
and that he has exclusive mission to expel them by political
enactment from those whom he regards as outside his class.
The National Labor Programme follows up its very just
demands for the prohibition of monopolies, with a call for
enactments against “importing coolies or other servile labor.”
In the actual absence of any such importation, the meaning
manifestly is that Chinese cheap labor should be excluded by
law; in other words, that a monopoly should at once be se
cured in behalf of native workmen as against this kind of
immigration. And this proceeds upon the ground that men
cannot sell their labor at a cheaper rate than labor parties
dictate without being slaves, and that strangers should have
no share in the opportunity to learn by their own experience
the American arts of raising wages and shortening times of
labor. Similar measures against immigrant labor are being in
augurated by the English labor reformers, in defiance of their
own long-cherished theories of free trade. When American
legislation, we care not in whose interest, or at whose dicta
tion, yields itself to this exclusive policy towards industrious
immigrants, it will have proved false to the cosmopolitan faith
which has hitherto distinguished us as the nation of nations,
and built up our noblest traditions and hopes. Let the old
world’s experience of shutting out whole classes from the free
�competitions of labor suffice. And let us be duly watchful
against admitting as representative of the real interests of
productive industry the efforts of special parties to subject its
free movement to excessive governmental regulation, in their
own behalf. We have had warning of what may be done
even in the name of the rights of labor, in the shameful dis
qualifications that have been imposed upon the Chinese in
California. One more illustration may suffice.
In the whole scheme for enfranchising the working class
proposed by the National Labor Congress there is not one
syllable that breathes of encouraging woman in the free
choice of occupation, or of securing equal pay to both sexes
for equal service. This great social duty may well have been
left out of the political programme on account of its mani
festly lying beyond the sphere of law, — though an amend
ment giving suffrage to women might deserve to have been
mentioned as likely to facilitate the performance of it. Its
absence from the Declaration of Principles also is good evi
dence how entirely the movement, as now pursued, is ab
sorbed in the ambition for purely 'political management of the
industrial interests of the country.*
Is absolutism organized by the State any better for Labor
than it is for Religion ? Yet even a republic may be drifting
towards it. It is a grave error to forget the natural limits to
* Resolutions passed by a State Convention of the Labor Party, held
at Framingham, Mass., while this article was in press, deserve notice as a
local movement in behalf of the political and industrial rights of woman.
The demand for these rights has reached a degree of recognition in this
State, which enables it to command more or less respect from all political
parties. But the facts relating to the JVdiwnaZ Labor Movement remain as
above stated. There are many good elements in these Framingham reso
lutions : but we are far from endorsing their extreme statement that labor,
in their sense of the word, is “the creator of all wealth; ” or their inter
necine war on wages, involving as it would, not only the overthrow of cer
tain unjust or degrading conditions of labor service merely, but actual
prohibition by law of that free determination in what form one shall sell his
labor to others, which is the proper meaning of a contract for wages.
�21
the power of laws in determining the relations of industry.
But it is a much graver error to give over the cause of labor
to that kind of personal management by which political organ
izations secure victory and spoils ; to get up a new political
party to supplant existing ones, upon every issue that arises
between the industrial elements; to expend the force that
should be employed in co-operative movements upon the
broadest basis of sympathy, in feeding political ambitions,
substituting personalities for principles, and heaping the fuel
of party bitterness upon every smouldering ember of discord
in factory and shop. It is of course easy to demand indig
nantly, if labor is to be denied the common right of political
combination to make laws for its own protection. The an
swer is that the question is absurd. Labor is no abstract,
distinct interest of this kind. It is the universal life — the
people themselves in their productive energy — and every
time the people go to the ballot-box they express their will,
more or less wisely, concerning its interests. This is the
constant fact, this the whole meaning of American politics,
and no believer in our institutions would think of disparaging
it: though they certainly come near to doing so, whose no
tions of “a laboring class” contract their definition of labor
within arbitrary limits. But this is what we do believe. The
genuine appeal of labor to political action in a free community
will be known by the people’s speaking in some consentient
and normal way, as having common interests, of which it
must not be supposed as a whole to be either ignorant or
regardless. In other words, its great political bodies will
include the great mass of producers; are, indeed, mainly
made up of such; and, in the main, will naturally represent
the people’s instinctive good sense, as to what can and what
cannot be accomplished for the right organization of labor by
political methods. So that a party which has to be worked
up outside and against them, yet on issues that cannot but
have been familiar already to these free voting masses, gives
but slight promise of reporting the real demands of labor.
�22
♦
An utterly impoverished and neglected class must indeed get
its claims stated in whatever way is possible for it. But our
labor-reform parties do not represent this advocacy of some
distinctive stratum which politics has forgotten; they are not
pleading for a dumb, disfranchised race, for slaves, shut out
from all political hearing by national constitution and local
law, — and certainly all labor claims but such as these can
more readily get political recognition and power by inspiring
the best among the great lines of public movement than by
acting as the foe of all. — But it must be said further of such
parties as have been described, that their conditions fit them
much less for real service to labor, as a whole, than for add
ing complications of intrigue and strife. Believe as we may
that the sway of capital over industrial machinery is grinding
the workman into dust: your labor party must prove to us
that its own passion for managing political machinery is serv
ing him any better. It must tell us what good fruit is to be
reaped by transforming the whole labor question into an open
path for the reckless personalities and flatteries of the dema
gogue on his foray: a vantage ground for working upon blind
suspicions and desires; whether by crusading against the
public creditor and the owner of capital as public enemies, or
by promising to make “poverty impossible ” bylaws enforcing •
high pay and short hours.
The theory, for instance, of a gigantic combination of capi
tal as such to oppress and enslave labor, becomes in the
hands of political management quite as gigantic a power for
working up personal detraction and the misery of social distrust. Yet all the reckless suppression of the weak by the
strong inherent in business methods, and all the rapacity ot
incorporated money power, when fully recognized, fails to
warrant the theory itself. As commonly put, it cannot be
shown to be other than pure delusion. It would seem diffi
cult to ignore more thoroughly the position which labor ac
tually holds in our civilization than they do who are continu' ally exploiting this theory. That there are indeed whole
�23
classes in its best centres requiring instant protection, per
sonal, political, social, against unscrupulous systems and mas
ters, should be plain enough to all: we advise every doubter
of this to read without delay the facts and statistics brought
out by the recent impressive Report of the Massachusetts
Labor Bureau. But it is equally plain that laboring men as
such are in this country neither discredited by custom, nor
discouraged by legal disqualification. Industry is in honor
such as it never had in any land or age. There is not a town
ship in New England that does not shine with tokens of its
large rewards to farmer and mechanic. A man has not less
but more prestige for belonging to the people: and to have
been broadly educated, or to be very wealthy, is actually,
other things being equal, a disadvantage in the race for pub
lic honors in comparison with having labored with the hands
for daily bread. Labor systematically oppressed in a country
whither the poor of all nations are fleeing in flocks from the
caste systems of the old world ! Labor systematically vic
timized in a country where it has such perfect liberty of asso
ciation and such success in self-protection as to have rendered
all separation of it from capital, even in speech, a self-contra
diction : where, as numerical force, it is itself public senti
ment and court of appeal, and capable of prosperity in exact
proportion to its own self-respect! The industry of such a
land is essentially one cause with social order and progress,
with morality and religion, with every instinct of humanity.
And the labor movement that recognizes this breadth of func
tion, not seeking the aggrandizement of a special body, nor
imitating the exclusiveness of feudal guilds, but clothing
itself in large and free co-operation for the removal of all
obstacles to honest self-support, in fact appeals to sympathies
that move through all paths and conditions: it will find the
common atmosphere of social life itself at its command, as a
freely conducting medium. How should capitalists plan or
even hope to hinder the prosperous development of such a
force ? It js impossible that its drawbacks should lie any
�24
where but in motive forces that operate in the mass of men,
without regard to class or function. They are no more refera
ble to capital as such than to labor as such. And all agitation
is blind and wasteful till it is recognized that there is not and
cannot be in these old free States to-day any general syste
matic attempt or hope to enslave labor as such : that there is
only the eager passion of men who have much for making
more, and of men who have less to have as much as they;
that this, the unbridled rage in all spheres and occupations,
is what now breeds, and what would breed, under the best
organized scheme for controlling capital any reformer can
devise, whatever miseries now befall honest labor. This is
the Ishmaelite, to whom capital and labor alike are free spoil,
and who snaps his fingers at all laws and guarantees. He
wars on no one class more than on another: he simply pil
lages society in the right of the stronger. It is foolish to
mistake this unchartered enemy for the intentional plot of a
capitalist class against labor. The master who pays his work
man the lowest pittance, or tries to control his vote by driving
him out of employ, has no special war against labor as such.
Will he not starve out his fellow capitalists as well, or swallow
them up as readily as he does his workmen, when they stand
in his way ? And as for those, on the other hand, who would
have capital stripped of all opportunity and control, and
brought under the rule of manual labor as the only produc
tive force, and as entitled to all the fruits of production,—
what would they too be likely to do with the rights of weaker
laboring men could they thus despoil property and wield its
powers ? Their cry of “ Down with capital ” is the raving of
men befooled by the very greed they charge all capital with
organizing for their destruction. What but mischief comes
of blind choice and blind rejection, “ Down with this,” and
“ Up with that,” impelled by the fiercest of despots that can
sway manners and wield the liberties and laws ?
The interests of Labor can be advanced only by what is
done in the interest of the whole of society, and with fair esti-
�25
»
mation of all the elements of productive movement. It is to
be presumed that with the exception of those who live by
speculating in fictitious values, or who live as mere drones by
the toil of others, the only unproductive classes, — everybody
is more or less sensitive to the status of labor, and feels,
more or less consciously, the harm that befalls every compo
nent force in the process of industry. No abuses in the sup
posed interest either of accumulated wealth or of manual
labor can give just ground for disparaging the public uses
that flow from both these elements. The broadest apprecia
tion of uses alone can correct all abuse; a reconciling spirit
whose war is only against the common foe.
Schemes, for instance, to drive large capitalists out of any
fair field of employment for wealth, or artificially to bar out
labor that seeks that field, do not solve the problem of false
proportion between the price of food and the price of labor.
Our help must come from the science and the experience that
can make it clear to all reasonable persons how mischiev
ous to the whole community are railroad monopolies and food
speculations, holding back products from their natural markets,
enormously raising their cost to the consumer; high tariffs
that enhance the cost of production, and so diminish the mar
ket for the product; large land grants to monopolists; gen
eral overtrading, stimulated by the powers of machinery into
such fluctuation of prices as to drive all profit from the chan
nel of fair distribution into that of self-preservation in the
competitive strife; dishonest trading, by stock or gold gamblers, in the hopes and fears of all classes ; and the want of
co-operation among laborers to hold and work capital equita
bly, and to educate labor to a skill which shall command, as
skilled labor always will, a high reward. And these real
causes of the false relations between the prices of food and
labor being duly recognized, the cure cofries in a common
effort, wisely distinguishing what can come by legislation
from what cannot, to remove them as foes to the common
good; not as if a laboring class only were ordained to get the
�26
benefit of the reform, nor with the aim to put down, or to
despoil, any of those elements on which all depend. By this
spirit, which we believe is destined to work its way to tri
umph, the scope of industrial reform will be widened to match
the magnitude of the evils that now threaten us. It will tell
alike on laborer and money-holder, in ethical as well as in ■
political directions. It§ programmes will not stop in schemes
for enforcing short hours and high wages for those who are
already employed upon terms that give them vantage to
demand better; they will look to the starvation wages of
thousands of sewing-women, and the miserable pay of female
labor generally; to the friendlessness of young immigrants
into cities where labor is uncertain and fluctuating; to the
threatening increase of the sum of ignorance, intemperance,
and squalid living. It will pursue and punish the reckless dis
regard of physiological laws which packs laborers into unven
tilated rooms or exhausts them in unhealthy forms of toil, or
exposes them to perilous surroundings without such precau
tions against disaster as science can afford. It will bring to
bear on the murderous dens of drunkenness and infamy that
flourish under the assaults of law, the infinitely stronger bat
teries of labor as a public sentiment and a personal force of
example and of aid. It will make war upon ignorance of
physical and economical laws, upon loose, unhealthy, wasteful
habits; upon the unthrift that is the father of vice and the
dupe of political jugglery. It will stop the shameless gains
of tenement speculators by providing cheap and healthy lodg
ing-houses for the poor; opening easy paths to the ownership
of real estate. It will press everywhere the claims of home ;
and facilitate in every way the taste for those domestic duties
and interests that lead men to steady work and steady saving;
and propagate the ambition, not to break down capital as a
fraud and a foe, but* to possess it as the means of personal cul
ture and public service. And in view of an unprecedented
political corruption, which no mere party changes can im
prove, it will insist on making office the permanent reward of
�27
worth and fitness instead of the carcass for unclean creatures
to prey on, to the nation’s undoing. It will understand that
of all follies there can be none greater than that of entrusting
the task to office-seekers who skillfully work up the public
sense of official misconduct, loudly proclaiming their own allsufficiency ; and whose sweeping assaults on the representa
tives of the people are of course mere contumely of the peo
ple themselves. For this is but to call on Scylla to save us
from Charybdis. That well-meaning reformers should vote
men into office whom they do not respect, in the belief that
their abilities can thus be made available, and that policy
alone will bind them to prefer the public good to schemes of
private ambition, — is sheer trifling with the life of the State.
How can there be any more public security than there is pri
vate virtue, known and trusted with affairs ? If you cannot
find this, and must commit yourselves to the chances of poli
tic good behavior from the opposite quality, it is a confession
that all is lost. They who teach that the question of the mo
tives and convictions of a candidate is of small account com
pared with his probable uses for a particular end, because we
are not to look for saints in politics, demoralize all who be
lieve them, and deal death to those ideals on which our liberty
depends. God may utilize all qualities. But is the political
manager “a special providence” to save the nation, after he
has taught it not to enquire what men purpose, if they will
but promise to execute its will ?
The ideal aim of Labor is to identify itself with every form
of personal and public culture; to represent the fullness of
productive life; the brain and heart and arm of civilization.
It is worse than time wasted to classify the friends and foes
of this work by parties or programmes : the point of moment
is the quality of individual life. Justice to Labor is the finest
of the fine arts ; the art of justice itself, and honor and love ;
it is large appreciation and faithful performance ; the art of
loyalty to the best and of service to the whole. It is the light
that sees and the love that shares. What signify political
y
�28
combinations beyond the amount they contain of that true
personality in men and women which alone renders the social
atmosphere fit for breathing ? To what end will you concen
trate rapacity and multiply waters of bitterness ? It is no less
than crime in labor reformers to promise their followers im
mense gains from laws and regulations about labor, while yet
never daring to tell them plainly that there shall be no more
relief to the poor in demanding and making such laws than
what they themselves render possible by their contribution of
qualities which political management or class ascendency can
not give. In the interest of the whole, let it be insisted that
our republican watchword, “ The dignity of labor,” shall have
rational meaning. And let us stand at the outset upon this
conviction. Crass ignorance, exclusiveness in rich or poor,
democratic or aristocratic; coarse and sensual habits ; the
arts of demagogues, and that love of flattery and worship of
noisy self-assumption which gives them following; a blind
antagonism to whatever commands special advantages in the
x competition for wealth, — all ways, in short, that unfit for ap
preciating a generous culture of the tastes and sympathies,
and for respecting, even if one does not understand, the func
tions of art, science, religion, discredit one’s cry for “ honor
to labor,” and for “the rights of labor,” and unfit him to stand
as its champion or to advocate its cause.
The large and free recognition of uses, visible and invisible,
moral, intellectual, social, and on one level for both sexes and
every race, is labor’s true capital, and capital’s real labor. Is
sue this currency far and wide: it will not depreciate, like
greenbacks, by increase ; it will not heap like gold in gam
bling and monopoly. Maintain this sole guarantee of per
sonal freedom and culture, amidst the mechanism of consoli
dation which, without it, would suppress them altogether.
Join hands, all parties, on this, the education of a free people
to the spirit that civilizes, not barbarizes ; lifting the weak and
blind with all the leverage of its united vision and strength,
�29
and calling forth every brain and hand to the self-supporting
work that redeems and dignifies man.
Let me say in closing that I hold Free Labor in America to
be the true Emancipation of Religion. It has nobler function
than to subserve the blind destructive reaction on all intuition
and faith against whose leadership the great soul of Mazzini
was obliged to warn the labor reformers in his young Italy.
It means what America means, — not an enforced labor creed,
but the integral culture of humanity. To honor constructive
labor is to associate the normal exercise of every faculty with
what deserves highest honor; in other words, with Religion.
And so religion becomes natural, human, unmonopolized, sec
ular. It teaches man no longer the old self-contempt, as a
gift by supernatural grafting, or miraculous interference, or by
special mediatorial book, church, sect, seasons, forms, that
disparage life itself; but self-respect as the voice of his famil
iar instincts, insights, energies, in the constancy of universal
law. What could effect such deliverance but free labor’s en
dowment of the whole human capacity with a sacred purpose
and authority? “My Father worketh hitherto and I work,”
says the Jesus of John. That is very grand: nothing perhaps
grander in the New Testament. But this is grander still:
for man to say, as man, as a people, as human faculty in the
broadest application, “ God worketh and I work.” Make reli
gion as broad, as practical, as natural as labor, and religion
for the first time in history stands on universal principles, and
humanity can become one with God. .
����
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
Labor parties and labor reform
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Johnson, Samuel [Johnson]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Boston. Mass.
Collation: 29 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Cochrane, 25 Bromfield St. Reprinted from 'The Radical'.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5297
Subject
The topic of the resource
Labour
Socialism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Labor parties and labor reform), 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
Conway Tracts
United States-Politics and Government
Working Class-United States of America
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/84269a16323ac6b143850561c3d0d17b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=vnB7tbNVeVEp%7Ez6kSAiRZ2KLLYK33g-4s9WR3CKhNJMf3g3eCDtYzCpOAjWl7cq643kbtqwcdz0FzHjD%7E3fP8TpEeLmnOpWm%7EoeMXecHOUWIHq8mo5rj6Jm7zh-K5tZ2vC7q4qMfQyNzYvu9iiXq6ugLSdiWidux6SBdbik0wEF-ICCcg8wIwR5xiFd8MdihMOUG7m4NivW9aXdfL7hNMs%7EnNV6znF3nUzQakxifHMIi3eyOkvU-ckYOlW6LwUTDkNayF7dcJ7xhYHAd0StNwukZ0XrMagBHRDtcEB1u3jRDf54upFUEajbNrSMGU9zWSmRWoYtH%7EFzedMHTMjH3Bw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
58be4730acab5005cec1149462fc102b
PDF Text
Text
ft Ari'ttO
SOCIALISM
By CHARLES S. DFVAS, MJL*
Like all others who speak of Socialism and wish to be.
clear, I must say at once whom I mean by Socialists—not
the Anarchists who oppose all government,
not the
Communists who would have all things held in common,
not the Extremists or Dynamiters who would use violence
to attain their ends, not any of these whom there is no
necessity to confute, but the scientific or moderate
Socialists who would proceed by way of the ballot-box,
with law and order; and would contrive that sooner or
later all capital or means of production dr sources of income
should be transferred to the hand of the State, whether the
central or the local Government.
Socialism and the Church.
Now the first question that may occur to you is whether
after all, this moderate Socialism is an enemy, whether
there is any need of fighting, whether at any rate in Great
Britain we have any complaint against the Socialists.
Are
1 A paper read at the Catholic Conference at Blackburn, Sept. 27,
1905.
�2
Socialism
they less civil to us than is any other non-Catholic body ?
Why pick a quarrel?
But Great Britain is not the whole world, and looking
outside, wherever the Catholic Church is a strong force and
simultaneously the Socialists are a strong force, we see the
two in violent antagonism. You have only to cross to
Belgium to see them forming two political parties in daily
hostility. At least half the blame of the cruel persecution
of the Church in France falls on the shoulders of the
Socialists. In Germany a strong Government left off
persecuting the Church because in her they recognized the
only force that could withstand Socialism successfully. In
Italy a Government once bitterly anti-clerical is becoming
eager for an alliance with the Church as a shield against
the Socialists.
The same antagonism is seen across the
Atlantic. The two rapidly growing and spreading bodies
in the United States are the Socialists, who already make
up nearly half the voters, and over against them the
Catholic Church. Within the last fourteen months two
books have been published in the United States on the
Catholic side, showing the true facts of the momentous
case; the earliest by Father Gettelmann, S.J., being an
enlarged and adapted translation of Father Cathrein’s work
on Socialism in its eighth edition ; the later book is by the
Right Rev. William Stang, Bishop of Fall River, entitled
Socialism and Christianity; and in neither book is there
any question of conciliation.
“ Little can be done,” writes
a Socialist American magazine, “until men and women face
the two curses of our country and our time, the curses of
capitalism and Christianity.” “The real Socialists,” writes
Bishop Stang, “have done with God and His eternal laws.
�Socialism
*
a
. Real Socialism means rebellion against God and
Society.”
And the Bishop writes from the long personal
experience of his pastoral work.
“ Is there nothing in your
“ Yes,
way ? ” he asked a Socialist leader not long ago.
sir,” the man answered slowly, “ there is one thing in our
way, and that one obstacle is the Catholic Church.”
Three Main Pillars of Socialism.
And yet it seems a pity to be compelled to take up arms
against a scheme and a school that gives us so fair a
promise. Indeed, what could appear on the surface more
reasonable than orderly Collectivism? Three principal
arguments strike me as the pillars and props of the Socialist
position.
The first is the argument that it is just and fair
for all men to start alike; and that if a man is to be poor
and fill a low station, it is to be his own fault and own
doing, and not due to the mere accident that he was born
of poor parents, while another is in high station from
no personal merit, but from the mere accident that he was
born of rich parents.
This may be called the argument
from justice.
The second argument is from the immense saving to be
worked by Collectivism with its joint and orderly system of
production, and the avoidance of the incalculable waste of
the competitive system, such as the vast sums spent on
advertising or on the work of commercial travellers, a large
body of the most intelligent men in the country using up
their brains and their time chiefly to induce purchasers to
buy from one commercial house rather than from another.
Then there is the waste of things made that no one wants,
the waste of the spoilt or unsold goods, the waste of a
�4
Socialism
dozen men doing what a couple could do if they only acted,
in delivering goods, for example, in combination instead of
competition, as letter delivery compared with milk delivery.
Now all this waste is ended by Collectivism, which forms
the logical conclusion to the great process you see around
of producers, production and sale, even retail shops on the
largest possible scale. What a vast fund will be in hand
from all labour being usefully employed instead of some
25 per cent, being simply thrown away! This may be
called the argument from economy.
The third argument is drawn from the evils that in most
industrial countries are the lot of so many : ill-fed, ill-clad,
ill-housed, over-worked, under-paid, unemployed, exposed
from youth upwards to evil surroundings, moral and physical.
A way out of these evils must be found. “ We have found
the way and the only way,” is the glad tidings or gospel
of Socialism. “ Present conditions are intolerable : your
deliverance a necessity: Collectivism the one answer to
your most urgent need.”
This argument may be called the argument from neces
sity ; and backed up by its comrades, the arguments from
justice and from economy, the three appear to offer a
formidable front to all opponents; for like ethical considera
tions, monetary considerations, and humane considerations
appear to drive us to the Socialistic conclusion.
appearance is not always the same as reality.
But then
Collectivism and Equality.
Take the first argument: why should men start all on an
equality? Tell a Brahmin he should start equal with a
Pariah and he will laugh in your face. Ah ! but the
�Socialism
5
Hindus are sadly behind the age. Perhaps; but then ask
the modern Germans who are certainly in the front, and
many of their philosophers will tell you that the business or
function of the great mass of the people—German, British,
or any other—is to minister to the welfare, physical and
intellectual, of an
of a small number of superior
beings. Or ask our own men of science, and they will
declare that mere nature knows nothing of this equality,
that everywhere is inequality, struggle, survival of the
individual best adapted for the cosmic process. And quite
apart from any question of wealth, any one can see the
utter inequality of individuals at the very start, inequalities
of health and physical capacities, of moral and intellectual
qualities, of their temper, their wits and their memory; so
that merely to equalize money fortunes would be a very
imperfect attempt at giving all an equal start. Every
unearned advantage in the race of life would have to be
neutralized, every undeserved defect compensated; and so
great would be the complication that it would require more
than human power and impartiality to adjust the points of
this universal handicap.
But, after all, does not Christianity preach equality ?
Undoubtedly; but not the Collectivist equality. One God
indeed for all, one redemption, the same law, the same
sacraments, the same conditions of salvation, the same
human nature alike in the sad weakness from original sin
and in the glorious possibilities from the action of grace.
Hence master and slave, philosopher and road-mender,
Roman and barbarian, white man and coloured, were all
brothers in Christ, all knelt at the same altars. The
essential dignity and rights of man and of woman were
�6
Socialism
affirmed to good purpose by Christianity eighteen centuries
before they were affirmed to little purpose by the French
Revolution.
But Christianity preached no levelling of
ranks, no abolition of inequality of conditions; rather it
taught that all inequality of rights and authority is
from God, that all should be tempered by duty, that all
obedience should have responsibility as its correlative or
counterpart, that we should acquiesce in the diversity of all
manner of gifts as providential, and no more rebel against
a man being endowed from his very youth with superior
power or superior wealth than against his being endowed
with a delicate ear for music, or with keen eyesight, or
with a beautiful voice, or with muscular strength and
agility, or with powers of physical endurance, all superior
to our own.
And notice as a particular point how Christianity, by the
great emphasis it lays on family life, thereby emphasizes
inequality; for the family is the main ground of inequality.
To support wife and children and provide for them after
death is the main ground of industry and frugality. Here
ditary capacities alike and hereditary weakness are handed
on from parent to child no less than hereditary property.
Hence, although Collectivism may profess to do no injury
to family life, it is in essential contradiction to it by
removing its main ground, the devoted union of man and
woman for the welfare and advancement of their children.
Let me add one more remark on this argument from
justice. Not merely is equality impossible, but I doubt
whether it is wanted. Do the Collectivists understand that
for the inhabitants of British India, namely, three-quarters
of the population of the whole British Empire, the average
�Socialism
7
yearly income per head is ^2 according to an official and
optimistic account, while other estimates bring it to less
than £1 10s. a year, or a penny a day.
This being so, if
there are any Socialists in this prosperous city of Blackburn,
are they prepared to throw in their lot with their fellow-
subjects of India, and share and share alike, and equalize
the scantiness of the one income with the relative abun
dance of the other ?
Or will the Socialists of America treat
the ten million negroes in the States each as a man and a
brother, and become the fellow-workmen of a common
Collectivism ?
Or will the Australians welcome the Chinese
to be as one with them on their almost vacant continent ?
So much for the first great support of Collectivism, the
argument from justice.
The
second argument from
economy equally fails on examination.
I well recognize
indeed the waste under our present system, and believe
half of it might be avoided. I fully approve of collective
ownership and collective working within limits, in reason,
up to a certain point, the exact point being a question of
circumstances.
The post, the telegraphs, the supply of
water, gas and electricity, and tramways, seem to me in
most places to be best in public, not private hands;
add for India and Ireland the railways, waterways, and
forests. In each case the limits of this Collectivism can be
discussed; but in all cases its character is totally different
from the omnivorous Collectivism that would swallow up
every kind of capital, and leave the private man nothing at
all.
And observe particularly that Collectivism in modera
tion is not the smallest step towards the Collectivism of the
Socialists.
You might as well say that to use butter as
part of our diet is a step towards eating nothing else.
�8
Socialism
Collective ownership as an ingredient of social diet is
wholesome, but as the exclusive diet is fatal.
Obstacles to Collectivism.
Now briefly, for you can find the details in the excellent
joint book of Fathers Cathrein and Gettelmann, there are
five fatal difficulties in the way of this universal, all-absorbing
Collectivism.
First is the difficulty of organization.
Either all the
productive property of Great Britain would be worked from
one centre as one business, keeping work and wages
uniform; and this plan would break down instantly by
the pure overweight of clerk-work; or else local autonomy
would be granted to parish, urban district, county or
municipality; and then, though the work might possibly
be within manageable proportions, there would be other
difficulties. For gradually, according to local varieties of
opportunity, talent and luck, inequalities of wealth would
develop among the different localities, Blackburn, perhaps,
be earning 25 per cent, more than Preston; and back
comes the inequality that was supposed to have been
banished. Nor can this be remedied by allowing labour
to flow to where it was best paid. For to work the
Collectivist plan at all, there must be some fixity in the
numbers of the hands to work and the mouths to feed.
To provide employment or to cater for ever-fluctuating
numbers would be impossible. The present liberty of
moving about would in consequence have to be restricted.
Even to migrate no further than from Manchester to
Liverpool Would require a special permit, and we should
�Socialism
9
find ourselves chained to the soil or to the municipal
workshop. This I call something like serfdom.
Secondly comes the difficulty of supply. Instead of a
body of traders to cater for the public taste you would
have as your providers a body of officials eager to get
through their work and not be bothered by individual
peculiarities.
There must be barrack-room uniformity if
the Collectivist scheme is to work, no genuine liberty of
consumption, not for the men only, but even for their
mothers and sisters, their wives and daughters.
This I call
something like despotism.
Thirdly comes the difficulty of employment. Who is to
do what? It would in practice be impossible to allow
freedom to choose or to change an employment.
We
should have to take what was given to us and stick to it.
This I call something like slavery. Or if the attempt was
made to be fair by causing all men to take turns at working
in different trades, then the waste of human power by thus
undoing the division of labour and the increase of annoy
ance and discomfort would far exceed all the losses and
waste of the present competitive system.
Fourthly comes the difficulty of wages.
Either all must
receive alike, skilled and unskilled, physician and farm
labourer, all ranks of workers in the iron, the cotton, or the
building trades, to the utter discouragement of skill and
intelligence; or else there must be discrimination, some
receiving more, others less, with no standard to go by.
A municipality now can pay according to current local
wages or trade union rates; but under Collectivism there
would neither be trade unions or any outside wages with
which to make a comparison. And thus we should have
�IO
Socialism
to do the very thing we should wish to avoid, and entrust
our good fortune to the arbitrary decision of Government
officials. This I call wages at Bumble’s discretion.
Lastly comes the difficulty of motives, and a blow struck
at industry, care and frugality. True that Socialists often
argue from the natural goodness of man and his prone
ness to virtue from his, youth up. But this appears a
contradiction. If man is naturally so good and yet the
world so full of injustice and oppression as the Socialists
maintain, then the fact that they have allowed the world to
drift into so bad a condition proves that mankind, however
honest and well-meaning, is thoroughly incompetent, and
quite unfit to be trusted with collective management. Let
us then confine the argument to real historical man, who
appears an idle, careless, and self-indulgent personage
unless properly trained and given an adequate motive for
action. Take away the stimulus of hope and fear, especially
when ennobled and fortified by regard for others, for infirm
parents, for invalid brethren, for wife and young children,
to avert from them suffering and poverty, to procure for
them comfort, health, education and ease—let their future
be secure, no longer in any way in our hands, and what
shall save those hands from being smitten with a paralyzing
slackness ?
So, then, these five difficulties in the way of Socialism—
the difficulty of organizing business, of supplying wants,
of assigning employment, of adjudicating reward, and of
furnishing a motive for industry and frugality—these five
fatal difficulties pull down the second prop of Socialism,
the argument from economy. There would no doubt be
some saving in the waste of competition; but the losses
�Socialism
11
would outbalance the saving more than a hundredfold
This I call being penny wise and pound foolish.
Social Reform not Socialism the Necessity.
But there still remains the third prop of Socialism, the
argument from necessity, that at all costs we must be freed
from the evils of the present time, that anything is better
than to leave things as they are. And most truly the evils
are terrible and pressing: the miserable dwellings of so
large a number of our people in town and country, the
cruel advantage taken of weak, unorganized labour, the
uncertainty of employment, the frequent triumph of dis
honesty, the poverty-stricken old age that for so many
is the dreary prospect ahead.
But who recognized these
evils more clearly than Pope Leo XIII ? Who told us
more clearly than he that we are not to leave these things
as they are ? What a fallacy then for the Socialists to say,
Society is sick, and therefore the only remedy is Collectivism,
as though there was no other alternative.
But another
alternative there is that involves no injury to the Church,
no injury to the State, no injury to family life, another
alternative that, unlike Collectivism, is free from the five
fatal obstacles I have shown in the way of Collectivism ;
and this other alternative is Christian Social Reform.
An Alternative.
I have already mentioned Bishop Stang’s volume on
Socialism and Christianity, and will gladly follow his
example of not meeting the new social gospel with mere
negation, but with a positive programme of reform.
I ask,
therefore, and with the more confidence because I have
«
�12
Socialism
an episcopal flag flying at my mast-head, whether in Great
Britain we cannot unite our forces and follow social reform
along the four lines of protected labour, of organized
labour, of insured labour, and lastly of diffused ownership.
This is not indeed all, but all that we need now consider.
Labour Reforms.
As to protected labour or factory legislation, we have
only to go on with what has been so well begun, and ex
tend, improve, complete and copy any salutary examples
from abroad. Thus the laws might be imitated that
demand guarantees for the moral character of foremen,
separation of the sexes, consent of parents or guardians
before those under age may be employed. Then the
actual law might be better enforced, and evasions stopped
like those in the dressmaking trade, brought to public
knowledge in Mrs. Lyttelton’s play. And legal protection
should be extended to the helpless crowd of workers,
mostly young women, in the match factories, jam-making,
and cheap clothing trade.
Secondly, along the line of organized labour, let us aim
at the spread, the elevation, and the legal incorporation of
trade unions, so that as far as possible in all industries
all bargaining about work and wages may be collective
bargaining, masters and men both organized, all disputes
that conciliation cannot avert being conducted before a
reasonable tribunal of arbitration ; and an end made of
the present scandalous uncertainty of the law regarding
trade unions.
And here let me interpose a word suggested by what has
already passed at this Conference.
His Grace the Arch
�Socialism
13
bishop of Westminster alluded to a rumour that labour
organizations were being abused to force their members to
support non-religious education. If there is any truth—
I hope there is not—in such a rumour, far from setting
Catholics against trade unions, it should stimulate them
to take such a friendly and sympathetic attitude towards
them in the legitimate industrial sphere, as to be able to
protest with good effect if they go beyond that sphere.
And here precisely is a case to which the words of Father
Gerard apply, delivered in this hall last night, on the
responsibility of Catholic men ; a case where the resolute
protest of all Catholic trade-unionists against the organi
zation of labour being thus turned from its proper purpose
would have, on all concerned, the most beneficial effect.
Thirdly, along the line of insured labour we have an
instalment in the Workman’s Compensation Act of 1897.
But this only touches accidents and not the other great
branches of workmen’s insurance, against sickness, against
infirmity, and against unemployment.
Our trade unions
and our friendly societies, for a select portion of our people,
serve as insurance against sickness and infirmity; but I
confess to a feeling of envy at the magnificent system of
triple insurance that is the boast of Germany.
But neither
in Germany nor elsewhere is the final branch of insurance,
viz., that against unemployment, yet established, though
attempts have been made, the most conspicuous and
practical for us being the great work of our English trade
unions, who have spent on unemployed benefit in the
twelve years ending 1903 considerably over four million
pounds. And I agree with the suggestion in Mr. Percy
Alden’s recent admirable work (The Unemployedl pp. 64, 65)
�i4
Socialism
that a Government
contribution should be given in
proportion to the sums thus voluntarily subscribed.
Diffused Ownership.
Lastly, we come to the fourth line of true social reform,
namely, diffused ownership, on which Leo XIII laid such
stress: that the majority of the people should not live
merely from hand to mouth, but should have, each family
its small capital, some partnership, shares, or stocks, but
principally a small plot of mother earth, from the size of a
garden to the size of a small farm, that no creditor could
touch, that belonged to the family rather than the individual,
that would be greatly eased of local and Imperial taxation
and of legal charges (it is done in Belgium), that would
serve as insurance against unemployment, that would solve
(and alone solve) the problem of the exodus from country
villages, and would allay the complaint of physical degenera
tion. And if I envy the Germans their insurance laws, I
envy still more their millions of peasant proprietors, who,
far from dwindling away, as the Socialists and some
economists had prophesied, not only weathered the storm
of low prices and agricultural depression, but have
increased in recent years both absolutely and in the pro
portion of the cultivated land which they hold. True, in
this country we have special difficulties in the way of
the endowment, or rather the re-endowment, of half our
population with property; but with the will there is the
way : the extension of allotments, the movement towards
rural factories and garden cities, are movements in the
right direction; and we are gradually shaking off the
baleful superstition that the money lender, the company
�Socialism
15
promoter, the credit draper, the army contractor, the drink
seller, the slum owner, and others, have a sacred right to
make what contracts they please, to pocket what profit they
can, and devour the hard-earned savings of genuine labour.
But I have said enough for our purpose, that social
reform along the lines of protected labour, organized labour,
insured labour, and diffused ownership, sweeps away the
only remaining defence and last prop of Socialism, its
alleged necessity.
A Final Warning.
Yet one word of caution in conclusion.
with great approval of many social reforms.
I have spoken
But there is a
corrosive poison that eats away the value of them all.
This poison is irreligion, whether instilled by godless
schools, or godless homes, or godless professors. Thus the
very Germany that among the great countries of the world
leads the vanguard of social reform, is herself afflicted with
the gravest social discontent; and America with all her
wonderful resources is beginning at last to recognize, let us
hope before it is too late, that for modern nations even
temporal welfare is bound up inseparably with Christian
schools and Christian homes.
��
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
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Devas, Charles Stanton
Description
An account of the resource
Place of Publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: A paper read at the Catholic Conference at Blackburn, Sept. 27, 1905. Date of publication from KVK (OCLC WorldCat).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1906]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1530
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), 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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
Socialism and Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1158e85b09dfca834c59418580ed93a7.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ahE3UBZ%7EidILQEiUlpzMN19RuSoaHJuXtdmVgXvaTucG6CwDICi3BFh-uR1fxfrX8AjNfrS-J3L841wSduRQ-WS3Br-bpJL60CDn0Dzo%7ERR3HGfaj30i2UCG%7EivAOiN6itvpZssGJybQbfkOP4PIfrH58978s3-6eBpNZY%7ECd6Iqf2acBp1t6pXTH4rMHJAS%7Enu1gWxybdnzx5lotyG%7EVjoVpExV%7E4-SxjLj4LdPxodS3UE1uYLVCl-3UamEaKNxZ4CsTubVR7oDb8XQQ347HVBxC%7EGvwfMFJvJGNmz7Rm%7EchTzMaxwLVcwH7n%7EpWYNH-dLGZDW%7EcRBOSv4NIKcB8A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a24dfb5bb13874813cca8f04a22446a9
PDF Text
Text
OU
T2ETZE
Bights nf I’alunir
ACCORDING TO
JOHN RUSKIN.
ARRANGED BY
TLLOIVE^NS BARCLAY.
WITH-INTRODUCTION BY
JAMES HOLMES, Sec. Amalgamated Hosiery Union.
.
. .
“ I know no better definition of the rights of man
SHALT NOT STEAL I
THOU SHALT NOT BE STOLEN FROM:
Thou
what a Society
were that—Plato’s Republic.. More’s Utopia, mere emblems of it!
Give every man what is his—the accurate price of what he has done and
been—no more shall any complain, neither shall the earth suffer any
more.”—Carlyle.
Chas. D. Merrick, Printer, 34, Cank Street, Leicester.
�INTRODUCTION.
He that will not follow truth, is a slave to error, and he that shrinks
from the full examination of all opinions on vital questions, is either more in
love with his own opinions than with truth, which is egotism : or he is afraid
of truth, which is cowardice.
Equality of social condition should be the aim of all good men. The
basis of true worth is manhood and womanhood, touched into sweetness
by fraternity and justice.
Labour is the great equaliser—and all capable men and women in a happy
and progressive community must work either with head or hand or both.
What a revolution would be produced if the words attributed to St. Paul
were applied to Modem Society and enforced; “ If a man will not work
neither should he eat! ” What a driving out of Royal and Aristocratic drones
would take place ; and what a decrease of gout there would be I Then what
should the labourer get for his work ;—a mere pittance in the form of wages,
without any thought as to whether the wages are sufficient or not? No;
emphatically no ! He should have a full reward in the full produce of labour,
so that he might have in health more than enough, then he might provide for
sickness when it overtakes him, and a competence for old age, so that life may
be made worth living to the workers instead of millions of money accumulating
in the hands of a few,—like the Rothschilds—who are said to be worth
£200,000,000, not obtained by labour or honest exchange, but from the produce
of labour, of which the labourers have been spoiled.
These statements, by many, may be thought extreme, and contrary to our
best and greatest thinkers and teachers of Political Economy. Take these
words from one who has been called “ The Father of Political Economy”:—
“ The produce of labour constitutes the natural recompense or wages of labour.”
(Wealth of Nations, chap, 8). Thus we see that our statements are strictly in
accord with Adam Smith. Labour is the foundation of real dignity, for only
by it do we contribute to the well being of one another.
In the title of the pamphlet containing the teachings of the high-toned,
moral, and original teacher—John Ruskin-the same truth is implied. In his
words are couched some of the truest and noblest ideas. But very few working
men have either the time or means to get at the works of great minds like
Ruskin, so the arranger of the following extracts has culled from his book—
“ Unto this last,” some of the best teachings on the question of labour and
wages, which I think has been done wisely and well; and if working men will
only d'ink of the stream brought to their doors, they will be refreshed thereby,
Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the great truths here set forth.
On the organization of labour I would specially call your attention to the
following points . “Training Schools for youth, in which there shall be taught:
(a) the laws of health; (b) habits of gentleness and justice ; and (c) the calling
by which he (the youth) is to live.” These kind of schools exist to day in
Sweden, Germany and Switzerlani ; and to the matter, under the headings
—“ His scheme,”—“ Riches and Wealth,”—“Proof/’—“The whole question
one of justice.”—-“Injustice of the present system,”—“Wages,”—“Cause of
Poverty,”—“The true function of the Capitalist,” and “Last Words.”
Let us all endeavour to become mire thoughtful, competent, intelligent as
workers, making the best we can of our time, money, and energy, for the im
provement of the great body of the world’s workers, and help to make it as
impossible for the idlers to thrive as it is for the drones to live among the bees.
JAMES HOLMES.
�THE
RIGHTS OF LABOUR
According to JOHN RUSKIN.
jlrHE object of this pamphlet is to place before the workers,
in a cheap form, the main views of one of the greatest
thinkers of any age, on a subject that ought to interest them more
than any other. The subject is Political Economy, in other
words, the relation of Capital and Labour. Until working men
understand thoroughly what this relation is, all hope is vain of
bettering their condition as a class.
“Unto this Last,” is the book from which the following extracts
are taken. It met with bitter opposition from all the usual
enemies of the working man—including Press, Priests, and Pro
fessors The author had great difficulty in getting it published ;
a fact not to be wondered at when we consider its revolutionary.
character, combined with the logic, grace, and vigour, of which
he is so capable. The Greeks fabled Plato as born with a nest
of bees in his mouth, emblematical of his future honeyed
words. They said, if the Gods came down to dwell among men,
they would speak the language of Plato. Mr. Ruskin has been
aptly termed “ The modern Platothere can be no doubt the
resemblance'is strong. Mazzini describes him as “The most
analytic mind in Europe.” His lofty morality is a reproach to
bishopdom. He lashes the hypocrite and scourges the oppressor;
Meanness and injustice fall back from his terrific onslaught.
Sweet to the innocent and good ; Gentle to the erring and unfor
tunate. True Philosopher; mighty Poet without the name,
Prophet too; not a visionary, but one who sees the very truth,—no will-o’-the-wisp, but a beacon-light to lighten men’s darkness,—
a great teacher, whose clear, brilliant, and powerful language, is but
the fitting conductor of original and valuable thought. Such
is Ruskin,
’ In order to estimate him the more accurately, we are going to
let him speak for himself, only occasionally making a note or
comment.
�4
Mr, Ruskin’s Objects.
He informs us in his preface, that his first object is to give an
accurate and stable definition of Wealth, and as he believes
“ for the first time in plain English.” His second object is to
show that “ the acquisition of wealth is finally possible only under
certain moral conditions of society—of which, quite the first, is a
belief in the existence, and, even for practical purposes, in the
attainability of honesty.” A third object is the organization of
labour ; but this he only casually touches upon, because he thinks
it simple “if we can once get a sufficient quantity of honesty,” and
impossible if we cannot.
His Scheme.
Mr. Ruskin has a scheme of organization of labour, and the
most extraordinary part, is that dealing with wages, which, it is
contended, should be fixed. “ Lest,” he says, “the reader should
be alarmed by the hints thrown out during the following investiga
tion of first principles, I will state at once the worst of the creed
at which I wish him to arrive :
Firstly—There should be training schools for youth, established
at government cost and under government discipline, over the
whole country; that every child born in the country should, at
the parents’ wish be permitted, and in certain cases be under
penalty required to pass through them ; and that in these schools
the child should, with other minor pieces of knowledge hereafter
to be considered, imperatively be taught, with the best skill of
teaching that the country could produce, the following three things:
(a) —The laws of health and the exercises enjoined by them ;
(b) —Habits of gentleness and justice ; and
(c) —The calling by which he is to live.
Secondly—That in connection with these training schools, there
should be established, also entirely under government regulation,
manufactories and workshops for the production and sale of every
necessary of life, and for the exercise of every useful art. And
that, interfering no whit with private enterprise, nor setting any
restraints or tax on private trade, but leaving both to do their best
and beat the government if they could—there should, at these
government manufactories and shops, be authoritatively good and
exemplary work done, and pure and true substance sold, so that a
man could be sure, if he chose to pay the government price, that
he got for his money bread that was bread, ale that was ale, and
work that was work.
�5
Thirdly.—That any man or woman, boy or girl, out of employ
ment, should be at once received at the nearest government school,
and set to such work as it appeared on trial they were fit for, at a
fixed rate of wages determined every year. That being found in
capable of work through ignorance, they should be taught, or being
found incapable of work through sickness should be tended ; but
that, being found objecting to work, they should be set under
compulsion of the strictest nature, to the more painful and degrad
ing forms of necessary toil, especially to that in mines and other
places of danger, (such danger being, however, diminished to the
utmost by careful regulation and discipline), and the due wages
of such work be retained—cost of compulsion first abstracted—
to be at the workman’s command so soon as he has come to
sounder mind respecting the laws of employment.
Lastly.—That for the old and destitute, comfort and home
should be provided; which provision, when misfortune had been,
by the working of such a system, sifted from guilt, would be
honourable instead of disgraceful to the receiver. For (I repeat
this passage out of my Political Economy of Art, to which the
reader is referred for further detail), ‘ a labourer serves his country
with his spade, just as a man in the middle ranks of life serves it
with sword, pen or lancet. If the service be less, and, therefore,
the wages during health less, then the reward when health is broken
may be less, but not less honourable; and it ought to be quite as
natural and straightforward a matter for a labourer to take his
pension from his parish because he has deserved well of his parish,
as for a man in higher rank to take his pension from his country,
because he has deserved well of his Country.”
Principles first.
So far, Mr. Ruskin’s scheme of organization, as given in his
preface, and which, though apart from his main work, it was
thought worth giving. As regards the expense of carrying out his
scheme, he contends that the economy in crime alone resulting
from the adoption of it, would support it ten times over ; as for
the rest, he bids the reader remember that “ in a science dealing
with, so subtle elements as those of human nature, it is only
possible to answer for the final truth of principles, not for the
direct success of plans. What can be immediately accomplished
is always questionable; what can be finally accomplished, incon
ceivable,”
What Political Economy is.
We now proceed to Mr. Ruskin’s Political Economy proper.
Political Economy, he says, “ consists in the production, preser
vation, and distribution, at fittest time and place, of useful or
�6
pleasurable things. The farmer who cuts his hay at the right time ;
the shipwright who drives his bolts well home in sound wood ; the
builder who lays good bricks in well-tempered mortar■ the house
wife who guards against all waste in the kitchen ; and the singer
who rightly disciplines and never overstrains his voice; are all
Political Economists in the true and final sense. Political Economy
teaches nations to desire and labour for the things that lead to life,
and to scorn and destroy the things that lead to destruction. And
if, in a state of infancy, they suppose indifferent things, such as ex
crescences of shell fish, and pieces of blue and red stone * to be
valuable, and spend a large measure of labour which ought to be
employed in the extension and ennobling of life, in diving and
digging for them, and cutting them into various shapes,—or if in
the same state of infancy, they imagine precious and beneficent
things, such as air, light and cleanliness, to be valueless
and peace, trust, and love, by which alone they can possess or use
anything to be prudently exchangeable when the market offers, for
gold, iron, and excrescences,—the only science of Political Econo
my teaches them in all these cases, what is vanity and what
substance.”
“ Theiobject of Political Economy is to get good method of
consumption, to use everything and to use it nobly,—consumption
absolute is the end, crown and perfection of production. Twenty
people can gain money tor one who can use it. The question for
a nation is not how much labour it employs, but how much life it
produces.”
What Wealth Is.
Mr. Ruskin goes on to ask what Wealth is; he draws attention to
the definition of Mr. Mill, who, he thinks, has written the “ most
reputed essay of modern times ” on the subject.
Mr. Mill says,
“To be wealthy, is to have a large stock of useful articles.” “ I
accept this definition ” says our author, “ but let us understand it,
ist.—What does to have mean? and.—What is the meaning of
useful? We will first examine our verb. As thus: Lately in a
wreck of a Californian ship, one of the passengers fastened a belt
about him with two hundred pounds of gold in it, with which he
was found afterwards at the bottom of the sea. Now, as he was
sinking—had he the gold ? or had the gold him ? I presume the
reader will see that possession, or having., consists not only in the
quantity or nature of the thing possessed, but also, (and in a
greater degree) in its suitableness to the person possessing it.
Therefore we must make the have depend upon a can, and say
the possession of useful articles which we can use. Next for our
* Pearls, saphires, and rubies.
�7
adjective. What is the meaning of usefult” It depends on the
person much more than the article, whether its usefulness or
ab-usefulness will be the quality developed in it. When you give
a man half-a-crown, it depends on his disposition whether he is
rich or po.or with it—whether he will buy disease, ruin, and hatred,
or buy health, advancement and domestic love. Thus the moral
elements—human capacities and dispositions, must be taken into
consideration. But the Economists tell us (Mill’s Political
Economy, Book iii. Chap. i. Sec. 2) moral considerations have
nothing to do with Political Economy.” Our author, of course,
here speaks ironically, and leaves us to draw our own conclusions.
Wealth and value are with Mr. Ruskin synonymous terms. Value
he derives from Latin valere, to be well, or strong in life, (if a man)
or valiant; strong for life, (if a thing) or valuable. To be valuable
is to avail towards life ; to make it so avail is to be valiant; and
wealth therefore is “ The Possession of the Valuable by the
Valiant.”
Difference between Riches and Wealth.
Mr. Ruskin makes a distinction between Wealth and Riches.
“ Riches ” he says, “ is a relative word implying its opposite
‘ poverty ’ as positively as the word ‘ north ’ implies its opposite
‘south.’
The force ^of the,guinea you have in your pocket
depends wholly on the default of a guinea in your neighbour’s
pocket. If he did not want it, it would be of no use to you. The
degree of power it possesses, depends accurately upon the need or
desire he has for it; and the art of making yourself rich in the
ordinary mercantile sense, is therefore equally and necessarily the
art of keeping your neighbour poor. There is precisely as much
poverty or debt on one side, as riches on the other; therefore
riches do not necessarily involve an addition to the actual property,
or well-being of the state in which they exist. The power of
riches is in an inverse proportion to the number of persons who
are as rich as ourselves, and who are ready to give the same price
for an article of which the supply is limited. To become rich wre
must establish the maximum of inequality in our own favour.”
These statements Mr. Ruskin attempts to prove by examples.
Proof.
He supposes “Two sailors cast away on an uninhabited coast
maintaining themselves by their own labour. Their Political Econ
omy would consist in careful preservation and just division of
their possessions. But suppose that one fell ill at a critical time_
�8
him. The companion might say with perfect justice ‘ I will do
this additional work for you, but you must do as much for me
another time. I will count the hours I spend on your ground,
and you will give me the same number whenever I need your
help, and you are able to give it.’ Suppose the disabled man’s
sickness to continue for several years, what will be the positions of
the two men when the invalid is able to resume work? As a
community they must be poorer than if no sickness had taken place.
The healthy man may have toiled with an energy quickened by
the enlarged need, but in the end, his own property must have
suffered by the withdrawal of his time and thought from it. This
is, of course, an example of one only out of many ways in which
inequality of possession may be established, giving rise to the mer
cantile forms of riches and poverty. In the instance before us,
one of the men might from the first have directly chosen to be
idle, and to put his life in pawn for present ease; or he might have
mismanaged his land, and been compelled to have recourse to his
neighbour for food ’and help, pledging his future labour for it.
But what I want the reader to note is the fact that the establish
ment of the mercantile wealth which consists in a claim upon
labour, signifies a political diminution of the real wealth which
consists in substantial possessions.
Take another example, more consistent with the ordinary
course of affairs of trade. Suppose three men, instead of two, to
form a little isolated republic. Suppose the third man undertakes
to superintend the transference of commodities for the other two.
If this carrier, or messenger, always brings to each estate, from the
other what is chiefly wanted at the right time, the operations of
the two farmers will go on ’prosperously and the largest possible
result in produce be obtained. But suppose no intercourse
between the land-owners is possible, except through the travelling
agent, and that, after a time, this agent, watching the course of
each man’s agriculture, keeps back the articles entrusted, until
there comes a period of extreme necessity for them on one side or
the other, and then exacts in exchange for them, all that the dis
tressed farmers can spare of other kinds of produce. He might
eventually become possessed of the superfluous produce of the two
estates, and in some year of scarcity purchase them both for him
self, and maintain the former proprietors thence-forward as his
labourers or servants. This would be a case of commercial wealth
acquired on the exactest principles of modern Political Economy.
But more distinctly even than'in the former instance, it is manifest
that the wealth of the state, or three men considered as a society,
is less than jt would have been had the merchant been content
with juster profit. The operations of the two agriculturalists have
�9
been cramped to the utmost; the continual limitation of the things
they wanted at critical times, together with the failure of courage
consequent on the prolongation of a struggle for mere existence,
without any sense of permanent gain, will have diminished the
result of their labor ; and the stores finally accumulated by the
merchant (the carrier or messenger) will not in anywise be equi
valent to those which, had his dealings been honest, would have
filled at once the granaries of the farmers and his own.
The Whole Question one of Justice.
“ The whole question, therefore, respecting not only the ad
vantage but even the quantity of national wealth, resolves itself
finally into one of abstract justice. It is impossible to conclude
of any given mass of acquired wealth whether it signifies good or
evil, because it may be indicative on the one hand of faithful in
dustries, progressive energies, and productive ingenuities, or, on
the other, it may be indicative of ruinous chicane, mortal luxury,
merciless tyranny. One mass of money is the outcome of action
which has created,—another, of action which has annihilated,—ten
times as much in the gathering of it; such and such strong hands
have been paralysed as if they had been numbed by nightshade ; so
many strong men’s courage broken ; this and the other false direc
tion given to labour, and lying image of prosperity set up. That
which seems to be wealth, may in verity be only the gilded index
of far-reaching ruin—a wrecker’s handful of coin gleaned from the
beach to which he has beguiled an argosy.” Mr. Ruskin con
cludes this part of the subject with a classification of the people
who become rich, and the people who remain poor, respectively, in
a community regulated only by supply and demand. The persons
who became rich are, generally speaking, “industrious, resolute,
proud, covetous, prompt, methodical, sensible, unimaginative, insen
sitive, and ignorant.” The persons who remain poor are, “ the
entirely foolish, the entirely wise, the idle, the reckless, the humble,
the thoughtful, the dull, the imaginative, the sensitive, the wellinformed, the improvident, the impulsively wicked, the clumsy
knave, the open thief, and the entirely merciful and just person.”
Capital,
Mr. Ruskin next discourses of that kind of wealth known as
Capital. Capital signifies “ head, source, or root. It is a root
that does not enter into vital function until it produces something
else than a root—something different from itself. Capital that pro
duces nothing but capital is only root producing root, bulb issuing
in bulb ; seed issuing in seed—never in bread. “ The best and
�io
simplest type of capital is a well-made ploughshare, and the true
question for every capitalist is not ‘how many ploughs have
you ?’ but ‘ where are your furrows ?’ not, ‘ how quickly will this
capital reproduce itself?’ but ‘ what substance will it furnish good
for life ? What work construct protective of life ? if none, its own
reproduction is useless—if worse than none ffor capital may destroy
life as well as support it) its own reproduction is worse than
useless.” As might be expected from the foregoing, Mr. Ruskin’s
views on the employment of capital are utterly at variance with those
of current political economy
Injustice of the Present System.
“ There is not in history,” says he, “record of anything so dis
graceful to the human intellect as that the commercial text, “Buy
in the cheapest market, sell in the dearest,” could represent an
available principle of economy. Charcoal may be cheap among
your roof timbers after a fire, and bricks may be cheap after an
earthquake................ There are few bargains in which the buyer
can ascertain with precision that the seller would have taken no
less—or the seller, that the purchaser would have given no more.
This prevents neither from striving to injure the other, nor from
accepting for a scientific principle that he is to buy for the least
and sell for the most, though what the real least or most may be,
he cannot tell. In like manner a just person lays it down for a
principle that he is to pay a just price without being able to ascer
tain precisely the limits of such price. Now it is easier to deter
mine what a man ought to have for his work, than what his
necessities will compel him to take for it. There is no equitable
reason in a man’s being poor, that if he give me a pound of bread
to-day I should return him less than a pound of bread to-morrow.
Again, I want a horseshoe for my horse. Twenty smiths, or
20,000 smiths, may be ready to forge it; their number does not in
one atom’s weight affect the question of the equitable payment of
the one who does forge it. The “robbery of the poor because
they are poor,” says our author elsewhere, “ is especially the mer
cantile form of theft. The ordinary highwayman’s opposite form
of robbery of the rich because they are rich, being less profitable
and more dangerous than the robbery of the poor, is rarely prac
tised by persons of discretion!'
Wages.
We must now consider Mr. Ruskin’s ideas on the recompense
of labour, and the method of the recompense. “Perhaps,” says
he, “ one of the most curious facts in the history of human error,
is the denial bv the political economist of the nosihilif-v r>f
�ri
lating wages so as to fix the rate ; while for all the important, and
most of the important labour on the earth, wages are already so
regulated. We do not sell our Prime-ministership by Dutch
auction; nor on the decease of a bishop, whatever may be the
advantages of simony, do we (yet) offer his diocese to the clergy
man who will take it at the lowest contract. Sick, we do not
inquire for a physician who takes less than a guinea : Litigious,
we never think of reducing six-and-eightpence to four-and-sixpence.
The best labour always has been, and is, as all labour ought to be,
paid by an invariable standard, ‘What,’the reader perhaps answers
amazedly, ‘ pay good and bad workmen alike ?”
Certainly ! You pay with equal fee your good and bad phy
sician and prime-minister, why not your bricklayer ? “ Nay, but
I choose my physician. By all means choose your bricklayer; that
is the proper reward of the good workman, to be “ chosen.” The
natural and right system respecting all labour is that it should be
paid at a fixed rate, but the good workman employed, and the
bad workman unemployed. The false, unnatural, and destructive
system is, when the bad workman is allowed to offer his work at
half-price, and either take the place of the good, or force him by
his competition to work for an inadequate sum. So far as you
employ it at all, bad work should be paid no less than good work ;
as a bad clergyman takes his tithes, a bad physician his fee, and a
bad lawyer his costs; this I say partly because the best work
never was nor ever will be done for money at all, but chiefly
because the moment the people know they have to pay the bad
and good alike, they will try to discern the one from the other,
and not use the bad. A sagacious writer in The Scotsman asks
me if I should like any common scribbler to be paid by Smith,
Elder & Co., as their good authors are ? I should if they em
ployed him; but would seriously recommend them, for the
scribbler’s sake, as well as their own, not to employ him. In
practice, according to the laws of demand and supply, when two
men are ready to do the work, and only one man wants to have
it done, the two men underbid each other for it, and the one who
gets it to do is underpaid. But when two men want the work
done, and there is only one man ready to do it, the two men who
want it done overbid each other, and the workman is overpaid.”
Mr, Ruskin goes in for just pay.
On this question of labour and its reward, we will quote one
more extract from him : “ I have been naturally asked several
times, ‘ But what are you to do with your bad unemployed
workmen ?’ Well, it seems to me the question might have
occurred to you before. Your housemaid’s place is vacant—vou
�12
give ^20 a-year. Two girls come for it—one neatly dressed, the
other dirtily; one with good recommendations, the other with
none. You do not, under these circumstances, usually ask the
dirty one if she will come for ^15 or ^12 , and on her consent
ing take her instead of the well-recommended one. Still less do
you try to beat both down by making them bid against each
other till you can hire both, one at ^£12 a-year, the other at ^8.
You simply take the one fittest for the place and send away the
other, not perhaps concerning yourself with the question you now
so impatiently put to me. ‘ What is to become of her ?’ Verily
it is a question of weight. ‘ Your bad workman, idler, and rogue,
what are you to do with him ? Meantime, consider whether it
may not be advisable to produce, as few as possible. If you
examine into the history of rogues you will find that they are as
truly manufactured articles as anything else, and it is just because
our present system of Political Economy gives so large a stimulus
to that manufacture, thafyou may know it to be a false one. We
had better seek for a system which will develope honest men, than
for one which will deal cunningly with vagabonds.
How to get the most Work out of a man.
The greatest average of work and greatest benefit to the com
munity would be obtained from a servant by our present pro
cedure, if he were an engine of which the motive power was
steam, magnetism, gravitation, or any other agent of calculable
force. But the largest quantity of work will be done by this
curious engine man, when the motive force—that is to say, the
will or spirit of the creature is brought to its greatest strength by
its own proper fuel; namely, by the affections.
Observe, I am here considering the affections wholly as a motive
power; not at all as things in themselves desirable or noble. I
look at them simply as an anomalous force, rendering every one
of the ordinary Political Economist’s calculations nugatory . . . .
If the master, instead of endeavouring to get as much work as
possible from the servant, seeks rather to render his appointed
and necessary work beneficial to him, and to forward his interests
in all just and wholesome ways, the real amount of work ultimately
done, or of good rendered by the person so cared for, will indeed
be the greatest possible. Nor is this one whit less true because
indulgence will be frequently abused and kindness met with in
gratitude. For the servant who, gently treated, is ungrateful,
treated ungently, will be revengeful; and the man who is dishonest
to a liberal master, will be injurious to an unjust one. And as
�i3
with servants, so with employees. The only means which the
master has of doing justice to the men employed by him, is to ask
himself sternly whether he is dealing with such as he would with
his own son, if compelled by circumstances his son had to take
such a position. As the captain of a ship is bound to be the last
man to leave his ship in case of wreck, and to share his last crust
with the sailors in case of famine, so the manufacturer in any
commercial crisis or distress, is bound to take the suffering of it
with his men, and even to take more of it for himself than he
allows his men to feel—as a father would in a famine, shipwreck,
or battle, sacrifice himself for his son.
The true function of the Capitalist.
For the manufacturer’s or merchant’s function in a state is to
provide for it as the soldier’s is to defend it, the physician’s to keep
it in health, and the lawyer’s to enforce justice in it. It is no more
the function of the merchant to get profit, for himself, than it is a
teacher’s to get his stipend. The stipend is a due and necessary
adjunct, but not the object of his life, if he is a true teacher, any
more than his fee (or honorarium) is the object of life to a true
physician. Each has a work to do irrespective of fee—to be done
at any cost. All of which sounds very strange : the only real
strangeness in the matter being, nevertheless, that it should so
sound. For all this is true, and that not partially nor theoretically,
but everlastingly and practically; all other doctrine than this
respecting matters political being false in premises, absurd in
deduction, and impossible in practice, consistently with any pro
gressive state of national life.” It is impossible to do justice to
Mr. Ruskin in a short pamphlet like this. Those who are interested
in Political Economy (which is essentially the science of the
working-man), should co-operate to get his book and study for
themselves. One or two more extracts and we must draw to a
close.
The Cause of Poverty.
Speaking of the poor, our author says, “ Their distress (irres
pective of that caused by sloth, minor errors, or crime), arises on
the grand scale from the two reacting forces of competition and
oppression. In all the ranges of human thought, I know none so
melancholy as the speculations of Political Economists on the
population question. It is proposed to better the condition of the
labourer by giving him higher wages. ‘ Nay,’ says the economist,
‘ if you raise his wages, he will either people down to the same
point of misery at which you found him, or drink your wages away.
�14
He will, I know it ! ’ Who gave him this will ? Suppose it were
your own son of whom you spoke, declaring to me that you dared
not take him into your firm, nor even give him his just labourer’s
wages, because if you did, he would die of drunkenness, and leave
half a score of children to the parish. ‘Who gave your son these
dispositions?’ I should enquire, ‘ Has he them by inheritance or
by education ? By one or the other they must come ; and as in
him so also in the poor. Either these poor are of a race essentially
different from ours, and unredeemable, (which, however often
implied, I have heard none yet openly say,) or else by such care
as we have ourselves received, we may make them continent and
sober as ourselves—wise and dispassionate as we are—models
arduous of imitation.”
Are there too many of us ?
“ There is not yet, nor will yet for ages be, any real over popula
tion in the world ; but a local over-population, or more accurately,
a degree of population locally unmanageable under existing circum
stances, for want of forethought and sufficient machinery,
necessarily shows itself by pressure of competition; and the taking
advantage of this competition by the purchaser to obtain their
labour unjustly cheap, consumates at once their suffering and his
own. The multiplication of animals is checked only by want of
food, and by the hostility of races ; the population of the gnat is
restrained by the hunger of the swallow, and that of the swallow
by the scarcity of gnats. Man, considered as an animal, is indeed
limited by the same laws : hunger or plague, or war, are the
necessary and only restraints upon his increase—effectual restraints
hitherto—his principal study having been how most swiftly to
destroy himself, or ravage his dwelling-place; and his highest
skill directed to give range to the famine, seed to the plague, and
sway to the sword. But, considered as other than an animal, his
increase is not limited by these laws, but by his courage and his
love. His race has its bounds, but these have not yet been
reached, nor will be reached for ages. The art of life has yet to
be learned. It is one very awful form of the operations of wealth
in Europe that it is entirely capitalists’ wealth which supports unjust
wars. Just wars do not need so much money to support them. They
are waged gratis. Nations like France and England have not
grace nor honesty enough in all their multitudes to buy an hour’s
piece of mind with—purchasing of each other ten millions sterling
worth of consternation annually : a remarkable crop—half thorns,
half aspen leaves—sown, reaped, and granaried by the ‘ science ’ of
the modern Polit:cal Economist teaching covetousness instead
of truth.............
�i5
Last Words.
“ Nevertheless, I desire to leave this one great fact clearly stated,
There, is no wealth but life, life including all its powers of love, of
joy, and of admiration. That country is the richest which
nourishes the greatest number of noble and happy human beings ;
that man is wealthiest who, having perfected the functions of his
own life to the utmost, has also the widest helpful influence, both
personal, and by means of his possessions, over the lives of others.
Strive then to make Economy the law of the house ; strict, simple,
generous ; waste nothing and grudge nothing; care in no wise to
make more of money, but care to make much of it; remembering
always the great, palpable, inevitable fact—-the rule and root of all
economy—that what one person has, another cannot have ; and
that every atom of substance, of whatever kind, used or consumed,
is so much human life spent—so much life spent either in
preventing and slaying of life, or in gaining more. Consider
whether, even supposing it guiltless, luxury would be desired by
any of us, if we saw clearly at our sides the suffering which accom
panies it in the world. Luxury is indeed possible in the future—
innocent and exquisite ; luxury for all and by the help of all : but
luxury at present can only be enjoyed by the ignorant. The
cruelest man living could not sit at his feast, unless he sat blind
fold. Raise the veil boldly—face the light. What is chiefly
needed to-day is the desire for a life rich by joyful human labour.
Scenes smooth in field, fair in garden, full in orchard; trim,
sweet, and frequent in homestead ; full of currents of undersound ;
triplets of birds, murmur and chirp of insects, deep-toned words
of men and wayward trebles of childhood. We need examples of
people who will show what the maximum quantity of pleasure is
that may be obtained by a consistent well-administered com
petence, modest, confessed, and laborious. Who will decide for
themselves that they will be happy in the world, and resolve
to seek—not greater wealth, but simpler pleasure; not higher
fortune, but deeper felicity : making the first of possession, self
possession and “ honouring themselves in the calm pursuits of
peace.”
What working man is there that will not reverence
these far-seeing and noble utterances of a great and good man,
devoted to the cause of the poor and down-trodden—showing the
truth and demanding justice.
At all events, reader, unless you have had a previous intro
duction, may we not count on having awakened an interest in you
to examine still further into the teachings of John Ruskin,
��
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 rights of labour : according to John Ruskin
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ruskin, John [1819-1900]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Leicester
Collation: 15 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: The binding process has trimmed the bottom edge too close to the text, taking away the last line on p. 7 and cutting through the last line on p. 10. Printed by Chas. D. Merrick, 34 Cane Street, Leicester.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
T400
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Barclay, Thomas (arr)
Holmes, James
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 (The rights of labour : according to John Ruskin), 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
Political Economy
Social conditions
Social conditions;Socialism
Socialism
Working Classes
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c0d3b7870d82d944a4f6963d068d3813.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=I12ekQjO55sFsSh3K9S2EdhOU%7E2mRmwPC3njTUKbGDnGRwxvwe6CSGcfG2UnRVIbuKIflD5fN2Qkv9jJqfaRPyG7LmX8cdF7tZ8vXO-KM6z0JHvFbfPGs1GkIkW0cmTfgKT9wM4pw-sEjXX9ICfnZkjQkshLoPTrHW4GvpHvUtX5FElLgV6CYa5upslIls2hmOGQ0d5R7o4%7E4NrRUS5wfLZocIAD68%7E44tuHwck6qe8vehfV64Dypygv%7EVFFtxAH0rzWEZwXrVKFEMw9TknKqZrobnvJpQmotKHpz1vddr47JtSIGwMh9zWWYX5jH60eQhU4HP81PcreWfSo-q5a4A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8c3752733b4a2938ba64f8b53512b731
PDF Text
Text
Price One Penny.
THE
Australian Labour Market.
STARTLING DISCLOSURES.
By JOHN
NEW
SOUTH
WALES
NORTON,
LABOUR
DELEGATE.
Distress and Destitution in New
South Wales.
Pauper Relief Works & Soup Kitchens.
BOGUS “EMIGRANTS’
INFORMATION OFFICE.”
LONDON: THE MODERN PRESS, 13, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C
1886
�All who are interested. in Socialism
should, read.
THE FOLLOWING PUBLICATIONS , OF
THE MODERN PRESS, 13, Paternoster Row, London, E.C.
Which will be sent post free at the published prices on receipt of
an order amounting to one shilling or more.
(The Publications of the Modern Press can be obtained from W. L.
Rosenberg, 261, East Tenth Street, New York City.)
Woman, in the Past, Present and Future.
By
August ' Bebel, Deputy in the Reichstag. Translated from the
German by H. B. Adams Walther. Demy 8-vo., cloth, price 5s.
This work by the best known of the German Socialists aims at showing that the
social condition of women can be permanently improved only by the solution of the
whole social problem,
The Co-operative Commonwealth: an Exposition
of Modern Socialism. By Laurence Gronlund, of Philadelphia.
Demy 8-vo., paper cover, is.
This book supplies the want, frequently complained of, of definite proposals for the
administration of a Socialistic State. Mr. Gronlund has reconciled the teaching of
Marx with the influence of Carlyle in the constructive part of his work, which is
specially recommended to English Socialists.
Socialism made Plain.
The social and political
manifesto of the Social-Democratic Federation issued in June 1883 ;
with “The Unemployed,” a Manifesto issued after the “ Riots in
the West End” on 8th February, 1886. Sixty-first thousand.
Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price id.
“JUSTICE,” the Organ of the Social Democracy. Every
Saturday, one penny.
Socialist Rhymes
from Justice.
By J. L. Joynes.
Reprinted chiefly
Demy 8-vo., price id.
Summary of the Principles of Socialism.
By
H. M. Hyndman and William Morris. Second edition, 64-pp.
crown 8-vo., in wrapper designed by Wm. Morris, price 4d.
This gives an account of the growth of capitalist production, and concludes with a
statement of the demands of English Socialists for the immediate future.
Herbert Spencer on Socialism. By Frank Fairman.
16-pp. crown 8-vo., price id.
The Working Man’s Programme (Arbeiter Programm). By Ferdinand Lassalle. Translated from the German
by Edward Peters. Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d.
The Robbery of the Poor.
By W. H. P. Campbell.
Demy 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d.
The Appeal to the Young.
By Prince Peter
Kropotkin. Translated from the French by H. M. Hyndman and
reprinted from Justice. Royal 8-vo., 16-pp. Price one penny.
The most eloquent and noble appeal to the generous emotions ever penned by a
scientific man. Its author has just suffered five years’ imprisonment at the hands of the
French Republic for advocating the cause of the workers
�I
PREFACE.
VER since November 1883, when the facts of the destitution in
E London and other large towns in the United Kingdom began to
assert themselves in a way which compelled attention, Emigration has
been put forward as a satisfactory remedy by the ruling classes and
philanthropists, as well as by persons pecuniarily interested in the trans
portation of workmen to the Colonies. Some of the advocates of
State-assisted Emigration have been shown to be emigration agents in
disguise who receive a commission of so much a head for each person
they induce to leave these shores. Others are well-known to be in the pay
of land syndicates or railway companies possessed of thousands of acres
which are utterly valueless until labour has been planted on them.
The Social-Democratic Federation has never ceased to denounce the
misrepresentation and imposture which has led too many of our fellows
to cross the ocean only to find that in newer countries the capitalist
system of society condemns the worker to the same horrors as it pro
duces at home.
When the Government Emigrants’ Information Office was first
talked of, the Social-Democratic Federation again pointed out that it
could be of little advantage to the workers inasmuch as it would be
controlled and supplied with information both here and in the Colonies
by representatives of the classes who in England are interested in
relieving social pressure by exiling the poor, and who in our dependencies
favour immigration as an effective means .of overstocking the labour
market and reducing wages.
Every point of these contentions is amply proved in the following
pages which I have persuaded Mr. John Norton to allow me to publish.
He is not a Social-Democrat nor particularly interested as I am in the
welfare of the unemployed in Great Britain. But as the accredited
delegate of the labour population of New South Wales he is bound to
defend their interests which, as is amply proved by Mr. Norton’s state
ments, are threatened by the reckless misrepresentations of the Emigration
Office. I venture to suggest that members of workmen’s clubs and
political associations all over the country would do well to send resolu
tions to the Government demanding that public money should not be
expended in attempts to draw off public attention from the Social
Question at home by transporting the victims to our Colonies and
in supplying cheap labour to make the fortunes of employers at the
Antipodes.
H. H. Champion.
Secretaries of Workmen’s Clubs or Labour Organisations who would
like to hear an address by Mr. Norton on “ Australia as a Field for
Emigration” should communicate with him at 166, Westminster Bridge
Road, London.
�THE AUSTRALIAN LABOUR MARKET.
R. JOHN NORTON, the New South Wales Labour Dele
gate, now on a mission to this country in connection with the
industrial crisis at present existing in that Colony, having, in
a letter to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, denounced
the information circulated by the new Government Emigrants’ Informa
tion Office as “ glaringly inaccurate, and entirely misleading,” received
the following letter from that Department:—
“ Emigrants’ Information Office,
31, Broadway, Westminster, S.W.
“ John Norton, Esq.,
16th October, 1886.
“ Sir,—The Managing Committee of this Office have noticed a letter
signed by you, and printed in the Daily News, to the effect that the in
formation which they have issued about the labour market of New
South Wales is ‘ glaringly inaccurate, and entirely misleading.’
“ Their only object being to ascertain and make known to the public
the actual facts as to the prospects of labourers in the British Colonies,
they would be glad to learn the grounds of your criticism, and in what
respects the information in question is inaccurate and misleading.
“ If you care to call at their office, and will make an appointment, I
shall be glad to see you, and may add that any periodical reports issued
by trade societies in Australia would be acceptable.
“ Faithfully yours,
(Signed)
C. P. Lucas.”
To which Mr. Norton has replied as follows:—
“ 166, Westminster Bridge Road, S.E.,
October ¿.yrd, 1886.
“To the Managing Committee of the
Government Emigrants’ Information Office.
“ Gentlemen,—In reply to your communication ofthe 16th inst. I beg
leave to say that the grounds upon which I base the statement contained
in my letter to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, ‘ that the infor
mation recently issued by the Government. Emigrants’ Information
Office concerning the labour market of New South Wales is glaringly
maccurate, and entirely misleading,’ are the following :—
ssssssss•••
'.XVixWxW'
�5
(a) On page 8 of the penny Colonisation Circular of New South
Wales, sold by you, it is stated—‘ In New South Wales men accustomed
to agricultural or pastoral work can readily obtain employment in any
■ part of the country districts at remunerative wages.'
(b) On pages 9 and 10 of the same Circular you give a list of what
purports to be the average rate of wages earned in the majority of
skilled handicrafts in 1884 ; and on page 19 say, ‘ New South Wales,
as compared with other, and even with the neighbouring colonies, pos
sesses special advantages and attractions for the agricultural settler.’
(c) In the general broadsheet circular issued by you on the nth inst.,
and entitled, ‘ General Information for Intending Emigrants to Canada,
the Australasian, and South African Colonies,’ under the heading of
‘Present Demand for Labour,’ the following statement appears
‘ New
South Wales. There is some opening for persons connected with the
building trades, for railway and agricultural labourers.’
I consider the whole of these statements not only ‘ glaringly inaccu
rate, and entirely misleading,’ but positive misrepresentations of the real
state of the labour market in New South Wales at the present time,
which are all the more unwarrantable that they are made in the face of
the following most full and clear evidence to the contrary. ’
AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
The Sydney Globe newspaper of the 26th of July last states—* The
stagnation in business resulting from the deadlock in the Western dis
trict has at length attracted the attention of the Sydney Mercantile body.
Work on the stations and homesteads of the Saltbush has ceased ; the
contractors’ parties of tank sinkers and mechanics and waggoners have
been dispersed, and are wandering over the country penniless. Sheep
stations where 30 or 40 hands had been employed are now worked by
7 or 8 hands. The country towns feel the stoppage of circulation, and
in Sydney the pinch is felt in the return of bills unpaid instead of the
good remittances and fresh orders which came by every post while the
industry of the interior was maintained.’
On the 30th of the same month the Globe, in drawing attention to the
deplorable condition of the agricultural portion of the population of
New South Wales, and to the fact that they could not compete against
the wheat which was being landed in Sydney from Bombay at 4s. ¿d.
per bushel, observes: ‘ With his hundred acres, his hut, his children
dressed in flour-bags, his crop mortgaged before it is ripe, his utter
hopelessness of any fair or satisfactory progress, or of emancipation
from the debt which was bound around his neck on the day he settled
on the soil, is not the settler ground almost to death in the cruel mill of
competition ? ’
To that part of Statement No. 2, where you say that, ‘ New South
Wales, as compared with other, and even the neighbouring colonies,
possesses special advantages and attractions for the agricultural settler,’
I take exception ; and likewise to your remark that ‘ more than onethird of the population of New South Wales is resident in Sydney and
its suburbs, consequently, the remainder of the colony is comparatively
thinly populated.’ The first of these two statements is inaccurate, and
the second is misleading. New South Wales does not possess any
‘ special advantages and attractions for the agricultural settler ’ over
Victoria. Her bad land laws, together with the droughts and outside
r
�6
j
,
competition, combine to make it difficult for the small farmers and
settlers to live on the land, and to drive them into the towns. This is why
one-third of the whole population is, unfortunately, to be found in
Sydney and its suburbs. The area of New South Wales is 310,938
square miles, or 199,000,000 acres ; that of Victoria 87,884 square miles,
or 56,245,760 acres. Notwithstanding her vast area, New South Wales
has a somewhat smaller population than Victoria, and has only 852,017
acres under cultivation ; whereas Victoria, although nearly three-and-ahalf times smaller, has no less than 2,323,496 acres under cultivation,
i.e., 1,471,479 acres more than the mother colony, which has twice the
age of Victoria. In 1884 Victoria produced 10,967,088 more bushels of
wheat, oats, and barley than New South Wales. These few significant
figures do not, I think, indicate that New South Wales possesses, at
present, any ‘ special advantages and attractions for the agricultural
settler ’ over her Victorian neighbour, at least.
ARTISANS AND MECHANICS.
Since my arrival in this country I have received reports from nearly
every handicraft exercised in the Colony, which shows that almost every
branch of industry, and especially the building trade, is in a terribly
depressed state, as the following summary shows.
CARPENTERS and JOINERS.—Mr. Francis Willes, Secretary,
N.S.W. Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, in a letter
dated Sydney, June nth says: ‘the state of this trade is very dull, a
great number being out of work.’ A report from Mr. J. C. Simpson,
Secretary, Sydney Progressive Society of Carpenters and Joiners, dated
June 9th, states : ‘This society is of opinion that state-assisted immi
gration should cease ; and we would warn all mechanics from coming
to this colony, as trade is very bad and may remain so for some con
siderable time yet.’ These reports are more than confirmed by the
Sydney press, which shows that instead of improving, this trade has
become still worse. The Sydney Morning Herald of the 19th of August,
states: ‘ For some considerable time past the building trade has been
unusually slack, and, in consequence, many carpenters and joiners have
been thrown out of employment, so much so that about a fortnight ago
it was deemed necessary to call a meeting of the unemployed carpenters
and joiners to consider what was to be done. At the meeting a
committee was appointed to wait upon the Hon. the Minister for Works
to ascertain if any Government works could be commenced to absorb
the unemployed labour. After considerable agitation and many inter
views it was announced that employment would be found for fifty
carpenters and joiners under the Railway Department, but upwards of
300 have given in their names as out of work and needing employment.
The fifty men required were drafted out on Monday, but the list of
names requiring work had considerably increased, and on Tuesday after
noon it was decided to hold another meeting at the usual place, the
statue at the top of King Street. At the time of meeting between 300
and 400 persons had assembled. Mr. Thomas Symons, Secretary of
the Trades and Labour Council addressed the meeting. It was decided
to appoint a Committee to again interview the Minister for Works, to
endeavour to urge upon him the necessity of opening up other public
works, so that work can be obtained by the unemployed carpenters and
joiners. It was stated that many of the unemployed had been from two
�7
to four months out of work, and consequently, much distress prevailed
amongst them.’ The Sydney Globe, of the 21st of August states, ‘ Mr.
O’Sullivan, M.L.A., to-day introduced a deputation of unemployed
Carpenters to the Minister for Works, requesting him to give them work.
Mr. Thomas Symons, having stated the case of the men, showing that
there were still, nearly 400 carpenters out of work and in distress ; Mr.
Lyne, the Minister for Works, said that he had already strained his
department, to find work for fifty of their number, and he could not find
work for more till some of the railway lines were adopted. They would
then get work on the permanent way and bridges. Till then he would
endeavour to get them employment at roadmaking.’
STONEMASONS.—Numbers of the hands in this trade are out of
work, which is largely owing to the extensive importation of dressed
stone from Victoria and elsewhere ; in consequence of which the Sydney
Globe, of the 24th August last, states: ‘ that the Government has pro
mised to use native stone wherever possible, and to place a duty on the
imported stone.’
BRICKMAKERS.—Messrs. A. Boot, President, and J. Cook, Secre
tary, of the N.S.W. Brickmakers, Brickmakers’ Labourers, and Pipe
makers’ Union, state: ‘so far as the Labour market in our trade is
concerned, we are sorry to say that it is now very much overstocked,
hundreds of our men are now walking about the streets of Sydney.’
Most of the brickyards in the Colony work eight hours per day, but the
larger yards having refused to recognise the eight hours’ principle, the
brickmakers there have gone on strike, their action being supported by
all the other trades. It is hoped by the reduction of the hours of labour
of those employed, the over production will cease, and work will be
provided for the unemployed brickmakers. Large quantities of bricks
are being offered at £■$ per thousand.
Thus it will be seen that your statements that ‘ there are some
openings in the building trades and for railway and agricultural
labourers ’ is glaringly inaccurate. A precisely similar state of things
exists inmost of the other leading trades included in your list of average
wages, as a cursory glance at their condition will suffice to prove.
IRON TRADE.—A Special Committee of the New South Wales
Engineering Association appointed to inquire into the state of the iron
trade in the colony reported on the 30th of June last to the effect that
the trade throughout all its branches was in a thoroughly depressed
state ; and ‘ that there. was not a single factory which employed more
than one tenth of the workmen which the establishment was capable of
accommodating, to say nothing of the vast amount of expensive plant
lying idle, whilst a large number of firms had had to stop their engines,
there not being work enough to keep even the apprentices employed.’
In a report dated Lithgow, N.S.W., July 24th, Mr. H. S. Jones, Secre
tary of the Eskbank Ironworkers, reports that the puddlers, heaters,
shinglers, rollers and other hands at the Eskbank Works are only
working half-time, and that a large blast furnace, which was at work
four years ago, has since had to be blown out and pulled down for want of
work. There were formerly eight puddling furnaces at work here, but,
owing to the collapse of the iron trade, some of them have been pulled
down and the plates broken up. Mr. Jones concludes his report as
follows ;—‘ To any ironworkers who are thinking of coming out to this
■colony in the hope of obtaining employment in their trade, we would
�8
say be warned, be careful, we cannot hold out any hope of work whatso
ever.’
Another report from the New South Wales Friendly Society of
Ironmoulders, and signed by A. Hollis, President, W. Walker, Check
Steward, W. Jones, Secretary, and by all the members of the General
Committee of the Society, shows that a similar state of things exists in
the other provincial ironworks ; and it is stated that the Fitzroy Iron
works at Mittagong, are likely to be shut down this year for want of
work.
COACH MAKERS.—In a report dated Sydney, June gth, Mr. T.
Halliday, Secretary of the New South Wales Coachmakers’ Society,
says : ‘ This trade is at present in a very depressed state, one firm alone
having discharged thirty hands, and the greater number of factories are
only working half-time.’ This report is confirmed by the Sydney Globe
of August 28th, according to which a conference of the employers and
employed, in the coachmaking trade, met at the Foresters’ Hall, Sydney,
on the 27th of August, to consider the present depression. The same
paper stated that large numbers of men were out of work, and that the
trade was rapidly declining to utter ruin, hardly any of the factories
being more than mere repairing shops, and that such depression had
not been known for thirty years.
THE SADDLE, HARNESS, AND COLLAR MAKERS’Society of
New South Wales in a report dated Sydney, June 14th, and signed by
J. Cronin, President, W. S. Harper, Treasurer, and G. Stuart, Secre
tary, states: ‘ This particular trade is now and, in fact, has been for a
number of years past in a very depressed condition, owing mainly to
the great importations free of duty from England, the Continent of
Europe and elsewhere, which have the effect of glutting the markets
here, and underselling and driving the local manufacturers out of the
market, except in a few cases where the article cannot be imported.
The long-continued drought has played havoc, financially, with the
farmers and pastoralists of the colony who are the classes from whom
we derive the most support.’
BOOT AND SHOE MAKERS.—Mr. W. P. White, Secretary of the
New South Wales Amalgamated Operative Boot Trade Union writing
under date June 14th observes: ‘ During from four to six weeks of the
year men of this trade are idle from want of continuous employment,
and many hands are paid off in the various factories ; but this year it
has been greater than previously. The men are willing to leave the
trade when they can get a chance of turning their attention to other
things.’ This account is corroborated by an official report on the state
of this trade published in the Sydney Globe of the 24th of August last
under the heading ‘ Alarming Depression in the Boot Trade,’ in which
is given an account of the state of trade from no less than thirty of the
managers or proprietors of different boot and shoe factories in and
around Sydney. For obvious reasons the employers did not wish their
real names to appear in this ominous report, so their names were sup
pressed, and indicated by consecutive numbers. The following is a
summary of this report:—
No. 1. Very slack : closes on Friday until noon on Monday; has
done so for the last seven weeks.
No. 2. Very slack: closed from Thursday to Monday during the
last five weeks.
�9
No. 3. One of the largest m the colony. Has discharged a great
number of hands ; those retained work only seven hours per day for five
days, and are generally paid at 11 o’clock on Saturdays.
No. 4. Men engaged have not averaged two days per week for the
last six weeks.
No. 5. Discharged half the hands nine weeks ago; those retained
Work irregularly.
No. 6. Trade falling off ; factory closed two days last week.
No. 7. Usually employed ten makers and a number of finishers ; now
employ only two makers, whose average is not more than two days per
week for the last five weeks.
No. 8. Usually employed four makers and two finishers. This
factory closed for a week, then re-opened with one maker and one
finisher, the remainder being discharged.
No. 9. No cause for complaint.
No. 10. Has discharged one-third of employés ; those retained average
Only three days per week.
No. 11. Has been closed for the last twelve weeks, with the exception
Of a few apprentices and one man over them.
Nos. 12 and 13. Have been closed for the last three weeks.
No. 14. Has discharged several hands ; those retained work only at
intervals.
No. 15. Trade so slack that the whole of the employés with the
exception of three women’s workmen, were put off the whole of last
week.
No. 16. Very slack; discharged the majority of workmen; those
retained average two and a half to three days per week.
No. 17. Discharged half of hands five weeks ago; the remainder
working casually.
No. 18. Doing fairly well.
No. 19. Closed for the last five weeks.
No. 20. Very dull.
No. 21. Closed for the last ten weeks.
No. 22. Doing a fair trade.
No. 23. Very slack.
No. 24. The largest factory in the Colony. Closes at 1 o’clock on
Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and on Friday all
work has to be completed by 11'30 a.m.; pay is issued one hour later;
the factory is then closed until the following Monday. This system has
been in operation for the last three weeks. In this factory some of the
hands who have done exhibition work, that has taken first prizes, are
now making copper toes, and are doing other work usually done by
apprentices and lads.
No. 25. Discharged eighteen hands ; remainder doing limited work.
Most of weekly hands’ wages reduced, some to the extent of ten shillings
per week.
No. 26. Had but one full week during last eight weeks, the average
being three days per week.
No. 27. Trade very dull.
No. 28. Very dull; majority of employés walking about.
No. 29. Firm completely ruined. The whole of the plant was taken
and sold about six weeks ago.
This report further states that there a’re now between 600 and 700
�IO
boot and shoemakers out of work in Sydney alone; and that so deep
and wide spread is the misery amongst them, that numbers of them are
now blacking shoes and selling newspapers in the streets of Sydney, in
order to provide an honest crust for their starving wives and children.
COOPERS.—Messrs. John Strange, President: Henry McPhillips,
Secretary: John Quain, Treasurer, and five members of the Committee
of the N.S.W. Journeymen Coopers’ Society, in a report, dated from
Sydney in June last, after drawing a most gloomy picture of the de
pressed condition of the Coopers’ trade, states : ‘ In conclusion we would
strongly recommend our fellow countrymen in Great Britain and Ireland
to pause and consider before taking the important step of emigrating to
this country, at least, until they receive a more favourable report from
the trade. We hope that this report, will be the means of preventing
much misery and disappointment. There are hundreds here who would
be glad to return to England if they had the chance.’
WHEELWRIGHTS AND BLACKSMITHS.—Messrs W. M’Carty,
President, and G. B. James, Secretary, of the N.S.W. Amalgamated
Society of Wheelwrights and Blacksmiths, state: ‘An almost continuous
depression has existed in our trade for a period of two years, with very
little prospect of improvement. This state of things we attribute to a
recurrence of bad seasons in the pastoral and agricultural districts of
the Colony. The labour market is glutted owing to the influx of immi
grants.’
FARRIERS.—In a report dated Sydney, June nth, Mr. R. F. Bosden,
Secretary of the N.S.W. Journeymen Farriers’ Society, says: ‘The
trade is very brisk from November to April; from April to November it
is very dull. There are plenty of farriers out of work, and numbers of
apprentices finishing their time every week.’
PATTERN MAKERS.—In a letter to the New South Wales Trades
and Labour Council, dated Sydney, June 7th, Mr. E. W. McIntosh,
Secretary of the N.S.W. Branch of the Australasian Pattern Makers’
Society, says: ‘ In reply to your memorandum of the 3rd inst., in refer
ence to the departure of Mr. John Norton as Delegate from the Council
to England, I beg to state, for Mr. Norton’s information, that our trade
has been very dull for nearly two years, during which time very few
pattern makers can boast of constant work. State-assisted immigra
tion is strongljz protested against by our society.’
FURNITURE TRADE.—A report of the N.S.W. United Furniture
Trade Society, dated Sydney, June last, shows that this trade is at a
standstill in consequence of the competition of the Chinese, and the
wholesale importation of furniture from Europe and America.
COAL-MINERS. —Mr. James Curley, General Secretary of the
Hunter River Miners’ Mutual Protective Association, N.S.W., writes in
June last: ‘ Speaking of this (the Newcastle Mining district) it is
literally crammed with labour. The gradual influx of immigrants, from
time to time, has, at last, swamped the mining labour market. The
trade of the district is fully supplied with a surplus of 400 to 500 men.’
Mr. John Owens, Secretary of the Western Branch of the N.S.W.
Coal Miners’ Mutual Protective Association, writing on the 5th June
last, states : ‘ Trade is not brisk on account of their being too many
men. The opinion of this Association is that State-assisted immigration
is very undesirable, as the supply of labour in this district exceeds the
demand.’
�11
According to a report in the Sydney Globe of August 21st, two mines
at Captain’s Flat, Queanbey an, have recently been closed; and the
miners thus thrown out of work—who have not been paid for eight weeks,
—are in a state of semi-destitution. In answer to a petition signed by 100
of these miners, the Minister for Works has promised, if possible, to find
them employment at road making, and to pay them out of the fund for
the maintenance of the unemployed.
The same paper states that the Vale of Clwydd mine has stopped, the
manager having been instructed ‘ to stop work until further. orders.
The proprietors of the. Mount Keira and Mount Kembla collieries, in
the southern district of N.S.W., have recently given notice, to
reduce the miners’ wages after the nth ultimo. The whole of the coal
mining industry is in a very depressed state.
COAL TRIMMERS.—Mr. William Cremor, Secretary of the New
castle Coal Trimmers’ Provident Union, N.S.W., writing under date
June 7th, says : ‘ We have 150 members on the roll, and these are only
working half-time. At no time has the full number been employed.
There are too many workers for the amount of work to be done. The
mines are full, and every trade is more than full}7 supplied with labour.
Newcastle and the mining district could part with, at least, 1,000 men,
and leave but a moderate living for those remaining. In the present
circumstances, State-assisted emigration is a grievous wrong, doubly
inflicted; first, upon those who are already here, and, secondly, upon
those who are brought here. The majority of the new comers merely
gwell the ranks of the unemployed or help to reduce wages by accepting
lower rates, or, if attached to a Union, by further dividing the amount
of work to be done. At present we are making about 30s. per week.’
WHARF LABOURERS.—Mr. T. McKillop, President of the Sydney
Wharf Labourers’ Union, writing from Sydney under date, June nth,
says : ‘ I beg leave to say that the present mode of assisted immigration
is ruinous to the Colonies, as it tends to flood the labour market.’
This is very plain evidence that the New South Wales labour.market
in the above branches is in an absolutely congested state ; and it is the
same in nearly every other branch. Not one of the trades named in
your list of trades and average rates of wages can be said to be
prosperous. Both the agricultural and manufacturing industries in New
South Wales are stagnant. It is true that you make the rates quoted
apply to 1884, and state that they are subject to fluctuations, but the
depression was nearly as bad in 1884 as it is now, and the only fluctuation
has been from bad to worse. Even if the state of things in 1884 had
been appreciably better than it is now, I protest against the data of
1884 being made to apply to 1886, when, as I have shown, every branch
of industry is depressed, and large sections of the New South Wales
working-classes are suffering the acutest distress, many of them being
positively destitute.
GOLD-MINING.—There is a very erroneous and dangerous impres
sion abroad here, which has been fostered by the foolish statements of
persons who should know better, that if an artisan or agricultural
labourer, on arriving in the Colonies, cannot find work at his accus
tomed occupation, he can easily turn his attention to gold-mining.
Apart from the fact that the alluvial diggings, where individuals with
little or no capital formerly managed to gain a livelihood, are. now
exhausted, the more important fact that a man to succeed in mining
�12
must have extensive experience of the most hard and practical kind,
seems to be generally lost sight of here. The days of successful indi
vidual effort in gold-mining have long since passed away ; and what is
required now-a-days is special knowledge, long experience, and, above
all, capital. Mining m the Colonies has now entered on the scientific
stage; and, except in very rare instances, is only successful when pur
sued on an extensive scale, with large capital and under the direction of
experts.
The exciting stories about the wealth of the Kimberley gold fields, are,
for the most part, exaggerations, and even experienced miners should
await further information before joining in the ‘ rush.’ Over and over
again the Australian newspapers have warned the public against
rashly venturing into the Kimberley district, and have pointed out the
hardships and perils to be encountered on the way thither and on the
field itself. Travellers who have returned from Kimberley have warned
diggers not to venture in less numbers than parties of six, with, at least,
a couple of horses a-piece, and supplies for six months. Therefore, no
man should venture unless he has a small capital of between ^200 and
^300, to defray outfit, cost of supplies, expenses of transit by sea, journey
across country, and expenses of return journey in case of failure. Yet
in spite of multiplied warnings, hundreds have recklessly ventured, illequipped, and badly provided, with the result that many of them have
perished either by the spears of the blacks or have been “ bushed,” and
perished miserably of hunger and thirst; while others, who have escaped
these perils, have been unable to return, and have had to gain their
bread by working on the roads, or by sweeping the streets of Derby.
For an agricultural labourer or mechanic to go to the colonies with the
idea of gaining a livelihood, let alone a fortune at gold-mining, is sheer
insanity. There are thousands of experienced European miners and
swarms of Chinese on the spot, who are unable to make a living at it.
Your Publications concerning New South Wales are full of inaccu
racies and misleading statements too numerous to particularise at
greater length. This is not at all astonishing, seeing that you are
issuing old information no longer applicable to the colony. Your
publications appear to have been compiled from books and pamphlets
of the Agent-General, which have been proved over and over again,
both by the working-classes in New South Wales, and by returned
emigrants here in England, to be totally unreliable. The circulation of
such out-of-date and unreliable information appears all the more in
excusable that no effort appears to have been made to revise it. On
behalf of those whom I represent, I have to complain that sources of
the most reliable and complete information concerning the present state
of the Labour Market in New South Wales have been ignored.
Towards the end of last Session, Mr. Burt, the member for Morpeth,
presented three petitions to Parliament against State-assisted-immigration to New South Wales (1) from the Trades’ and Labour Council; (2)
from the Democratic Alliance ; and (3) from the Federated Seamen’s
Union, of that colony. All three of these petitions were nearly identical
in tenor and text; and from one of them 1 quote the second clause :—
‘ That whereas there has been a dearth of employment for skilled
‘ artisans and general labourers during the past few years, the Govern‘ ment has continued to pour into the country shiploads of immigrants
‘ for whom no work could be found. Thousands of skilled artisans,
�* enticed out to this country by fallacious promises of constant employ‘ ment at high wages, have been compelled to accept work as navvies
‘ on the relief works started by the Government of New South
‘ Wales, for the relief of the distress caused by the surplus labour
1 created by the system of State-assisted immigration.
During
‘ the last three or four years the numbers of the unemployed
‘ have increased every year, until this year they may be numbered in
‘ thousands. Last year hundreds of skilled artisans were walking the
‘ streets of Sydney without employment, or food or shelter. They were
' found by hundreds sleeping in the public streets and gardens, until, in
‘ deference to a strong public agitation which took place, the Govern‘ ment was compelled to provide them with temporary shelter, together
‘ with one blanket each, with bread and cheese to keep them from
‘ starving. Relief works had then to be started in order to grapple with
‘ the difficulty. The same state of things has occurred again this year.
‘ Large meetings of the unemployed have been held in Sydney ; the
• Government have been compelled to start relief works anew, and to
‘ establish a Special Government Bureau for dispersing the unemployed
‘ workmen throughout the colony by means of free railway passes which
‘ have been issued in thousands to the unemployed. The men thus
‘ supplied with free railway passes instead of finding employment, have
‘ been compelled to tramp up and down the country in search of work,
‘ suffering greatly from exposure and hunger, and finally forced to accept
‘ work at pauper wages at roadmaking, bush-clearing, stone breaking on
‘ Government Relief Works.’
These petitions, containing such startling information, do not
appear to have been deemed worthy of notice, as you make no
reference to them, although they have been frequently referred
to and quoted in the London and Provincial press.
In like
manner the Official Report of the Third Inter-Colonial Trades’ Union
Congress of Australasia, which met in Sydney in October last year, has
been ignored, although it contains the most full and reliable information
as to the state of the whole Labour Market of all the Australasian
Colonies. But apart from these sources of information—than which
none could be more trustworthy—the statements concerning the depres
sion actually existing in the Labour Market of New South Wales with
which the newspapers of that Colony are full, have not been even noticed
by you. None of the above newspaper extracts, which are taken from the
files of the Sydney papers received by the two last mails, have been pub
lished by you. Neither have my reiterated warnings to intending emigrants,
both in the press, and at public meetings, not to venture to New South
Wales during the present crisis; nor has the statement recently made by
Sir Patrick Jennings, the Premier of the Colony, to the effect that in
consequence of the general depression, the deficit this year would pro
bably amount to ¿"2,000,000 sterling, recommended itself to
your notice.
Had the latest files of the Sydney papers been
consulted such distressing accounts as the following, taken from
the Sydney Globe, of the 23rd of August last, would, perhaps, have in
duced you to considerably modify some of your statements with regard
to New South Wales :
‘THE UNEMPLOYED IN MELBOURNE,
It is now clearly manifest, consist in a great measure, of men
�who have recently arrived in that city from poverty-stricken South
Australia.
On the other hand, the unemployed in Sydney are a
solid substantial fact, and an overwhelming majority of their number
■consists of men who have been identified with Sydney for years.
During the past six months more than 6,000 unemployed
persons have been provided for by the Government either at the
Rookwood, Little Bay, Middle Harbour, Field of Mars, and other
■camps, or by granting them free passes to country districts. The Supply
Bill now brought before Parliament contains the item of £25,000 for the
unemployed, and no amount of sophistry will rub this fact out. The
■expenditure for the unemployed is still going on, and it will probably
total £50,000 before the end is reached. In addition to all this we
have nearly 400 carpenters asking the Minister for Works to give
them work; Coachmakers in destitution and distress ; something
like 5,000 Ironworkers who have only partial employment; while
Saddlemakers, Bootmakers and other indoor workers, are bitterly com
plaining of the hard times and scarcity of work.’
From the same source could have been learned the fact that private charity
is being invoked on every hand to alleviate the widespread misery and
■destitution among the working-classes of New South Wales, and that in
Sydney, as in London,
NIGHT REFUGES AND SOUP KITCHENS.
find more than their legitimate share of hunger and starvation to relieve.
According to the Report presented to the igth Annual Meeting of the
City Night Refuge and Soup Kitchen Charity held in Sydney on the 1st
of last month, when Sir Alfred Stephen, the Lieutenant-Governor of the
Colony, occupied the chair: ‘ It was shown that the number of meals
given away during the past twelve months was 65,685 ; and that shelter
for the night had been afforded in 25,851 instances.’
Unless such information as this is taken into consideration and given
its due weight by you when compiling and authorising the issue of your
■official circulars respecting the state of the labour market of New South
Wales, the utility of such an organisation as that which you control is
utterly destroyed. If such information as I have now placed before you
•can be legitimately ignored, I respectfully submit that the public have
been entirely misled concerning the nature of your functions ; and that
instead of being an organisation for disseminating trustworthy informa
tion concerning Her Majesty’s Colonies, the action of the Government
Emigrants’ Information Office is rather calculated to have the effect of
■shifting the burden of the social evils of this country on to the young
and struggling communities abroad, amongst which, as in the case of
New South Wales, dire distress and deep destitution already exist.
At the very outset of its career the Emigrants’ Information Office
begins by creating doubt as to the thorough reliability of the information
it issues. At the head of all its broad-sheets, hand-books, and pam
phlets it is stated that ‘ this office has been established for the purpose
of supplying intending emigrants with useful and trustworthy informa
tion respecting the British colonies . . . but that the committee of
management cannot undertake to hold themselves responsible for the
absolute correctness of every detail.’ Now this would, perhaps, be all
very well if those portions of the information, the correctness of which
the committee do not undertake to guarantee, were plainly indicated ;
»■V .v'S'"
�i5
but, as it is, the euquirer does not know what is reliable and what is not,
and thus the value of the whole is utterly destroyed. I take it that the,
money of the British taxpayer ought not to be spent in disseminating
one tittle of information calculated to promote emigration that cannot be
relied upon ; and the correctness of the information supplied by this
Government office ought to be guaranteed, or the information not issued
at all.
In the name of the working classes of New South Wales, I have to
enter a most emphatic protest against the careless manner in which the
business of the Government Emigrants’ Information Office is being
carried on. I respectfully suggest that the circulation of the publications
respecting New South Wales, now being issued by you, should be at
once stopped ; and that until they have been thoroughly revised, and made
to give a more correct account of the state of the labour market in that
colony, no further issue of them should be authorised.
I have the honour to be, Gentlemen,
Your obedient Servant,
JOHN NORTON,
New South Wales Labour Delegate.
.A
oxid ai
byJIlhv. ’
51
0 Oxfit jbms
3ilT
i .A .11 wl, .aoJBta botrnU
i.0 1TOJ1
10T fbi /.
i 291'8 HO
; di .lb...
xbbA gninoq
bid 9X11
/. .H y«T
. I 1 Juj/ j
>
iij ai ^¡¡¡T
�Wage-Labour and Capital. From the German of
Karl Marx translated by J. L. Joynes and reprinted from Justice.
New and cheaper edition, Royal 8-vo., price id.
By Edward Carpenter.—Social Progress and Indi
vidual Effort; Desirable Mansions ; and Co-operative Production.
One penny each.
The Man with the Red Flag : Being John Burns’
Speech at the Old Bailey, when tried for Seditious Conspiracy, on
April 9th, 1886. (From the Verbatim Notes of the official short
hand reporter.) With Portrait. Price threepence.
The Socialist Catechism. By J. L. Joynes. Reprinted
with additions from Justice.
Demy 8-vo., price id. 20th thousand.
Socialism and Slavery. By H. M. Hyndman,
(in
reply to Mr. Herbert Spencer’s article on “The Coming Slavery.”)
New Edition, with portrait. 16 pp. Royal 8-vo., price one penny.
The Emigration Fraud Exposed.
By H.
M.
Hyndman. With a Portrait of the Author. Reprinted by per
mission from the Nineteenth
for February, 1885. Crown 8-vo.
price one penny.
What an Eight Hours Bill Means.
By T. Mann
(Amalgamated Engineers). New edition with portrait.
Thousand. Price one penny.
Sixth
Socialism versus Smithism: An open letter from
H. M. Hyndman to Samuel Smith, M.P. for Liverpool.
8-vo. Cheaper edition, price id.
Socialism and the Worker.
Price id.
By F.
A.
Crown
Some.
An explanation in the simplest language of tne main idea of Socialism.
The Chicago Riots and the Class War in the
United States. By H. M. Hyndman. Reprinted
from Time, June, 1886.
Price one penny.
International Trade Union Congress, held at Paris,
August, 1886. Report by Adolphe Smith.
Price Three-Halfpence.
24-pp., Royal 8-vo’.
John E. Williams, and the Early History of
THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC FEDERATION.
trait. Price one penny.
With Por
Opening Address to the Trade Union Congress
at Southport, September, 1885. Delivered by T. R. Threlfall. Royal
8-vo., 16-pp. Price one penny.
An able address from a representative working man on political and social topics.
The Historical Basis of Socialism in England.
By H. M. Hyndman.
Paul, Trench, & Co.
Crown 8-vo., price 8s. 6a
London: Kegan
This is the only Book in the English Language which gives the Historical and
Economical Theories of Organised Socialism. It should be carefully studied by all who
desire to understand why Socialists are enthusiastic for their cause, and confident of
uccess in the near future.
�
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 Australian labour market: startling disclosures
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Norton, John
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15, [1] p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: Publisher's list on preliminary page, Other works on socialism listed on unnumbered back page. Title page beneath author has text: 'Distress and destitution in New South Wales - Pauper Relief works & soup kitchens - Bogus 'emigrants' information office'.
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
1886
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4970
Subject
The topic of the resource
Australia
Socialism
Labour
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 (The Australian labour market: startling disclosures), 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
Australia
Labour and labouring classes
Poverty
Socialism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e5c2a3922b617556a31888853752a123.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=LmjYXCEOTwRCUgAszIuWKiXq0zWRSZicf-9LIP8L0rBP%7E3RWrSSsawzyZgJxyHopebbFuX01JjAgcQ0l5j0zSxB9xJOc0JAjMJ5NnrU9l1VBm7nzlwjeLI7Caekta3AIG9tvQ1RglZvhHGK7cRUJ0Z7eZPu-dBVJTujPkULCmxtrscqdGCnN--oqYdq-v%7EITdfvrQlUOUi7BoDDRZG-B7-UO3xikuHbP4O6UCizg4eLcwr0UBlZyX-EuvGM3desI6DnZvNwJEzRw-5kBMLooTQc-GZtD2qQCud4DSnRZrnY0wJXIzysLyK1yZUyBiUoRk5jUKYHLnvz7grbg-kxqQw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
52df4843d47b0a2291e8dd6ce867f2b5
PDF Text
Text
{PrWeTh ree-Halfpence.
REPORT
OF THE
International Trades Union Congress,
Held at PARIS from August 23rd to 28th, 1886.
By ADOLPHE SMITH, Interpreter at the Congress.
a Secretaries of Trade Societies will be supplied with copies at the rate of One Penny each.
INTRODUCTION.
A few words concerning the general
i;ondition of the working classes in France
s indispensable to the true understanding
>f the forthcoming report. English worknen, before venturing on any comparison
>etween themselves and their French
irethren, must first realise the immense
lifference in the political and economical
:ondition of the two countries. Econonically, England was the first to benefit
>V the application of steam for the manuacture of goods and for the purposes of
ransit. We soon almost monopolized
he carrying trade of the world ; and
rlfcvhen in “ the forties ” it seemed that our
prosperity was on the wane, the discovery
f)f rich gold fields in California and Aus
tralia gave our commerce a new lease of
oKife. ’ It is only of recent years that con
tinental countries are commencing to
overtake us in the start we had oblilained.
Politically, our revolution preceded that
tof France by a hundred and forty years ;
find whatever may have been the special
jippression from which our Trades Unions
iftuffered at the commencement of this ceniKury, the freedom of speech and coalition
rftvhich English workmen have enjoyed,
;ior more than a generation, is unparalleled
In the Continent. But, apart from this
inestimable boon, English organizations
have not been continually shattered by
foreign invasions, nor is the English arti
san torn from his trade and his so
ciety by the necessity of serving in
the ranks of the army. In France, on
the contrary, with but very rare excep
tions, every able-bodied man must serve
his time in the regular army and the re
serve. Under such circumstances, organi
zation is particularly difficult.
Nor
have the French working classes had any
opportunity of contracting those orderly
and business-like habits which arise from
unrestricted exercise of free speech and
free association. The law, March 14th,
1873, against any form of International
association is still in force; and it was
only in 1876 that a small French Congress
of workmen was tolerated. In 1878 Mr.
George Shipton and some fellow English
Trades’ Unionists went over to Paris to
hold a congress with French workmen.
The meeting-room was occupied by police,
the English were sent away, and the
French workmen seized and thrown into
prison. Little by little, however, more
tolerance has been shown ; English dele
gates were allowed to address French
meetings in 1882 ; and, in 1883, a Confer
ence of English, Spanish, Italian, and
�2
French representatives was held in Paris.
The presence of the English Trades
Unionists, and notably of a member of
the English Parliament, Mr. H. Broad
hurst, rendered it rather difficult for the
French police to interfere; and thus a
precedent was established, so that this
year it was possible to open the doors of
the congress to all nations without in
curring any very great danger.
If these circumstances are taken into
account, together with the peculiar cha
racteristics of the French people, who,
under the influence of a generous idea
will enthusiastically make the greatest
sacrifices, but who are not so capable as the
Northern races of steady and dreary con
tinuous effort, it will be easily understood
why French Trades Unions are weak in
funds and in discipline. It is, therefore,
easier to rouse them to action for the rea
lization of some vast political scheme,
than to obtain their steady adherence to
the petty details of every day business.
Thus the French Trades Unions, so far
as their existence was allowed by the
police, soon came to the conclusion that
it was necessary to form a Workman’s
Party, which should defend solely the
cause of labour, and would alike eschew
all connection with Conservatives, Libe
rals or Radicals.
The example of the
United States of America, where every
plank of the Radical platform has been
carried, sufficed to show that where the
cause of labour, as against capital, is at
stake, all middle class political parties are
equally to be considered as adversaries.
Acting on this principle, the Work
man’s Party, composed in the main of
Trades Unions, or Charr.bres Syndicales
Ouvrieres, as they are called in France,
descended into the political arena, and
commenced by contesting municipal elec
tions. In 1881 they obtained in Paris in
all 11,873 votes. A division now arose in
the ranks, and a small body, following the
lead of M. Guesde, severed their connec
tion from the parent society, whom they
called in derision the Possibilists.
It
naturally followed that the Guesdists were
in their turn called the Impossibilists.
In 1884 the Possibilists had so far in
creased' their power that they obtained
33,604 votes, while the Guesdists secured
only 867 votes. The Blanquists, another
faction, polled 3,214 votes. Since then
the latter two bodies have run their can- 4
didates in conjunction with the Radicals, f
so that it is no longer possible to estimate
their respective strength. Roughly Speaking, the Possibilists command some’®
40,000 votes m Paris, and therefore hold k.
the balance of power between the two g
middle class parties, the Radicals and the
Opportunists. The Possibilists have se- E
cured the return of M. Chabert and M. ’
Joffrin to the Municipal Council; and, by k
their assistance, obtained many enact- m
ments greatly to the advantage of alllH
working classes.
These may briefly be summarized as fc
follows : In all work done for the town, ap
tariff has been established which serves &
as a model to private firms, and main- $
tains a higher rate of wages. In many in- id
stances contracts for work have been given
over direct to the Trades Unions without ^
the intervention of any contractor or)l$
middle man, so that whatever the com-ife
munity paid went direct to those whoifei
actually did the work.
Educational facilities, elementary and b
technical, have also much increased, andik
with regard to the metropolitan railway
which is going to be built for Paris, M. SI
Joffrin obtained the enforcement of nineite
hours as the day’s work, after havindt
failed to secure eight hours as the limit. K
He further introduced a stipulation to thehi
effect that no railway servant should bapr
discharged from his employment without!
being first judged and convicted by alb
jury of hisshopmates or equals. Unforlfe
tunately it would take too long to enume-i®
rate all that the Workman’s Party hadfe
done by its influence on local legislature! te
both in Paris and in the provinces. Safe
great is this influence that the Paris Muni-ju
cipality was prevailed upon to send ^4000.
to the miners on strike at Decazeville, andfe>
many provincial municipalities voteci •
funds to enable workmen to attend at th®®;
International Workman’s Exhibition andL
Congress of Paris. Indeed, the exhibitiorw
itself is a palpable manifestation of the pracfc
tical results accruing from the organize A?
action of the French workers. The sub-fti
ventions given by the Paris Municipality
for this purpose amounted in all to /’6,ooofet
Alluding to the visit which the English
Trades Union delegates paid to this exit;
hibition, the London Times, of August^
24th, states :—
I
�They were considerably impressed by the highly
artistic merits of some of the exhibits, notably the
i painting on porcelain, some cabinet-makers’ work,
and the bronze chasing. Fears were expressed
that those workmen who had made new inventions
1 were not sufficiently protected, and that their ideas
fl would probably be stolen. Others argued that the
3 ordinary articles of commerce were not sufficiently
i exhibited ; but to this it was replied that, if the
j difficult and rare work would be done, there was
i no doubt but that the commoner products could
* with still greater facility be shown. This does not
| follow. . The French workmen evidently intend
i the exhibition to demonstrate that organised trade
I corporations, with the support of a democratic
3 State or municipality, can supply the wants of the
j community without the intervention of the ordinary
a contractor, employer or middleman. For this
ipurpose.it would have been better to place before
i the public objects of every day usefulness, and prove
I that where the workman was better paid the pur
chaser would be better and more cheaply served by
presorting to the municipal emporium instead of
^patronising private shops and individual enterprise
3
The first was held in 1876 at Paris, in
1878 at Lyons, and afterwards at
Marseilles, Havre, St. Etienne, Rennes,
Paris. As the central link of union for
all this organisation, a National Commit
tee is elected every year.
It meets at
No. 58, Rue Greneta, where it also issues
the official organ of the party, the
Proletariat. This newspaper is the collec
tive property of the party and is in no
wise a financial speculation.
It is the
only absolutely independent workman’s
organ in Paris, but there are similar
publications in the provinces.
The Workman’s Party consists, in the
first instance, of the vast majority of
Trades Unions ; then of workmen’s clubs
or societies generally called Cercles
d Etudes Sociales.
These latter are
purely political societies meeting at regu
| The force of this criticism is dulv
lar intervals to discuss politics bearing on
(appreciated by the French workmen, and
the rights of labour.
The members
|the same fault will not, we are promised,
belong to all trades and all conditions of
ibe found in 1889. The great fact remains
life, but the immense majority are work
ithat the municipality opened the public
men ; and, one and all, strive for the com
apurse to the federation of 74 Trades
plete emancipation of labour which, they
lUnions.
These societies organised the
maintain, can only be brought about when
^exhibition, the community providing the
the worker is himself the owner of the
ijraw material and the capital; the workmeans of production and exchange.
qmen did the rest, but they excluded all
The Exhibition, however, and the
who having societies in their trade did
International Congress, (so as to secure
i|iot
belong to them.
Co-operative
the Municipal Subvention which, of
Societies who obtained assistance by pay
course, would not have been given to a
ing wages were also rejected as traitors to
political party) was organised solely by
the cause. By the employment of wage
the Trade Union element of the party,
labour such societies converted them
federated especially for the purpose of the
selves into mere joint stock companies ;
Exhibition and the Congress. Seventyihnd the so-called co-operators became
four Parisian Trades Unions joined
ijlividend-hunting shareholders. There are
together for this double object, the Exhibi
twenty co-operative societies in Paris but
tion and the Congress, and it was their
ljinly two out of them were deemed worthy
special Executive Committee that sent
do participate in the exhibition, the rest
out the invitation for the Congress, Had
shaving been proved guilty of exploiting
the matter been managed by the National
labour by paying wages.
Committee of the whole party, as it was
i In conclusion, it still remains for me to
done in 1883, men of far greater experi
ixplain the exact constitution of the
ence and ability would have assisted in
Workman’s Party. Its official title is La
the work, and the result would doubtless
federation des Travailleurs Socialists de
have been more satisfactory.
But then
rance. The federation is brought about, the moral approbation or patronage of the
rst by annual congresses held in each of
Paris Municipal Council would not have
ie six districts into which France and
been secured and the delegates would
Algeria have been divided for this pur
have incurred a far greater danger of
pose. These districts are called Regions
encountering the police who might
>|nd each has its Regional Commitee.
have invoked against them the law for
Thus Parisian affairs are managed by the
bidding the International. In 1889 it is
committee of the Central Region. Then
anticipated France will acquire greater
flvery year there is a National Congress.
liberties.
The same precautions will
�4
not be necessary, and therefore the Con
gress voted that the Workman’s Party
should organise the International Congress
for that year, and we may therefore anti
cipate a much larger and more success
ful gathering.
These explanations though incomplete,
for volumes could be written on the organ
isation and development of the French
proletariat, will, I trust, facilitate the
understanding of the events that are daily
occurring in France. It will be easier to
appreciate the men and ideas with which
the English delegates came in contact
and the organisation with which future
relations may be established.
Adolphe Smith.
lunched in company with several foreign, pro
vincial, and Parisian delegates, and were
offered liqueurs specially concocted by the Distillators Trade Union. One was called the
Scottish Liqueur and the other La Sociale;
but both were like Chartreuse, though the
latter was decidedly the best.
At six o’clock several members of the Na
tional Committee waited at the Hotel d’Es
pagne to return the visit they had received
from the English delegates the previous day.
Mr. Harford gracefully complimented the
visitors, and M. Chabert, Municipal Council
lor, elected by the Workman’s Party, replied.
Some conversation took place, as to the func
tions of the Conseil de Prud’hommes, of
which M. Soens, one of the visitors, is a mem
ber elect, with imperative mandate from the
Workman’s Party.
FIRST DAY, Monday, August
On Sunday morning, August the 22nd, all
the English delegates were united together at
the Hotel d’Espagne, Cite Bergere, where
special arrangement had been made for them.
Some had arrived on the Friday, others on
Saturday, and the last delegate on Sunday
morning. It was then determined to render
an official visit to the National Committee of
the French Workman’s Party, who were then
sitting at No. 58, rue Greneta. The English
delegation was timed to arrive just when the
Committee would have completed its usual
business. The exchange of compliments and
salutations was very cordial, the English dele
gates being anxious to recall the good recep
tion they had received in 1883 at the Confer
ence organized by the Committee.
In the afternoon the Trades Unions of Paris
were holding a delegate meeting in a large
lecture room of the Arts et Metiers School and
Museum, and here also the English delegates
proceeded in a body. The Times corres
pondent thus described the visit;—After two hours’ debate, and precisely at the appointed
time, a large folding door was thrown open, and a loud voice
announced the approach of the English delegates. The
Frenchmen at once rose to their feet and gave a hearty
English hurrah. Mr. John Burnett responded. He re
marked that it had been said the Conference of 1883 did
little good. It seemed to him, however, that seed had then
been sown which was now germinating. The splendid meet
ing of to-day was a living testimony of improved organiza
tion and increased strength. Nations, like individuals, felt
that alone they were powerless. The emancipation of the
working classes could only be the result of international and
united effort. These remarks were greeted with a vigorous
clapping of hands.”
Some discussion ensued as to the mode of
business for the Congress, and the time of
meeting, after which the English delegation
withdrew, not without first expressing great
satisfaction at the hearty reception they had
received, particularly as it proved increased
powers of organization among the French
Trades Unionists.
On Monday morning the English delegates
visited the Workmen’s Exhibition, where they
23RD.
At 8 p.m. the delegates began to assemble '
m the Salle de la Redoute, 35 rue Jean Jacques :
Rousseau, a hall capable of holding about a ;
thousand people, and which for a long time j!
has been the head-quarters of the Paris Free- ;
masons of the Scottish rite. The hall was lit I
with gas manufactured on the spot by one of j
the French delegates, according to a new process, and decorated with red flags, busts of f
the Republic, Phrygian liberty caps and a few .
foreign flags, notably the Union Jack. ThefS
French flag was, however, carefully andjh
rigorously excluded. It would have implied a p
certain amount of Jingo and patriotic feeling Is
against which the working classes are always Si
ready to protest. A tricolour flag might have p
caused many expressions of dissatisfaction,]^
but all would cheer the international banner R.
of the proletariat, the Red Flag.
It was not much before nine o’clock wheq]p
the “ bureau ” was constituted. This mean! m
the election of Mr. John Burnett as honorargp
President, M. Chabert, municipal councillor!E
as effective President, two “ accessors,” or twqwi
assistants, and two secretaries.
M. Herbinet read out the roll call, consisting”
of 76 Parisian, 27 provincial, and 15 foreigqr:
trades societies or federations who had senfe
delegates, each delegate answering as th®’1
name of his society was called out.
M. Dumay proposed that the various com|‘"
missions should meet in the day, and Mf&
Andrieux read the minutes of yesterday’j1™'
preparatory meeting as likely to be of interest^
to the Congress.
U
M. Herbinet, as Secretary for Foreign Re Itl
lations, read a letter from Herr Leo, thl tea
Secretary for Abroad, of the German Social JKk
Democratic party, stating that the Anti Mi
Socialist law did not render it possible to seni
a delegate direct from Germany, but tha
Herr Grimpe would speak on their behal
Another letter from the Federation of th '
�Trades of Zurich, demanded that every effort
should be made to encourage the Swiss Govern
ment in pushing forward its negotiation with
with foreign powers for the conclusion of in
ternational treaties on labour questions. This
letter professing to speak in the name of 12,000
Swiss workmen, further called upon the Con
gress to take measures likely to check over-pro
duction, and suggested the necessity of Inter
national Labour Statistics. M. Herbinet
also read two approbatory letters one from
Lyons and the other from Doue.
It was then my pleasant duty to give a sum
mary in French of the various letters I had
received from different English trades unions:—
the Ironfounders’ Society, the Scottish Typo
graphical Association, the Hyde and District
Weavers’ Association, the Northern AmalgaImated Association of Weavers, the Operative
^Stonemasons’ Society, the Leeds Trades’
(Council, the Leicester Trades’ Council, the
(Durham Miners' Association, the Amalga
mated Society of Tailors, the Barrow-in- Fur
ness Trades’ Council, the Amalgamated
1 Society of Railway Servants for Scotland, the
•Society of Operative Plasterers, the Asso
ciated Shipwrights’ Society, the Glasgow
^United Trades’ Council, and the Operative
(Bricklayers’ Society, all expressing sympathy,
iwith the object of the Congress. Some re
gretted that the depression in trade prevented
■ their sending delegates, all expressed hopes
(for success.
I Some societies, notably the Hull Trades’
^Council and the Aberdeen Trades’ Council,
(sent special resolutions giving at considerable
(length expression to their cordial feelings, and
|Mr. Harland, of the National Society of Lithoigraphic Artists, etc., wrote an admirable letter
fin French precognising the international
^federation of kindred trades. The London
bailors’ and Machinists’ Society sent a reso
lution concluding with their assurance to
•!“ their comrades of all nations of their
^sympathy with the international efforts
((which are being made to abolish the
^system of wage-slavery, and pledge them
selves to do all in their power to assist
i|to place in the hands of the workers the
scomplete control of the means of production,
^without which it is impossible to bring about
qthe true emancipation of labour.” This and
^another resolution, written in the same sense,
land signed by fifteen members belonging to
imine different London branches of the Amal
gamated Engineers’ Society, elicited loud
[^applause from the Congress.
, I then concluded by describing the repre
sentative character of the seven English dele
gates present, namely:—
; Mr. James Mawdsley, for the Trades’
^Union Congress Parliamentary Committee.
Mr. John Burnett, for the Amalgamated
1 Engineers.
Mr. C. J. Drummond and Mr. Wm. Jones
for the London Trades’ Council.
Mr. Edward Harford, for the Amalgamated
Society of Railway Servants.
Mr. J. Galbraith, for the London Society
of Compositors.
Mr. Edward Trow for the Steel and Iron
Workers.
These explanations terminated, the Congress
were invited to discuss Question IV., so as to
give more time to the Commissions to prepare
their reports on the previous questions, and
M. Ed. Anseele was invited to describe the
“ economic and political situation of the
working classes ” in Belgium.
M. Anseele said he could photograph the
position of his country in a sentence : If he
were not a Socialist he would be ashamed to
be a Belgian. (Applause.) Even Russian
women and the wives of barbarians were
better protected than the women and children
of Belgium. Our political position is nil.
Though there are 5,000,000 inhabitants in
Belgium there are only 80,000 electors, and
these we must reduce to 30,000 independent
electors, for the remaining 50,000 are under
the thumb of their employers and dare not
vote according to their convictions and in
terests. The miners who, a few miles over
the French frontier, earn 3s. 3d. a day, only
make is. 6d. a day in Belgium. He had known
men work 500 yards below the surface of the
earth for gd. a day. The Government had
instituted an official inquiry and the facts re
vealed would constitute a terrible indictment
of the governing classes. Evidence had been
adduced to prove that some girls were at times
obliged to descend in the coal mines at four
in the morning and came up at eleven at
night; and, for this toil of nineteen hours,
only received eighteen pence! Then when
they were not at work in the mines, they too
often served as servants and worse. The
quarry men earned from is. 6d. to 2s. 6d. per
day in the Walloon districts, but in Flanders
matters were even more sombre. Flanders was
the Ireland of Belgium, the labourers did not
receive more than ten or eleven pence per
day; the weavers, 5s. to 6s. a week. (Loud
cries of “Shame.”) “I do not exaggerate, I
swear that what I say is true : we workmen
find no pleasure in rending our hearts by
exaggerating the misery of the people.” (Loud
applause.) At Ghent, thanks to a perpetual
struggle, to indescribable efforts, we have
raised the average wages of men from
12s. iod. to 14s. 6d. per week, but to attain
this much we have had in the course of three
years strikes that have cost us £2,800. And
what strikes ! The last one was among flax
spinners. One of their fellow workers had
been discharged because she was unable to
return to the factory six days after her con
finement! Yet the workman’s Socialist paper,
the Vooruit (“ Forward ”), had been sentenced
�6
because it called this employer a scoundrel!
The truck system was also practised to a
scandalous extent. Some manufacturers paid
their men with flour, coffee, or rather chicory,
and even bought back at a reduction the flour
given as wages. He had known of workmen
being obliged to pawn the goods received
under the truck system so as to get a little
ready cash. He had heard with pleasure the
details given concerning the strength of the
English Trades Unions.
If the English
workmen had only received a Socialist educa
tion like the workmen of Belgium and of
France they would be better able than their
brothers of the Continent to bring about the
era of social justice and equality. We have
on the Continent larger hearts but our
stomachs are smaller and our pockets in
nowise so deep. He spoke as the representa
tive of the General Council of the Belgian
Workman’s Party, which consisted of 170
different trade societies, possessing, in all,
about 126,000 members. In Belgium, they
illustrated the practicability of international
ism ; for though of totally different races, the
French Belgians and the Flemish Belgians
worked harmoniously together. Let us then
be without apprehension; and, as the monarchs
of Europe formed at the end of last century a
Holy Alliance to crush Republican France, so
let us to-day form a Red Alliance against our
common foe—capitalism !
After the cheers had subsided,
Mr. Mawdsley was called upon to describe
the state of affairs in England:—
Mr. Mawdsley remarked that it was not
without hesitation he addressed the meeting.
This was the first time he had been outside
his own country and he had never before
spoken to a foreign delegation. Foreign in
fluences were known and felt in London, but
they had not reached his part of England. Mr.
Mawdsley then reviewed, in detail,the condition
ot trade. Taking first the textile industries, he
was obliged at once to confess they were not
in a good condition. Wages had fallen, and
there was a great number of unemployed. The
cotton weavers, it is true, were as well off as
ever, but flax mills were being closed every
day, and it was undeniable that the flax trade
was rapidly going to other countries, and
would soon altogether cease to exist in Eng
land. The English weavers and spinners were
better paid than on the Continent, but there
was a marked downward tendency in the rate
of wages. All the building trades were in a
bad position and wages had fallen consider
ably. Ironfoundries were in difficulties, and
one-third of the iron shipbuilders were with
out work. Steam-engine makers were also
slack, excepting those manufacturers who
exported to France, Germany, and Austria.
With a few rare exceptions, the depression
effecting the great leading trades was felt in a
thousand-and-one other occupations. Seeing
that there was a much larger number of un
employed, the question naturally presented
itself as to whether there was any chance of
improvement. He considered there was no
chance of improvement so long as the present
state of society continued to exist. So long as
workmen do not look more closely to their
interests, there will be no improvement. But
what remedy could there be ? He had already
said that he was a stranger in their midst. He
did not understand their Socialism, he had
not studied it as perhaps he ought to have
done. The workmen of England were not so
advanced as the workmen of the Continent.
Nevertheless, they, at least, possessed one clear
conception, they realised that the actual pro
ducers did not obtain their share of the wealth
they created. He also thought there was too
much production and too much competition,
and believed this might be remedied by pro
ducing less. Then, when the output was
lowered, the workman might get a greater
proportion of the wealth. The English were
not so advanced, they could not believe that
by a stroke of the pen it was possible to alter
all this ; but yet he thought the workmen did
not get their fair share. It would be difficult
for all to agree as to the best ways and means
to adopt, but they might come to a common
understanding as to the point to be attained.
The means and method was a secondary con
sideration ; let us first all agree that profits
should go to labour. (Cheers.)
M. Brod, the Austrian delegate, explained
that Austria was much in the same condition
as Belgium ; with this great difference, that, in
Belgium, the workman had at least the right
to complain while, in Austria, any such inditcment as that just uttered by comrade Anseele
would ensure the speakers immediate incar
ceration. He hoped, at a later date, to lay
some figures concerning the rate of wages in
Austria before the Congress.
M. Grimpe, the German delegate, stated
that he had not expected the fourth question
would be brought forward the first night. It
was extremely dangerous to speak about Ger
many, as any imprudent utterance on his part
would ensure the imprisonment of friends in
Germany. As he could not speak well in
French, and as it was so necessary to weigh
his words, he would write out his statement
and read it on the morrow.
M. Dalle, in the name of the French
Workman’s Party, wished to congratulate his
comrade Anseele for the very efficient service
he had rendered the cause of labour in help
ing to unite the various societies in Belgium,
and thus constitute a strong and well
organised Belgian Workman’s Party.
The Congress then adjourned.
SECOND DAY, August 24TH.
The sitting commenced at 8 p.m., and Herr
Grimpe, German delegate, was selected
�Honorary President. M. Bertand, Acting
President.
The roll call showed the presence of 85
French and 15 foreign societies.
The minutes were read and confirmed.
Letters of adherence were read from Mou
lin, St. Estienne and Marseilles. Dr. Csesar
de Paepe, from Belgium, M. Rackow, from the
German Communist Club of London, and
M. Palmgren, from Sweden, were introduced
as new delegates to the Congress.
The discussion on Question IV. was re
sumed, and M. Palmgren related that the
working class organizations of Sweden were
still m their infancy. Four years ago Palm
introduced into Sweden the Social Demo
cratic doctrines of the German school. He
also started a newspaper, which, after many
failures, is mow firmly established, and has
5,000 to 6,000 subscribers. The antagonism
of religious sects was the first and greatest
| obstacle that had to be overcome. ’'Formerly
j the Swedish workmen only attended to purely
I trade questions, now they understood that
| politics were inseparable from the considera| tion of their material position. They were,
1 therefore, agitating in favour of universal
| suffrage. At first they were met with only
| ridicule, then people began to discuss, and
j now they had 5,000 Social Democrats in Swej den, and 500 at Stockholm. Many Socialists
| were driven by the absolutism that prevails in
| Denmark to take refuge in Sweden, and this
ihad strengthened the movement. Of Norway
Ithe same might be said. The Norwegian
people were Republican in their sympathies,
sand their Democratic tone encouraged the
a growth of Socialism. They were, therefore,
e able to maintain two newspapers. In Sweden
|starvation wages prevailed, excepting in two
I or three towns. They found most of their re|cruits among the agricultural population, as
I these were the most miserable. Many among
jthem were Christian Socialists. On all sides
• the Social Democrats were establishing work
omen’s clubs, and the Trade Union movement
■awas intimately allied with the Socialist projpaganda.
M. Herbinet, having called the attention
Oof the meeting to the fact that the Socialist
tiand revolutionary paper, the Cri du Peuple,
Shad boycotted the Congress,
J M. Grimpe rose to speak on behalf of Ger®many. His first desire was to express his
^gratification at having to speak in that France
Iwhich the middle-class press described as the
larch enemy. Though against his habits he
^accepted the honorary Presidency, as em
blematic of the union of the working classes
t^of both countries. The German authorities
fwould certainly not give subventions to Ger|man workmen to enable them to participate
(Jin a French workmen’s exhibition or congress.
HHe congratulated the French on being able to
ijthus influence their muncicipalities. In Ger
many all public monies were devoted to mili
tary affairs. Mr. Mawdsley in his speech had
said he had not studied Socialism. This
seemed strange, for there were plenty of
Socialists in England who would be only too
pleased to afford him every information. He
sincerely regretted that these English Socialists
were not represented at the Congress. He
hoped that all workmen would come to an un
der standing with the English Socialists, and
regretted that the Trades Unionism of England
had been hostile to English Socialism. The
speaker then went on to attack Dr. Buchner,
who, at the inauguration of the statue to
Diderot, said French revolutionary ideas had
no hold on the other side of the Rhine. No
one knew better than Dr. Buchner that this
was false, for he was himself present at Frank
fort at the formation, in 1863, of the Socialist
German party. But it was in the Spring of
1848, and on the barricades of Berlin that, for
the first time, the party of the European
Proletariat made its appearance. The bour
geoisie were so alarmed that they were ready
to give up the Liberal institutions they had
won with the aid of the workmen’s blood.
Ten years later, they once more sought
the alliance of the working classes and
in 1863, Ferdinand Lassalle appeared and
proclaimed the war of classes, organised
the Universal Association of German Work
men, and demanded that the State should
assist workmen’s productive societies, destined
to replace the capitalist and individualist
system. In 1866 Bismarck gave universal
suffrage, and the very next year Bebel and
Leibknecht were elected by the workmen to
the German Reichstag. In 1868 the first
Socialist congress was held, at which inter
national Trades Unions were created, and
the programme of the Social-Democrats laid
down and accepted. This programme still
holds good, it has not been altered in any of
its essential principles. Briefly the SocialDemocrats maintain that work is the only source
of production, that the fruits of work must
therefore go to the worker and none must re
ceive who do not work. Therefore the mono
poly, by a class, of the means of production
must be abolished, and land, machinery, the
means of transport and exchange, must
become the property of the community.
When, in 1871, the Commune was estab
lished, Bebel in the German Parliament,
declared that this episode in the history of
labour, was but a skirmish at the advanced
posts indicating the coming war ’The Trades
Unions in Germany now took the title of In
ternational Trades Unions, and their organi
sations improved so rapidly that they were
able at the general elections, held in 1877, to
bring 560,000 men to the poll to contest 175
seats and secured the election of twelve SocialDemocrats. They then possessed 42 politi
cal newspapers and 17 purely trade or technical
�8
papers. The 42 papers were edited by 11
university men, 10 compositors (type setters),
4 clerks, 2 masons, 2 bootmakers, 1 professor,
1 saddle maker, a designer, a tailor, 2 cigar
makers, &c. The constitution then granted
the liberty of association and there was
greater freedom in Germany than there actually
exists to-day in France. But in the spring of
1878, Hcedel’s attempt on the life of the
Emperor supplied a pretext to demand
laws of exemption. These were refused at
first and only granted after the second at
tempt made by Nobiling. The anti-Socialist
law of 1878 once passed, the Trades
Unions and the political societies were
were attacked, their cash boxes seized, and
every effort made to destroy their organisa
tion. Nevertheless, in 1881, they secured the
return of thirteen Social Democrats as depu
ties to the Parliament. Bismarck thought that
by suppressing freedom on the one hand, and
giving no payment to Members of Parliament,
he would exclude us. But we subscribe money
and pay our representatives ourselves, so that
they are well under our control. The fortytwo papers being suppressed, the party relies
on the Sozial Demokrat published in Switzer
land, and smuggled into Germany. Bismarck’s
next effort was to attempt reforms of a Socialist
character; but, at a Congress held by our
party at Copenhagen, in 1883, we acted against
this manoeuvre, and denounced the intentions
and capacity of the Government. One of our
representatives, Rittinhousen, would not ac
cept the resolutions of this Congress; and,
therefore, at the next elections, he only re
ceived 500 votes, while the orthodox Social
Democrat set up against him, obtained 6,500
votes, and was returned to the Parliament.
This will show how well we are organised, how
thorough is our discipline. Vet we cannot
acknowledge such organisation. Nothing is to
be seen of our organisation, we are officially
not organised, and yet it seems as if we were
organised. Each State in Germany has its
little Parliament, and here also we have exer
cised our influence and secured the return of
our Chaberts and ourjoffrins. He regretted
that errors concerning German affairs had
crept in to the Proletariat. He had been
deputed to give that paper information con
cerning, the movement in his country. But the
articles he had sent were returned with the
notification that ;there was no room. The
Germans had always done their duty in inter
national matters. At the recent Decazeville
strike they had collected money; and, in spite
of the state of siege prevailing, the workmen
of Leipsic subscribed 200 marks for their
French colleagues. The money collected in
Germany had been sent to V Agglomeration
,
*
Parisienne."
Since the anti-Socialist law had
* This announcement helped to create an unfavourable
impression. The Agglomeration is another name given to
the Guesdists, If the Germans wished to send their money
to the miners of Decazeville through the Parisian Socialists,
been in force, that is during the course of 7I
years, 948 prints have been suppressed, and
246 societies broken up, in 137 small and large
towns.
Nevertheless, a number of trade
societies still survived, notably that of the
compositors. There was a law also that
allowed the creation of benefit funds, and the
German workmen were able to group them
selves under the cover of this mantle. Thus
the Cabinetmaker’s Society in Germany had
branches in 680 localities, and last year they
numbered 71,500 members. In 1885 they had
/’ll, 122 reserve funds, and paid, in benefits,
£60,321. There were many other similar
societies, and Herr Grimpe was about to give
further financial details, when he checked
himself, as the Congress was showing mani
fest signs of impatience. He had spoken with
a strong German accent, and though his
speech contained so much information, yet
the method of delivery was wearisome, at
least, to the quick impatience of a French
audience. He therefore now hastened for
ward the conclusion of his speech by urging
that over-production was chronic, that it in
no wise benefited the workmen, and that
the economic position was the same through
out Europe and America. He cordially
approved the conduct of the English Trades
Unions in strictly enforcing the payment of
subscriptions, and maintained that in Germany
they had done the same and as successfully.
Their organisation existed not only in Germany
but wherever German workman lived, in
London, in Paris, in Philadelphia, Switzerland,
&c. They were only separated from the
English Trades Unionists by the Socialist
idea. We are as well organised as they are,
but the English have enjoyed too much
political freedom, too much material prosperity,
and are therefore unable to understand the
necessity of the doctrines we advocate. Their
interpreter stated that a man was not con
sidered a member of a Union till he had paid his
subscription, and that those who did not pay
were false to the cause. But what shall we say
of men who betray the cause, of such men as
Mr. Broadhurst who voted in favour of coercion
in Ireland and accepted 35,000 francs a year
to be a member of a capitalist Cabinet. In
1883, this self-same Mr. Broadhurst came to
Paris as delegate to the International Con
ference held at the Cafe Hollandais. In
France, at least, the workmen had got rid of
their Tolains and their Nadauds and he hoped
the English workmen would have the sense to
do the same. Such a scandal would not be
tolerated in Germany.
An immense outburst of conversation folwhy did they select the petty faction of the 800 defeated Impossibilists, instead of the 33,000 Possibilists. Both parties
hold the same fundamental principles as the German Social
Democrats ; this the vote of the Congress proves. But for
the personalities of the German “ official circle,” the money
would have been sent to the “ French Workman’s Party", if
it was meant to go through the hands of Socialists, or else
why not direct to Decazeville ?
�I lowed this speech, the audience was thoroughly
I impatient at its great length, and the PresiE dent, seeing the advanced hour, implored me
not to attempt its translation. The English
delegates, on the other hand, naturally insisted on hearing what had been said, while
Dr. Brousse, on the ground of a motion of
order, came to the platform and, stated he
I had listened to the details about German
t; affairs with great interest: but had hoped
■ that, at an International Congress, all al
ii lusions to factious polemics would be rigourI ously excluded. Herr Grimpe had spoken of
I the Proletariat, Dr. Brousse wished to reply
g on this head, and was understood to say that
I the articles rejected contained personalities,
I' but the Congress, in the midst of much conII fusion, voted that this was out of order.
It was then my turn to enter a protest.
I The English delegates had been attacked in
|| the person of one of the most prominent
j Trades Unionists, they insisted on hearing
r what had been said. There were many in1! accuracies in Herr Grimpe’s speech. In3 spired by the Sozial Demokrat of Zurich, this
n was not surprising; for, putting Trades Unionii ism aside, and speaking only of Social De
ll mocracy, the personal antipathies of the Sozial
b Demo; rat were so great, that, in describing the
[| English Socialist movement, this paper had
| printed many scandalous libels. The English
g delegates present insisted on a translation.
Dr. Brousse shouted : Let us take a sponge
is and wipe out all these personal attacks: they
it have nothing whatsoever to do with the busii| ness of the Congress.
[ Herr Grimpe: I have made no attack, I
I have only criticised ; I did not desire to offend
«the English delegates.
|
The Congress decided that the latter part
3 of the speech should be translated at once,
and when this was done, the English dele
gates demanded that the Congress should
a| meet in the afternoon so that there should be
full time to discuss this and all other questions,
gj Several French delegates protested that this
was not practical, for so many had to go to
U their work.
? Herr Grimpe again stood up and declared
If that he did not wish to give offence but only
sought to draw the attention of the English
b trades unions to the conduct of Mr. Broad
fl burst.
j This added fuel to the fire, but:—
Mr. Jones rose and urged that we ought
>4not to attach too much importance to this
ujincident as there were hundreds of English
TTrades Unionists who thought that, as a
id Government Minister, Mr. Broadhurst could
)fjnot consistently represent Trades Unions, and
^personally he shared in this opinion.
In the midst of much confusion, Mr. Burnett
iscross-questioned Herr Grimpe as to the rate
hjof wages in various parts of Germany, and
i|finally it was decided that the English dele
:
r
I
I
i
9
gation should meet in the morning, hear the
full translation of the German speech, and be
the first to speak next evening in reply.
M. Brod, the Austrian delegate, now gave
further details concerning the condition of his
country.
Repressive police measures had
destroyed many Trades Unions, nor were
they able to centralise their organisations,
with the exception, allbeit, of the compositors’
society. The laws of hygiene were scarcely
observed, and Councils of Prud’hommes ex
isted only in a few industries. It was difficult
to conceive the state of degradation of the
Austrian workmen. It was necessary to go
out in the rural districts and live among them,
when it would be found that five out of ten
could not even sign their names, and that
women worked fourteen hours for sevenpence
a day. Wages had not increased since 1873.
Compositors, upholsterers, piano makers, and
gilders earned from 14s. to 16s. a week. Ma
sons, turners, saddle makers, boot makers,
and tailors from 12s. to 14s. a week. There
was only one Socialist paper in Austria, all
the others had been suppressed. In Bohemia
the position of the workmen was especially
deplorable, as they worked for sixpence to
sevenpence-halfpenny per day. Fortunately
a law had been passed limiting the day’s work
to eleven hours. In conclusion, and though
ahxious to avoid any personalities, he must
state that he agreed, in principle, with the
remarks made by Herr Grimpe. Opportunism
was a bad policy, and in so far as this policy
had been supported by the Trade Unions of
England their action should be condemned.
While anxious to say nothing against the
person of Mr. Broadhurst, the acceptance of
a position in the Ministry was wrong in prin
ciple. Workmen must learn to understand
that they must not compete against each other,
and was not the Government of England up
holding the competitive system ?
M. Brebant now read the collective report
of the Paris Workmen’s Syndical Chambers,
or Trades Unions. These numbered in all
144, of whom 85 were represented at the Con
gress, and 17 had sent in special reports.
These testified to 114,000 members, but la
mented that the proportion of Unionists to
non-Unionists was very small. There were
38,000 foreign workmen in Paris belonging
principally to boot, cabinet, and carriage
making trades. Several trades were federated.
Both piece work and time work prevailed.
Depression and reduction of wages were the
rule. Bronze workers receive now 50 per
cent, less than they did twenty years ago, and
this was brought about principally by sweaters
who profited by the depression to obtain work
at starvation rates- Cabinet makers made
beds now for 80 francs when formerly the
same work was paid no francs. A certain
other popular model had fallen from 45 francs
to 30 francs. Many trades had very long dull
�seasons, notably the locksmiths and carriage
makers, who were generally five months with
out employment. Machinery had reduced the
pay of the engineers. The report concluded
in favour of proposals similar to those em
bodied in the resolutions to be laid before the
Congress.
The sitting terminated at midnight.
THIRD DAY, Wednesday, August 25.
The sitting was commenced at 8.30 p.m.
M. Ed. Anseele, the Belgian delegate, was
elected honorary President, and M. Victor
Dalle the acting President. Letters respect
ing several new adhesions were read and Mr.
John Norton, delegate for South Australia
and New South Wales, was introduced. The
minutes were read and Dr. C. de Paepe pro
tested that Herr Grimpe had misrepresented
Dr. Buchner’s speech at the inauguration of
the Diderot statue. The learned German
scientist had declared that “ The ideas of
fraternity were unfortunately not popular on
the other side of the Rhine,” but he had never
attempted to deny the existence of Socialism
in Germany. In spite of this objection, Herr
Grimpe maintained that Buchner denied the
popularity of the principles of 1789 in Ger
many, and as President of the Socialist Con
gress, held at Frankfort in 1863, he ought to
have known better. After a. few more obser
vations on the minutes, they were adopted.
The President, in re-opening the discus
sion on Question IV, urged that the speakers
should keep to the subject and not criticise
the leaders and the tactics followed by the
Socialists in various countries.
;Herr Grimpe objected to this and said that,
on the contrary, we were gathered together to
advise and enlighten each other and that we
should denounce what we conceived to be
wrong anywhere and everywhere.
The Acting President energetically denied
this and remarked it was only Herr Grimpe’s
personal opinion. We had not met to criticise
the tactics followed by different labour parties
of various countries. Each knew best what
suited his own nationality. Our object was to
find a common ground of agreement. If we had
to debate over the conduct and personality of
leaders in all countries, the discussion would
last more than six months. This declaration
was loudly cheered and
Mr. John Burnett rose to reply to Herr
Grimpe’s speech. He said this was the first
thorough international congress convoked to
bring about concord in the efforts made for the
amelioration of the conditions of labour. He
was therefore especially sorry to find that on
so auspicious an occasion a delegate had
taken upon himself to throw in to their midst
the apple, of discord.
How often had the
clock which marked the progress of the
world been put back by similar manoeuvres.
Herr Grimpe had been called upon to describe
the economic and political condition of the
workmen of Germany. Evidently the question
implied that each delegate should speak about
his own country, about things with which he
was personally acquainted, otherwise the
German speaker might as well have described
the condition of labour in Central Africa. Com
plaints had been made that the English were
not well versed in the advanced theories advo
cated on the Continent. But he might with
equal justice complain that the workmen of
the Continent did not know and appreciate
the exact state of affairs in England. Herr
Gvimpe complained that the English had been
spoiled by too much liberty and too much
prosperity. This was a paradox that came
with bad grace from the delegate of a nation
whose labourers are worse off than those of
any other country. People living in glass
houses should not throw stones. He did not
wish to be hard upon the Germans, but Herr
Grimpe had said that the Trade Unions had
tried to put down Socialism. This was a
gratuitous assumption, and he defied Herr
Grimpe to bring forward a single fact in proof
of his assertion. In England Socialism was an
open question. The English Socialists were
wise in their generation. They always made a
point of joining the Trades Unions; they did
not seek to oppose, but tried to convert the
unionists. The English Socialists felt it was
better policy to reconcile and win over such
powerful institutions. If it were not for his
desire to avoid personalities, he would point out
that Mr. Grimpe was out of order in criticising
English Trade Unions, and should have
reserved his observations for the discussion on
Question III.:—“ Workmen’s coalitions, trade
societies, national and international.” But
the fact that, whether in or out of season, he
had seized the very first opportunity to attack
the English, showed he was inspired by
a deliberate intention to prevent a practical
conclusion being arrived at. Mr.Burnett did
not, however, desire to raise the question of
Trade Unionism as against Socialism. He
preferred to dwell upon the marked improve
ment of the organisations in France. He saw
gathered around him some two hundred dele
gates coming not only from Paris, the great
centre of thought, but from all the principal
towns of the French provinces. As compared
with the Conference of 1883, the present Con
gress proved that the French were successfully
striving to imitate what had been done
with so much success in England. Eng
lish Trade Unionists, while aiming at ac
quiring all the fruits of labour, sought to
bring this about by availing themselves of all
the moral and legal means within their power.
A small question, ifit tended in the right direc
tion, was never too small to merit their
attention. Thus in a slow but certain manner
they had obtained more than those who sought
�11
: lto do all in a moment.
Why then should
false and fierce statements be made against
them ? He had hoped, on the contrary, to
‘hear discussed some common ground of agree
ment. The attack against English Trades
Unions came very inappropriately from the
representative of a nation which more than any
other country helped to keep down the rate of
wages. (Loud cheers.) Ask the tailors, and
bakers, and cabinet makers in England why
they earned so little, and they will at once
answer that they suffer from the competition
of German Emigrants. Doubtless it is the
same in France. (Cries of “Yes! ” from the
French delegates.) Thus the English Trades
Unions are accused of being hostile to the
cause of labour by the representatives of a
country that most largely contributed to reduce
wages ! We were told that the hours of
labour ranged in Germany from 9 to 18 a
day, and that the wages vary from 7|d. to
7s. 2d. a day. The former figure is deplorable.
(The Germans here interrupted to notify that
7^-d. a day was paid only to women.) The
Belgian delegate almost drew tears from our
eyes by the appalling picture he gave of his own
country. But if we are to pity these unfortu
nate people why should we not rejoice at the
greater prosperity of England. If too much
freedom and prosperity constituted an un
wholesome meal he would not object to dine
on it every day, and leave to Herr Grimpe the
privilege of maintaining himself on 7|d.
Undoubtedly Socialism had made more pro
gress in England during the last 20 years
than it had ever done before, We had laws
of a somewhat socialistic character, and our
women and children were protected. The
German delegate will perhaps say this is bad
for us, and that when we have roast beef we
ought to push it aside, and eat only potatoes,
so as to prove that we are good Socialists.
The English might be dull in their powers of
comprehension, but they believed that high
wages was a step on the right road. By high
wages the general result Socialists desired
would be more readily realised. Ultimately
the workman will receive the wealth he pro
duces without the capitalist stepping in
I between the producer and consumer. He
g regretted being put on his defence ; it seemed
i so self-evident that Trades Unions have conI stantly striven to protect the worker against
I his employer. The weakness and the ill-grace
| of the charge was so patent that it seemed as
I if it must have been made 011 purpose and for
I some unworthy object. The practical reI suits achieved by the Trades Unions proved
I the charge to be false, and he challenged the
I Socialists to show they had done anything,
j Mr. Grimpe had stated that in Germany a few
I years ago the workmen had been granted the
J right of combination but had again been
I deprived of it by the government on account
| of socialistic agitation. The German Social
ists had therefore made things worse instead
of better. Before concluding he would say
a word about Mr. Broadhurst.
Trade
Unions had won
us
at
least
this
advantage, that we could talk about
Mr. Broadhurst or any other Englishman
without exposing him to the danger of being
thrown into prison. From his childhood up
wards Mr. Broadhurst had helped to improve
the condition of his trade and of all other
workers. The Unionists have not lost faith in
him, and he had just been re-elected by his
own trade to represent them at Hull. He
considered his appointment as Under Secre
tary at the Home Office a proof that the
Government recognised the workmen had the
right not only to vote but also to govern.
Nevertheless they would readily disown him if
he were false to Trade Unionism; but he had
found that his position in the Ministry had
enabled Mr. Broadhurst to render still greater
services to the Trade Unions. Mr. Broad
hurst had gone out of his way during his
tenure of office to assist the Unionists. They
would not therefore thrust aside a tried friend
at the mere bidding of a German delegate.
When the applause which greeted Mr.
Burnett’s speech subsided, M. Pican, moved
that the Congress, having granted the Eng
lish delegates the right of reply and heard
what they had to say, passes to the “ order of
the day.” This was carried.
Herr Rackow, who spoke in English,
stated that he represented a society of Ger
man workmen established in London. They
sent fraternal salutations, and had been highly
gratified at having received the first visit paid
by the 21 French delegates when they reached
England to report on the exhibitions of this year.
As a German, he had no ill feeling towards
the English ; but he had not come to the Con
gress to flattter them, and he must confess
that it seemed to him as if Mr. Burnett had
sought, in his speech, to mystify his audience!
The great difference between the workmen of
the two countries was that the German was
first of all a Socialist and afterwards became a
Trade Unionist; while the Englishman began
by being a Unionist and sometimes subsequent
ly developed into a Socialist. Certainly the
Socialist movement had made giant strides of
late years in England, still the English Union
ists were in the main very much behind the age.
Complaints had been made of the German
competition in England. He had lived eight
years in London. There were many English
institutions he greatly admired, but in some
cases German institutions were preferable.
Herr Rackow then went on to protest against
the harsh language used in the English press
towards the Germans, and pointed out that,
whenever a foreigner did anything amiss, no
enquiries were made as to his nationality, but
the blame was laid at the door of the Germans
After reading copious extracts from English
�12
newspapers to this effect, he proceeded to
discuss the accusation that Germans in Eng
land helped to reduce the rate of wages. It
[ had been computed that there were 150,000
Germans in London, but, of this number, only
about 40,000 were workmen. What effect
would this have on a population of 4,000,000 ?
The migration of English agricultural
labourers to the large towns was a far more
important factor in the reduction of wages.
Also it should be born in mind that the Ger
mans who were organized did not compete
but worked at the Trade Union rate; indeed
they sometimes obtained even higher wages
than the English. It was the unorganized
labour that reduced wages ; but, for one Ger
man, there were thousands of unorganized
Englishmen. Nor was it easy for a foreigner,
when he first reached a strange country, to
obtain the highest rate of wages. If the cost
of living is taken into account, the workmen
were not paid much less in Germany than in
England. Some women, it is true, received
only 7^d. a day, but it was notorious that
many women worked in London for 6d. a day,
and the match box makers did not even earn
as much. The average wage for men in Eng
land was £1 a week. The Trade Unionists
might get more, but they were only the aris
tocracy of labour.
The delegates at the
annual Congress only represented some
600,000 Trade Unionists and therefore could not
speak of the whole body of English working
men. Complaints had been made of the com
petition of a handful of unorganized Ger
mans in London, but had not the whole work
ing class of Europe suffered from the compe
tition of English industry; was it not the
English goods, flooding the markets of the
whole world, that kept the wages down to the
starvation level ? The Germans had been
attacked so he felt it his duty to defend them,
but, at the same time, he was not opposed to
Trades’ Unions if they led to Socialism, but
mere strike and benefit funds were only blunt
instruments in the struggle between Labour
and Capital.
For five-and-a-half years
he had worked in London as a cigar
maker.
He had belonged to the union
and obtained full wages; but there were
I
Poles in the same shops who did not do
so, and the Germans were blamed for
the delinquencies of the Poles. In no country,
however, were Trade Unions sufficiently
powerful to solve the problem involved by the
rival interests of capital and labour. The
unions of the capitalists would always be the
strongest.
By this time, the. audience had become very
restive. Without understanding exactly what
Herr Rackow said, it was supposed that he
I
was re-opening personalities against the EngI
hsh Trades Unionists, and therefore many
1
interruptions arose. Herr Rackow, on his
side, not understanding the interruptions
P
made by the French delegates, persisted with
his speech with much tenacity and calmness.
The English delegates had also interrupted
on several occasions, and Mr. Drummond
challenged Herr Rackow to produce his man
date. The mandate was then read out, and,
as it emanated from the German Communist
Club, which had received so hospitably the
French delegates in London, it was greeted
with applause.
M. Anseele rose to conciliate matters. We
have heard during two days a discussion be
tween two different worlds of workmen. It is
the upshot of a misunderstanding, for Herr
Grimpe did not wish to attack Trade Union
ism, he only sought to propagate Socialism.
The English ought not to say that the Ger
mans tend to reduce the salaries. He was
profoundly grieved when he heard the Con
gress applaud this assertion.
Surely we
should show otherwise our respect for the in
numerable German Socialists who have
endured imprisonment and every form of per
secution in their efforts to raise the rate of
wages. (Cheers.) The Germans only fear
that English Trade Unionism, unless it is
combined with Socialism, will end in bank
ruptcy.
Herr Rackow, now resumed the thread
of his discourse.
He thought English
Trade Unionists relied too much on
mere trade action.
He had read a
statement that out of 362 recent strikes
353 had failed. (Cries of No! no! and Where ?)
The statement was published by the Builder.
(Jeers from the English Delegates). The de
pression of trade had compelled the German
Societies to increase their subscriptions, the
Bookbinders to the extent of 25 per cent,, the
Lithographers to 80 per cent. The German
Compositors Union had shown a deficit of
£3,000 in one year. But the same melancholy
story could be told by the English Trade
Unions. To relieve the distress, Bismarck
had instituted “working men’s colonies”
where honest artizans were treated like
prisoners and made to compete by their work
against those who had not applied for relief.
In the matter of wages, Germany should be
divided into three parts. The highest rate
was paid in the North, the lowest in the South.
In the North the pay was, if anything, better
than in England; in the Central districts
about the same ; in the South decidedly worse.
Herr Grimpe had said the hours of labour
varied from 9 to 18. Mr. Burnett professed
to be shocked at such long hours, and stated
that in only two trades of Germany was the
time reduced to nine hours. Herr Rackow
denied this. He thought the hours of labour
were much the same in Germany and Eng
land. In London they varied from 8 to 16
hours. In his trade, the Cigar Makers only
worked eight and a half hours.
It was
notorious that the Tramway Servants, the
�I Omnibus Drivers, the Postmen of London
e worked 15 to 16 hours with but one and a half
I hour® for their meals. The difference between
II England and Germany, if anything, was not
I sufficiently marked to warrant so much boast1 ing. If the German Trade Unionists bad
not done more than the English Trade
Unionists to raise the rate of wages, they had,
at least, this advantage ; that, as Socialists,
they were approaching a complete and scien
tific solution of the entire difficulty.
1
M. Bailly now read the Report of the
French Provincial delegates. These delegates
represented 54 Provincial Trades Unions.
With the exception of four societies, they all
1 concluded by urging that the depression in
1 the provinces was as great as in Paris, and
a supplied a long array of statistics in support.
H They maintained that the struggle is restricted
1 to the antagonism between “money capital”
4 and “labour capital.” As a stepping stone
4 the hours of labour must be reduced. The
(^necessity of a class war cannot be denied, the
producers must strive, by political action, to
J become the masters of the government adq ministrations, and then bring about the
fl nationalization of “money capital ” and the
0! means of production.
fFOURTH DAY, Thursday, August26.
I ' Th© Congress adjourned at midnight.
I M. Brod, the Austrian delegate, was elected
ft honorary President, M. C. Allemane, the act
ing President. The roll call showed that the
q representatives of 17 foreign and 88 French
^societies were present. The minutes were
rfread and confirmed.
! M. Herbinet, secretary, gave some explan
tations concerning the Cri du Ptuple. This
q’paper now declared that it did not boycott the
^Congress but had not been invited. M. Herb
*
:iiuet showed that the Cri du Peuple, on the
^contrary, was the only paper which had
ijreceived a special notification about the Con
gress.
; Mr. John Norton, delegate of the Trades
uaud Labour Councils of New South Walesand
><|South Australia, gave an account of the
^political and economical condition of the
^workmen he represented. Speaking in forciIflble, somewhat incorrect, but humorous French,
ahe soon found favour with the Congress and
Whis speech was frequently interrupted with
slaughter and applause.
In the name of
□poo.ooo Australian Trades Unionists, he
^brought cordial greetings to the Congress. It
Jwas his duty to expose the miserable condition
fof the colonial workmen and to warn intending
immigrants that Australia was no longer an
jfearthly Paradise. Indeed, the workmen’s
qbosition was even worse than in Europe. At
ifirst, when Australia was a penal colony, the
■and fell into the hands of a few hundred
13
individuals belonging to the worst classes.
They founded what is now considered as the
colonial aristocracy, and were even more
oppressive than the Irish landowners. They
not only held the land but refused to cultivate
it. They are content to breed sheep so that
the best lands remain unfilled. This suits
the interests of the merchants as the population is compelled to depend for its subsistence
on importations. For want of home, that is
colonial, produce, the people remain poorq
and yet the merchants who govern the coun
try, by providing the legislating class, are
ever voting large sums to facilitate emigration
and thus further contribute to keep down the
rate of wages. There is hardly any agricul
ture in Australia and there is very little indus
try. Absentee landlordism drains the country
and merchants, though buying at the lowest
price in Europe, can sell at exorbitant rates in
Australia, for there are no native industries to
compete with these importations. Thus the
people are at the mercy of the landlords and
the merchants. In Victoria only, the youngest
and the most democratic colony, there are
some prosperous manufactories.
On all
points, the Australian Trade Unionists agree
with the English Democrats; indeed, they
would go even further and would sympathise
with the French and the Belgians, with the
one exception of the free trade policy advo
cated in Europe. By protection only could they
break the tyranny of the combined forces of
the landlords and merchants. Though thou
sands starved in the streets, slept in the parks
of Sydney, still the poor were imported from
all parts of Europe. At last the unemployed
of Sydney had been compelled to threaten the
Parliament Houses, and the government,
seriously alarmed, started relief works. He
had seen skilled artizans work as navvies for
15s. a week, when in London they would earn
£1 ios. or £2. Then when their hands, unac
customed to such rough work, began to swell,
they were discharged on the pretext that they
were idle. On one occasion the government
had been driven to give out 800 blankets and
some bread with crumbs of cheese. This
sudden generosity was, however, accompanied
with a warning. The government would not
do this again, for they wanted the blankets
for the felons in jail. Honest men had con
sequently been led to commit some slight
offence to secure food and shelter in prison.
In spite of all this, emigration still continued.
State-aided emigration was a vile form of
exploitation. It was a means of passing over
the exploited of England to be still further
exploited in Australia. But the exploited of
Europe must remain in Europe so as to
revenge themselves on the spot for the wrongs
they have endured. (Loud cheers.) To make
matters worse, there was the Chinese difficulty.
Now a law had been passed against the im
portation of the Chinese, but they were smug
�i4
gled into the colony notwithstanding; and,
the other day, the. Workmen’s Council dis
covered a ship load of 200 Chinamen: with
false naturalization papers. The Chinese
learnt every trade; they were notably excel
lent cabinet makers, they were quite content
to work 16 hours a day whereas the Australians
had got an Eight Hours Bill. The Chinaman
lived on nothing; and, if at the end of ten
years’ toil, he could save £20 he went back to
China content. Europeans had been obliged
to abandon completely several trades in con
sequence of Chinese competition. This ques
tion must be solved by legislation otherwise
violent measures would be taken in Australia
as in America. It may be objected that
Australian workmen should organize and send
representatives to parliament. But this was
difficult, as the population, numbering only
four-and-a-half millions, was so much scat
tered over immense tracts of land. The
country was still too young for elaborate
organization, yet his presence in Paris proved
that they were progressing in this respect. In
conclusion, he wished to assure his French
hosts that the workmen he represented had
no objection to the annexation by France of
the New Hebrides ; but they were strongly
opposed to the creation of a penal colony at
the doors of Australia.
Mr. Galbraith and Mr. Jones consented
to abandon their claim to be heard on condition
that no one else spoke on the subject. M.
Victor Dalle then read the report of the
French Societies on
THE FIRST QUESTION.
All the reports received from individual
societies tended towards increased State inter
vention, and all advocated the federation of
trades. In France there were a few laws pro
tecting the work of women and children.
They were not efficaciously applied, but they
were precious as establishing the precedent
that it was the duty of Parliaments to defend
the weak against the strong. Several govern
ments, notably the Swiss and Italian govern
ments, had spoken in this sense, and the
report went on to enumerate the societies
demanding increased State intervention, and
those that specially urged the adoption of an
Eight Hours Bill. Some protested against
night work, a few demanded the international
enforcement of a minimum rate of wages. The
Commission did not, however, think inter
national legislation on wages practical in con
sequence of the great difference in the value
of money, the power of work, and climatic
influences.
If the proposals to be laid
before the Congress were adopted, this
question of minimum wages would settle itself,
and the report concluded with the eight
clauses of the resolution voted during the
Sixth Day of the Congress.
M. Muller, the Hungarian delegate, having
expressed his general approbation,
Dr. Cesar de Paepe rose to support the
principles advocated by the report, not only
as a workman, but as a man of science. Man
dates had been challenged, he therefore felt
compelled to give some personal explanations.
By trade he was a compositor, and thus earned
his living for many years.
In his leisure
moments he studied and finally passed all the
necessary examinations to qualify himself as
a doctor of medicine. But he had never
quitted his class, and was still proud to consider
himself a workman. Together with comrade
Anseele, he represented not one Trades
Union, but more than a hundred Unions.
The Belgian Workman Party consists essenti
ally of Unions formed to obtain increase of
wages, and to resist reductions. But he spoke
to the Congress as a doctor, for the question
was esssentially a sanitary question. The
demands made in the resolution were in con
formity with the laws ot physiology. There
were international laws to protect a great multi
plicity of interests, why should there not be
similar enactments to protect labour. Thus,
taking clause VI, it would be found that
hygienists had established a great number of
international laws, notably quarantines to op
pose barriers against living or organic poisons,
microbes, germs, etc. But these were notthe
only poisons. The unnecessary use in various
industries of lead, mercury, and phosphorus
had killed quite as many people as the cholera.
Why should the law touch organic poisons
and not mineral poisons. It was as easy to
use non-poisonous zinc as the poisonous lead
employed for white paint, etc.; and we must
watch jealously over the hygiene of the work
shop, its ventilation, drainage, and warming.
Then we must study the conditions of labour.
If the hours were short the poisonous sub
stances used would not prove so fatal ; and,
as the women, the children, the weak were
especially susceptible, they should be rigourously kept away from unwholesome industries.
Itw’as also a medical necessity to have eight
hours sleep, eight hours relaxation, and eight
hours work. In helping to found the Inter
national, now forbidden in Germany, France,
and Spain, he had urged that capital was
international. Thus Paris, for all practical
purposes, was nearer to London than London
used to be to Brighton. What were countries
are now but provinces. August Comte had
spoken of Europe as the Western Republic ;
but the term will soon not be big enough.
We shall have the World’s Republic and then
will come the Chinese question which we
must settle, not by extermination, but by treat
ing the yellow man as a friend and a brother.
But how can this be done otherwise than bv
International Legi^ation ? We must even
now prepare the way for the legislation that
will save us from the invasion of cheap Chinese
labour. Concerning clause II, it was evident
the growth of education rendered it necessary
�that preliminary studies should be prolonged
fto at least the age of fourteen ; and, after this,
|the general education might be wisely comibmed with technical teaching. Machinery
was especially fatal to children. They were
hot able to concentrate their attention on the
imonotonous revolutions of a machine and
thus become the frequent victims of accidents.
If he also demanded that women should be
(kept away from certain trades, it is not
sbecause we think ourselves her master and
|her protector. We do this in the name of
^humanity at large and of the health of future
^generations. The stooping of women work
sing in mines, was the frequent cause of rickets
Find diseases of the pelvic region. When
(miscarriages occurred they were generally fatal
land rendered the employment of artifical
means of delivery indispensable. Therefore
(women must be kept away from these mortal
(employments for they destroyed not only the
(women but the children also. We should
further demand one day’s rest a week because,
Ahis was the natural limit. Diseases, notably
jtyphoid fever, assumed a different phase
(every seventh day. It was also the fourth part
bf the lunar month and to this period was
(attached important physiological phenomena
/affecting half humanity. Consequently, and
^though a Republican and a Freethinker, he
(was, in this case, in favour of the law of Moses
Sas opposed to the law of the French Republic
(which decreed a holiday every ten days. To
the eight clause of the resolution, he would
Sish to add a ninth, to the effect that prison
ibour should not compete with free labour,
because a man had sinned or had been sinned
gainst, and was thrown into prison, this, was
o reason for giving him a privileged place
1 the competition of the world’s markets. In
^Prussia it was proposed that prisoners should
Iwork only for foreign exportation, but interinational legislation should tend to check such
action. Another matter:—the establishment
of a minimum rate of wages was, for the time
being,one of the most difficult questions to solve.
We should try more practical problems first,
land in time this demand would ripen. Difference
In cost of life and in climates existed within a
fciation as well as in foreign countries. Thus
there was a greater difference in climate and
in cost of living between Marseilles and Paris
Khan between Berlin and Paris. Yet in other
International questions this was not taken into
Account. For instance, by the Postal Conven
tion, a Bohemian, earning 7|d. per day, would
liave to spend a third of his day’s wages to
Iwrite to a friend in the United States. The
f atter, earning two dollars a day, would only
Aave to spend one fortieth part of his
iday’s wages to answer the letter. The assim
ilation of the minimum rate of wages would
tend to equalize the cost of these international
measures. It was an ideal that might ultinately become practicable. The Belgians
had discussed this question at their annual
congress held last year at Ghent, and they
meant to convoke an international congress
to debate this very point over again, at which
all would be welcome, whether trades unionists,
co-operators, revolutionary groups, or Socialist
bodies. Referring once again to the general
question of international legislation on labour,
he urged that this was no new movement.
The whole question had been brought promi
nently forward:in 1853 by an Alsacian manufac
turer named Le Grand. He drew up a pro
ject of law which was subsequently published
in Switzerland by M. De Fre. In 1856, at an
international congress on Poor Relief, where
most of the governments of Europe sent
officials representatives, a project, almost
analogous to the eight clauses now before the
Congress, was introduced by M. Ann, the
official representative of Wurtemberg, and
adopted. Thus the Congress was invited to
endorse what, in the highest quarters, had
already been recognised as practical. The
Swiss government had recently taken the
initiative in demanding the enactment of
international legislation on labour, and, now
that the interested parties, the workmen
themselves, had taken the matter m hand, the
cause would prosper and soon labour would
enjoy, like other forms of property, effective
international protection.
After this speech had been translated into
English, and some provincial delegates made
a few brief remarks, the President read out a
resolution submitted by the English delegation
which was worded as follows:—“That the
International Trade Union Congress of Paris
deplores the action of certain governments in
suppressing working men’s associations as it
is precisely in such countries where no labour
organizations exist that acts of violence have
occurred.”
The Congress, as it was past midnight, now
adjourned.
.
FIFTH DAY, Friday, 27TH August.
Mr. John Norton, Australian delegate, was
elected honorary President, M. Lavaud,
organizing Secretary of the Workmen’s Exhi
bition, acting President. The roll call read
and the minutes confirmed, an uproar arose
at the hall door. A crowd had gathered in
the street and clamoured for admission under
the impression that it was a public meeting.
Several delegates were in favour of admitting,
the people as spectators to the gallery of the
hall, but it was necessary to explain that such
a proceeding was illegal. No public meeting
can be held in Paris without having first given
notice to the Prefecture of Police. This had
not been done in the present instance, and
the admittance of anyone not possessed of a
card of invitation, would have justified the
military occupation of the hall, the dissolution
�of the meeting, and the arrestation of its pro
moters. It was with some difficulty however
that the crowd outside could be persuaded to
return homewards, and a strong guard had to
be posted at the hall door to prevent the
entrance of any but delegates.
The President informed the Congress that
Comrade Anseele had received a dispatch
from Belgium bidding him to return at once
so as to undergo the six months imprisonment
to which he is condemned. He therefore
asked that special permission should be
granted so that Anseele- might address
the Congress previous to his departure.
*
M. Anseele was greeted with loud cheers
and said:—The principle of international
legislation is accepted and applied by the
middle and upper classes in the defence of
their interests. They have established postal
conventions, international railway signals, and
the same decimal coinage circulates through
four or five different nations.
The inter
national character of the bourgeoisie is patent
to all. A large number of French capitalists
possess Belgian coal mines, and Belgian
soldiers are sent to shoot down Belgian work
men, so as to defend the dividends of French
shareholders. This is the way the bourgeois
himself establishes an International, and
seeks to enforce its claims. Yet these self
same middle classes would forbid us creating
an International. The workmen, however,
are essentially international in their instincts,
and this is proved by the readiness with which
foreigners subscribed for the French miners
during the great strike at Decazeville. Inter
national legislation on labour would greatly
contribute to remedy the present universal
depression of trade. English manufacturers
have raised factories in France so as to profit
by the low wages paid to French workmen,
to compete against English workmen, and
when these manoeuvres do not suffice, they
go and invade some distant country, Tonquin
for instance, to open out new markets. But
this aggression calls down upon us the fierce
hatred of races. A little while ago the French
* It will be remembered that during the recent labour
riots in Belgium, Anseele wrote and published a letter beg
ging all parents who had sons in the army to write to them
an<T implore them not to fire upon their brothers and fathers
who were on strike. This letter appeared in the Vooruit, the
workman’s paper, edited by Anseele, and for this he was
condemned to six month’s imprisonment. The Vooruit sells
18 ooo copies daily at Ghent. It is retailed for two centimes,
or’five copies a penny. The publishing plant belongs to the
workmen, and has been bought with the profits made from
the Co-operative Bakery, established by them at their
central meeting place, also called the Vooruit (Forwards).
Here all the Trade Unions of Ghent have their meeting
place and offices, while the profits from the co-operative
institutions they have established are employed for propa
ganda purposes, and not to enrich the shareholders. Thus
they are able to send six lecturers into different parts of
Flanders every Sunday to organize the Workman Party
throughout the priest-ridden districts of this ignorant and
reactionary portion of Belgium. Co-operation,, it will be
noted, is only used as a means of organization, and of acquir
ing the strength to bring about Socialism, and not as a
solution in itself. The principal organizers are Ed. Anseele
and Van Beveren, address the Vooruit, Ghent, Belgium.
were taught to look upon the German army
as the enemy. Now we are told that the
German, by reason of his superior education
and the inferior pay he accepts, is the princi
pal enemy. But for the infamous law against
the International, an agreement would probab
ly have been concluded by this time between
French and German workmen, so that they
should no longer compete against each other.
A worse difficulty arises. A cancer is eating
the heart of the proletariat. Have we not
heard, even in this assembly, recriminations
between English and German workmen, be
tween Australians and Europeans ? If this
continues, if the struggle for existence con
tinues with its present increasing fierceness,
we shall have great commercial wars arising
from the fear of foreign competition. The
recriminations heard in this Congress are in
themselves a demonstration of the necessity
of international legislation on labour. If it
is true that the English earn more, and it is
undoubtedly true so far as Belgium is con
cerned, the Belgians become the Chinese
of Europe. The Belgian lives on as little,
and receives almost as low wages as the
Chinese.
Therefore the Belgian might
be treated by the English with the same
epmity as the English in Australia dis
played towards the Chinaman. The English
workman might with as much reason desire to
massacre the Belgians as the Australians who
meditate the extermination of the Chinese.
Therefore if the English will not unite with
us on the broad basis of disinterested Socialism
let them do so on the grounds of their own
individual selfishness; or else we, who live on
dry bread, who live as cheaply as the Chinese,
will beat down their wages. Let us then
legislate and that quickly and before circum
stances lead us to tear each other to pieces.
But Belgium is too small to influence the
legislatures of Europe; it is for England,
France, and Germany to act. If we could
have but one aim, one flag, one party we
should soon give the law to Europe and the
Universe. We have not come to this Con
gress merely to say how do you do and shake
hands ; but to try and get one or two clear
ideas. Now if we all leave this assembly with
the one conviction that international legisla
tion on labour is indispensable this will have
been the most useful educational congress
ever held. With respect to an international
minimum rate of wages, the facilities of com
munication by steam ships and railways
tend to render the price of raw material
uniform in all industrial centres. Labour,
therefore, will soon be the only thing remain
ing on which reductions in cost will be possible.
We must then insist on a minimum rate of
wages. In this we shall be giving our adhesion
to the noble fight of the English Trades
Unions. Like them we must demand a mini
mum and indeed the English wages though
�sometimes high are but the minimum of what
workmen ought to receive. To carry these
ideas forward we ought to exchange our news
papers more frequently, and communicate
with each other more regularly. Every true
Socialist should make it a matter of duty to
learn the three languages that govern the
world. Two years hence we must all know
how to speak French, English, and German.
I already know two of these languages and I
pledge myself before you all to soon master
the third. Then we ought to create an inter
national newspaper to which the best thinkers
of all nations should contribute carefully pre
pared articles. Thus we should assimilate
our ideas and unite in our mode of action. In
conclusion I adhere to the resolutions before
the Congress.
■ M. Anseele then quitted the hall amidst
( enthusiastic applause and surrounded by
every mark of sympathy and friendship.
Herr Grimpe, in answer to enquiry as to the
opinion in Germany on the question, contented
himself with handing to the President a copy
of the Project of Law relating to International
| Legislature on Labour introduced into the
I German Parliament by the members of the
I Social-Democratic party in 1884, and re-introI duced in 1885 ; Herr Grimpe was then going
| on to say that the English delegates were
| opposed to international legislation on labour
; and that they were consequently altogether
1 behind the times; but I interrupted the speaker
| and explained that as yet the English deleI gates had expressed no such opinion.
M. Dutertre, delegate from Brest,
approved the previous speakers. In his town,
men earned only 2s. a day and the present
I conditions of misery could not continue even
I though a revolution, perhaps a sanguinary
! revolution, be necessary to produce the
desired change.
M. Brod, the Austrian delegate, said that
in his country the workmen till quite recently
! toiled 16 hours a day just as the English work
men had done before 1848. When a restric
tive law was demanded the Austrian capitalists
brought forward precisely the same absurd
s arguments which had formerly been adduced
gin England. Nevertheless the government
j two years ago passed a law limiting the day's
| work to eleven hours and still the capitalists
I are not ruined. They have introduced new
| machinery and thus reduce the number of
ij men they need employ.
The objections
a raised in all countries to the reduction of
hours of labour were identical; but, if we
could obtain a universal Eight Hours Bill,
then the change, being similar in all countries,
the objection of foreign competition could not
I be raised. This would not, however, be a
final solution and could only be considered as
a good stepping stone towards the nationaliza
tion of the land and the means of production.
M. Brisse, of Nantes, thought there should
be two holidays in a week, urged the abolition
of custom duties and the imposition of a pro
gressive income tax in its stead.
The delegate from Lyons asked for the
addition of an extra clause to the resolution so
as to include the question of a minimum wage
and wanted to suppress the sweating system.
After a few more somewhat irrevalent
remarks, the discussion on the first question
was terminated, and the President called for
the report on
THE SECOND QUESTION.
Madame Vaise read, on behalf of the
School Teachers Union, the portion of the
report relating to general education. Integral
education meant the simultaneous develop
ment of all the human faculties. Diderot,
Condorcet, and other leaders in the Great
Convention had advocated this cause. She
denied the paramount influences of hereditary
tendencies. The child was a monkey which
the school would develope into a human
being. At first mere facts should be taught
mingled with games, gymnastics, dance and
music. Then the cause, the theory, might be
gradually explained.
Science should be
taught with history and physics. The true
reading of history was a science. The know
ledge of material facts of anatomy, should
go hand in hand with the study of mental and
moral evolutions. Then the knowledge thus
acquired should be applied to some suitable
industry. Technical and industrial teaching
must be based on scientific knowledge, and
thus men could easily learn new trades as
new machinery destroyed the old ones.
Madame Vaise was in favour of complete
education and opposed to apprenticeship.
All children would not be able to benefit by
integral education, but all should have an
equal chance. To supply the entire popula
tion with every possible educational facility
and this gratuitously would require a very
large outlay ; but then there was the Church
that could legitimately be disendowed. All
useless lands and private pleasure grounds
should be heavily taxed and the rich domains
now held by members of royal families who
had never bought them, might be nationalized.
This was no revolution, the methods suggested
were pacific and legal methods, but they
would revolutionize the intellect of the nation.
As for the feeding of the children by the State,
even our present individualistic governments
had yielded this point; and it was amusing to
note the Collectivism practised by our anti
Socialist rulers. At the Diderot school, for
instance, not only was the technical training
gratuitous, but half the children were fed by
the State, and they had also scholarships and
free journeys throughout France, provided
for them at the expense of the collectivity or
community at large.
M. Gondefer, from St. Estienne, urged that
�workmen who possessed exceptional know
ledge and education became small tyrants in
the workshop, and the specially skilled com
peted with the ordinary workman and reduced
his wages. He could not object to education,
in the abstract, but its management should be
well under the control of the workmen them
selves, or else the employers would use it as a
weapon against the producing classes.
M. Damay, engineer, and formerly Mayor at
the Creusot, read the second part of the
report. He acknowledged that in response to
public pressure, some improvements had been
accomplished in France. The secularization
of the schools was however far from complete.
Most of the school books spoke in a Deistic
sense. One authorized school book defined
the stars as little lamps hung up by the creator
of all things. What knowledge of the science
of astronomy could arise from such absurdities.
The moral taught was that the capital
possessed by the Rothschilds was legitimately
theirs. In the school book No. 2058, on the
Siege of Paris, the members of the Commune
were described as men drunk with blood and
petroleum, followed by bands preaching theft
and assassination. Do Longuet, Vaillant, and
other Members of the Commune, who, at the
present moment, are Members of the Paris
Municipal Council, preach any such doctrines ?
He should much like to find the person whose
palate relished the flavour of petroleum.
Poverty will be a serious barrier to integral
education, and it will be difficult to carry this
out before the creation of collective property.
The engineers, in their report, urge that for
every five hours spent in the workshop, there
should be three hours study. Other Trade
Unions objected that, in existing technical
schools, there was not a sufficient variety of
trades taught. Modern industry rendered it
more and more difficult for the apprentice to
learn in the workshop, as the machines can
not be left by those who should teach. The
better the education of the workman, the less
readily will he submit to the petty tyranny of
the master. This education will also lead him
to take political action. The present com
mercial depression rendered it all the more
urgent that the workmen should themselves
take the management of technical education
into their own hands, for such management,
on their part, would be a step towards the
socialization of productive industries. The
reporter further insisted on the need of an in
creased number of farm or agricultural schools.
He criticized at length the existing technical
schools, and showed that those that were
managed by the State were encumbered by
red tapeism, while those under the direct
control of the Municipality were cheaper and
more successful. To render access to these
institutions, gratuitous meals should be the
rule. The pupils would be much improved if
every week they were taken to visit a work
shop, and, before they definitely settled on a
trade, they should be taken on a journey all
round France, and be called upon to select a
career only after they had seen the great
natural and industrial sights of the country.
The reporter after some further remarks read
the conclusions which he proposed as resolu
tions for the Congress to vote. These will be
found in extenso as the vote taken on the
Second Question.
The Congress now adjourned.
SIXTH DAY, Saturday, August 28.
M. Palmgren, the delegate for Sweden was
elected to the honorary Presidency, and M.
Dutertre, the delegate from Brest, to the
effective Presidency.
When the roll call was completed, and the
minutes of the previous meeting confirmed,
the following dispatch from Sweden was read
amidst the applause of the Congress :—“ The First General Congress of the Workmen’s Associa
*
tion of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, meeting to-day at
Gothemberg, sends you its fraternal salutations and hopes to
see, at no distant date, united action and co-operation be
tween the Workmen’s Trade Societies of all countries.
Signed:
LAURENT & JENSEN, Presidents.”
According to the “ Order of the day,” the
report on the fifth question should have been
read, and the voting on all the questions
brought forward.
But several provincial
delegates protested that no one from the
provinces had spoken during the Congress,
and the President yielded to their complaints.
Thos. M. Briocelle, delegate from the de
partment of the Tarn, opened the debate. He
had come to Paris animated with some preju
dice against Parisian Socialists, but, on better
acquaintance, he found that they were sadly
maligned.
Their only fault was their excess
of generosity. They did not realize the full
difficulties of the situation, otherwise they
would be more careful and avoid thoseexcesses of language which in the Provinces,
at least, repelled thousands and kept them
away from the movement. He was in favour
of a national and then an international feder
ation of trade societies, but he still believed
that with republican institutions and universal
suffrage we could reach the desired end.
Force should only be used when all legal
measures were exhausted.
But our faults
were due to our nature rather than to our
institutions. We must try and reform the
people and the governments will reform them
selves. When every workman shall regularly
pay -his subscription to his society there will
be the material means to teach the people, to
moralize the people and the greater our
strength the more sure the order we
shall maintain and the progress we shall
achieve.
M. Salmon, from Douai, spoke against the
sweating system and urged the strict enforce
ment of the law of 1848, by which the system
�should have been abolished.
He also de-
| nounced piece work.
The President now called for the report
| on the Fifth Question : the proposed Interna
tional Workman’s Exhibition and Congress in
1889 :—
M. Prion read the report which concluded
as follows
J
i
S
’
t
I
I
9
1
The Commission of the Parisian Trades Unions demand
that the International Workman’s Exhibition for 1889 shall
be organised with a subvention from the State but that the
administration of the Exhibition shall be left entirely to the
Trades Unions who will settle the question by convoking a
general assembly of all the Unions. With respect to the
International Congress of 1889 the Commission, after studying the various reports received, and which all conclude in
favour of such a congress, demands that an international
congress shall be held in 1889 at which shall be invited all
the Socialist members of Parliament, or of Municipal
Councils, all the Trades Unions, all the Workmen’s Clubs or
*
" Clubs of Social Study,” in fact the entire Socialist party of
all nations.
*
la the course of a somewhat confused dis
cussion, it was suggested that the prices of the
s articles exhibited should be given and cheap
ordinary goods as well as rare articles shown.
| Further debate was, however, cut short, as it
«was necessary to vote on the First before
3| deciding the Fifth question. But there were
imany provincial speakers who still desired to
dmake themselves heard. Others had all man
ti nor of amendments to the conclusions of the
M various reports and the Acting President entire■jly lost control over the Congress. Some dis
putes arose between Parisian and Provincial
fidelegates, and the impartiality of M. Dutertre
c having been called into question it was
q finally resolved to elect another President
ttwhose neutrality could not be open to any
Hdoubt. Dr. Caesar de Paepe as a Belgian, yet
ij a perfect master of the French language, was
ftinvited to take the Chair; and, with admirable
ffirmness and tact, he not only brought the
^assembly to order, but he succeeded in
isilencmg weary speakers and pushing the busijiness forward with surprising promptitude.
M It was now proposed to take the conclusions
j|of the report on the First question as a subiistaative resolution. They run as follows:—
! The Congress decides that the workmen of the different
acountries represented will urge their respective governments
ojto open negotiations for the purpose of concluding internalitional conventions and treaties concerning the conditions of
■labour. The Congress urges that the following demands
should be first taken into discussion:
1. Interdiction of work by children under 14 years of age.
2. Special measures for the protection of children above
14 years and of women.
| 3. The duration of the day’s work to be fixed at eight
(Mhours, with one day’s rest per week.
_.j 4, Suppression of night work, excepting under
iircuHlstances to be specified,
S 5. Obligatory adoption of measures of hygiene in work
shops, mines, factories, etc.
6. Suppression of certain branches of industry and certain
■nodes of manufacturing injurious to the health of the
Jvorkers.
-J 7. Civil and penal responsibility of employers with respect
. So accidents.
3# 8. Inspection of workshops, manufactories, mines, etc.,
*>y inspectors elected by the workmen themselves.
* It will be noted that the possibility of a working class
Organisation being anything else but Socialist had not
l»awned on the framers of this report.
To these eight proposals two additional
clauses were added ; the first demanding that
the work done in prisons should not compete
disastrously with private enterprise and the
second, based on the suggestions made the
previous day by M. Anseele, that a minimum
rate of wages should be established which
would enable workmen to live decently and
rear their families. Both these additions were
adopted by the French and therefore made
the clauses nine and ten of the resolution.
Some of the delegates proposed an eleventh
clause demanding participation in profits for
workmen ; and this brought up M. Allemane
who energetically protested that participation
in profits was but a snare of the capitalists.
Workmen toiled hard enough at present with
out being made to work harder still. Their
death-rate would rise higher and higher and
the competition of workman against workman
already so keen, would become absolutely
intolerable, if they shared in profits.
After these few energetic words, participa
tion in profits was at once condemned and re
jected.
Another suggestion was made that, if the
day’s work was fixed at eight hours for men,
women, who had more domestic duties than
men, should work for six hours only. A gene
ral feeling, however, was manifested in favour
of equality of the sexes, and this suggestion
was not pressed to the vote w’hich now
began.
The French delegates, who were con
sulted first, voted unanimously in favour of the
ten clauses mentioned above. The President,
in the name of Belgium, gave in his warm ap
proval, and stated that the 126,000 members
of the Belgian Workman’s Party would
heartily endorse the vote of the Congress on
International Legislation. The President
then asked what was
THE ENGLISH VOTE.
By this time, Mr. Mawdsley, Mr. Galbraith
and Mr. Jones had left the hall so as to catch
the last train for London ; and Mr. Trow was
absent through ill-health. It was nevertheless
generally understood that the remaining de
legates would act in the name of their collea
gues.
Mr. Jones, however, did not assent to this
arrangement, but left a special message that
he thoroughly approved of the first eight
clauses of the resolution, and would have
voted in their favour had it been possible for
him to be present. He had, of course, no
knowledge of the two additional clauses which
were only introduced after his departure for
London. This announcement was received
with much cheering.
The following written declaration, prepared
by the remaining English delegates was then
read:—
“ That, while agreeing with the principle of International
Legislation as a means of obtaining uniform and improved
�20
conditions of labour in the various countries of the world,
and thus preventing the labour of one country from being
undersold by another, the English delegates have no man
date from their constituents to vote in favour of the whole of
the propositions submitted, and will, therefore, remain neu
tral, at the same time announcing that several of the condi
tions demanded by the resolution are already in force in
England as the result of Trade Union action.”
I
«•' i
This declaration fell like a douche of cold
water on the Congress ; a feeling of hopeless
ness was depicted on many countenances. Ac
cording to some French newspapers cries of
“ treachery ” or “ betrayal ” were raised ; but,
personally, I failed to hear any such express
ion, though, undoubtedly, the greatest disap
pointment prevailed.
The Chairman, Dr. C. de Paepe, rose,
and with much dignity, combined with a slight
tinge of sarcasm, said :
“We had expected something better than
that at the hands of the English Trades
Unions. They have failed to understand that
by voting with us they would have given great
moral strength to our moderate practical
demands. In two Congresses, in 1886 as in
1883, the English Trade Unionists have hung
back from resolutions, which, practically,
amounted to an effort made to strengthen the
hands of the Swiss Government in the initia
tion taken by that Power to obtain Inter
national Legislation on labour questions. I
cannot but still hope that there is some mis
understanding.
Surely the English must
acknowledge that it is indispensable to gene
ralize the measures which in their own country
have been of so much use to them. Their own
interests demand such International Legisla
tion if they do not wish to be the victims of a
disloyal competition. For their own selfish
ends, if not for the cause of humanity, they
ought to vote with us. How can it be that
the English, who were the first to adopt laws
protecting women and children, should be the
last to demand their general application ?
Women are majors, they have formed Trades
Unions of their own, yet men recognise the
necessity of a law for their protection, and
Trades Unionists generally approve the law
that secures a day’s rest on Sunday. They do
not reject Legislation on these subjects, why
should they not agree to extend to the Con
tinent principles which they have so nobly
struggled to enforce in England ? ”
Mr. John Burnett replied that the chief
reason why his friends and himself remained
neutral, was that they had no mandate. They
had come hastily to Paris; it was materially
impossible to have first consulted their consti
tuents. They could only promise to lay all the
resolutions before the Congress to be assembled
at Hull on the 6th September. The opinion of
this Congress will be of far greater value and
influence than that of the few individual dele
gates in Pans. Some of the clauses of the re
solution, he thought, would not be approved,
but with several they cordially agreed. They
thoroughly deprecated all laws that interfered
with workmen’s combinations, whether it be
the law against the “ International,” or any
other similarly oppressive measure. They be
lieved in limiting the age when children might
begin to work, and in England a law estab
lishing the age at thirteen gave very general
satisfaction. They had obtained reductions in
the hours of labour, and, when the proper mo
ment arrived, they would doubtless be ready
to go a step farther in this direction. But they
were not prepared to ask the legislature to enact
laws. He did not understand what was meant
in clause 4. If by night-work they meant double
shifts which divided the labour among the
greatest possible number of workers, he would
not approve of the clause, but he would be
willing to endorse it if it simply meant that we
were to resist overtime. As for sanitary mea
sures, there were some very good sanitary laws
in England : and he also agreed to measures
against unwholesome industries. Further,
employers were liable in England, both in
civil and penal law. Since 1880 English em
ployers had in all paid £34,000 damages to
injured workmen, and recently an employer
had been sent to prison for a year in conse
quence of a fatal accident. The inspection of
workshops by workmen was also a principle
fully in force in England, therefore the Eng
lish delegates were in thorough sympathy
with the International Congress on most
points ; but they had no mandate with regard
to the International enforcement of these
points. They would report the results to the
Hull Congress, and their future action would
be the more forcible for having first obtained
the approval of their constituents. Probably
all the proposals would not be adopted, for the
English, had done so much by self-help and
by their own organisations that they were not
prepared to hand all over to parliaments.
Dr. de Paepe, as chairman, was glad to note
that if the English did not vote for the resolu
tion, still they were not animated by any hos
tile intention.
M. Allemane wished the English Unionists
to pledge themselves that they would lay the
cause of international legislation before the
Hull Congress ; and Dr. de Paepe remarked
that trades unions would become more and
more necessary as legislation on labour ques
tions increased, so as to inspire such legislation,
to check it when needful, and to carry out
those State contracts and public works, which
must soon be given over direct to the organised
working classes, and not to individual con
tractors or speculators.
The President now called for the German
vote, and Herr Grimpe rose and stated that
as the resolutions before the Congress were
identical in principle with the Bill introduced
in the German Parliament by the Deputies of
the Social-Democratic Party, and as these
principles were the same as those advocated
by the 700,000 trades unionists and others who
�voted for these deputies, he adopted them with
out hesitation or reserve.
M. Palmgren, in the name of the Trades
eUnioBS of Sweden, that constituted the Social
ly Democratic Party of that country, indignantly
rejected the proposal for participation in pro
pts, and was against any difference being made
|.n legislation affecting women and men. He
kherefore approved the vote of the French
^Delegates, and accepted the ten clauses of the
(resolution.
M. Brod, for Austria, the Hungarian and
I all the other foreign Delegates present gave in
Itheir assent.
Mr. John Norton, the Australian delegate,
Swished to explain his vote, for he was in favour
xjof the six hours’ work for women ; and, if he
■'{voted for eight, it was only to secure a unani
mity on the part of the Congress.
His
^mandate gave him full latitude to vote, and if
|the English could not vote they should have
icome as visitors and not as delegates. He
swished to explain why he was in opposition to
lithe English. He would be ashamed of a man
tidate that did not allow him to vote. The Eng
lish delegates say they are largely in sympathy
■with the Congress, then why do they not vote ?
|I come from a greater distance, but still I
II maintain I have the right to vote. Women
fihad much household work, and he would have
dpreferred to limit their hours to six ; but this
3 Congress represented directly many hundreds
<fof thousands of workmen, and indirectly many
|millions. Its decisions could not do otherwise
iithan influence the governments concerned. It
I was therefore essential to secure a unanimous
■ vote. He would put aside his little difference
Iwith regard to the question of women’s work,
land would accept, in union with the delegates
| of all the other countries, the resolution before
I the Congress. His only regret was that the
1 English had not the courage of their opinions
| and thought fit to abstain. Legislation, in the
a sense of the resolutions before the Congress,
1 had been enacted in England and Australia,
2 and that mainly through the instrumentality
dof Trades Unionists. It seemed to him we
oj could not have too much of a good thing, and
4 he was astounded that those who professed to
^represent English Trades Unionists should
J hesitate to generalise what their constituents
a put in practice at home. He believed that the
*
v views of the Australian Trades Unionists were
nj more in accordance with the principles pro1 claimed by the Continental delegates than the
1! timorous neutrality of the English represen1 tatives. He was, therefore, loyally fulfilling
F his mandate in voting for the resolutions.
Mr. Burnett, on the termination of this disJ course, asked leave to make a short reply,
a This was out of order. During the voting of
J resolutions, explanation of a vote alone is
J allowed, and the English had declined to
vi vote. It was only by the vigorous enforceiii ment of these rules that the President had, un
like his predecessor, been able to keep the
meeting in hand and forward the business.
Many speakers had already been ruled out
of order and debarred from the privilege of
speaking. Nevertheless, Dr. de Paepe deter
mined to make an exception in Mr. Burnett’s
favour, and appealed to the Congress to forego
its rules and afford Mr. Burnett an opportu
nity of answering Mr. Norton. It was, how
ever, very late, and so much of the time of the
Congress had already been taken up in dis
cussing the policy or position of English Trades
Unions, that the meeting voted against the
President’s proposal. Not satisfied, however,
and as opinions seemed somewhat divided,
M. de Paepe insisted on taking a second vote,
and then there was undoubtedly a small
majority against hearing Mr. Burnett.
The President consequently declared the
incident to be closed, and the resolutions, with
respect to International Legislation on La
bour, to be unanimously carried ; some of the
English Delegates alone abstaining.
THE SECOND QUESTION.
The following conclusion of the Report on
Integral Education were brought forward as a
resolution:—■
“The International Workmen’s Congress, considering
that all children have a right to integral education, that this
education should have a unique programme on encyclopaedic
basis, developing itseli gradually according to the ages, and
specialising itself in the last period so as to form pupils fully
developed intellectually and morally, that the working
classes, in possessing in more than one profession the
fundamental elements of other occupations, will then be
guaranteed against the risks of industrial transformations,
changes in material, tools, or the forces of Nature which
tend day by day to replace human forces; considering that
this education, logically and inevitably, bears with it the
necessity of maintaining the children at the expense of the
collectivity, demands that pending the modification of the
programmes according to the exigencies of modern educa
tion, gratuitous, professional, or technical schools shall be
created in sufficient numbers to afford place for all children
leaving primary schools up to the age of sixteen. That pend
ing the recognition by law of the duty of the State to keep
all childien till they are able to earn their own livelihood,
scholarships of £8 to £20 shall be created for children accord
ing to age, whose parents’ income does not exceed £120 a
year. That the schools shall be placed under the surveill
ance of the Trades Unions and of the Educational Com
mittees. That the authorities select among the suggestions
thrown out in the preceding report the means for raising the
necessary funds.’’
By the time this resolution was put to the
vote, the English delegates had all quitted the
hall, and this without giving any explanation
as to their intentions or motives. Mr. Jones
alone had left a message to the effect that he
approved of gratuitous, compulsory, secular
education, with the free feeding of the chil
dren ; that this education should embrace
every branch, both technical and superior,
according to the capacity of the child ; in
fact, that there should be absolute equality in
the educational advantages offered to the
poor and the rich. This being explained,
amid the cheers of the Congress, the above
resolution was carried by all the nationalities
present.
�22
The resolutions relating to
THE THIRD QUESTION
were now read as follows :—
1. The International Congress proclaims itself opposed to
all existing laws in all countries that have for object the
prevention of workmen uniting internationally, and demands
their abrogaticn.
2. That it is necessary to reconstitute an international
society between the workers of all countries.
3. That it is also necessary to create national and inter
national trade societies.
4. That the realisation of these measures shall be confided
to a future international workmen’s congress.
The French having at once adopted these
resolutions, the President called for the En
glish vote. A ghastly silence ensued, and, so
as to create a slight diversion, I briefly ex
plained that in the earlier part of the Congress
the English delegation had desired to move a
resolution which m spirit harmonised with the
first clause of the motion now submitted. The
foreign delegates all agreeing, the resolutions
on the third question were carried. Though
THE FOURTH QUESTION
had given rise to such a long discussion, still
as it consisted principally of the reports of the
delegates as to the economical and political
condition of the workmen they represented, it
was not considered necessary to bring forward
a resolution.
The latter portion ot the resolution on
THE FIFTH QUESTION
gave rise to some
opposition.
The
idea of inviting men because they were
Socialist Deputies or Municipal Councillors
was qualified as a form of hero worship op
posed to all Democratic principles. If the
societies to be represented chose to elect these
men well and good ; otherwise they could not
be admitted.
M. de Paepe was somewhat opposed to this
restriction. He explained that though willing
to approve of a French Congress and Exhibi
tion in 1889, the Belgians had determined to
hold an International Congress before that
date, and they would open their doors to all
comers, whether Trades Unionists or Socialists,
political bodies or trade societies—all that
advocated the cause of labour would be
welcome.
M. Dalle urged that the exhibition should
above all things be a collective exhibition, the
object being to show what organised trade
societies working in conjunction with the State
could do to supply public wants. As for the
congress, it should be organised by the French
Workman’s Party as they possessed the most
extensive international relations, and more
general experience. As these suggestions met
with general approval, the resolution was
amended and put as follows :—•
Resolution.—“The Congress decides that a Collective In
ternational Workman’s Exhibition will be held in 1S89, with
a State subvention, to be administered by the Trades Unions
who will convoke a general assembly of the corporations
for this purpose.
The Congress further decides that an International
Workman s Congress shall take place in 1889 and that the
French Workman’s Party (Federation des Travailleurs
Socialists de France) shall be entrusted with the organisation
of this Congress.”
The French voted for this resolution;
another awkward pause ensued when the
English were called upon for their vote. Herr
Grimpe remarked that while he was favourable
to the project he feared the German law would
not allow the participation of Germany, and
with regard to the Congress he would wait for
the result of the Belgian Congress, which was
to come first. The Austrian delegate observed
that the workmen of his country had made
great sacrifices to participate in the present
Exhibition and Congress. He trusted they
would renew their efforts in 1889.
The
Swedish delegate abstained with regard to
the Exhibition, and the Australian delegate
voted in favour of the resolution on the ground
that workmen of different countries could not
meet too often.
The resolution was therefore taken as car
ried.
A proposal was then made and accepted that
the minutes should be published in pamphlet
form, and the President, C. de Paepe, rose to
pronounce a short allocution recognising the
union of all nations.
In the absence of the English delegates,
who might have taken the initiative in the
matter, for every effort had been made to
render their visit in Paris agreeable and profit
able. I rose to propose a vote of thanks to
the French executive or organising committee.
This being accepted, the last act of the Con
gress was the adoption, without discussion
and with the utmost unanimity, of a resolution “
demanding an amnesty for all those who were
nowin prison for having defended the interests
of the working classes.
At last, amid cheers and congratulations,
the delegates rose, and the arduous task of the
Congress was brought to an end. It was
half-past one in the morning before the dele
gates had all quitted the hall; but, though 1
late, they had at least the satisfaction of
having fully exhausted the programme they 1
had met to discuss and decide.
CONCLUSION.
The business of the Congress terminated, I
the delegates did not at once separate. On !
the morrow, Sunday, 29th August, a great
banquet was given at the Workmen’s Exhibi
tion. This entertainment was a failure by
reason of its success. Dinner had been pre
pared for three hundred persons ; no less than
483 came. The provisions consequently fell
short, and half the waiters in despair gave the
matter up as hopeless, took their coats and
hats and marched away. Thus the difficulties
increased, the clamour and confusion was
indescribable, and most of the guests had to]
F
to
so
?■
te
n:
r■
37
fel
IS?
U
th
ife1
�be content with a very incomplete dinner.
: Under these circumstances, it was difficult to
obtain silence for the speeches.
MM.
Ghabttrf, Jacques, Delhoinme, Marchard,
Muzet, de Menorval, Desnoulins, and GuicIhaxd, members of the Paris Municipal
I Couri-eii attended at the Banquet, and two of
I the Cs&nmMors spoke in the name of the town
I of Pali® to congratulate the workmen on the
*
Isuccess of their exhibition, and expressed their
I regret tiaat it had not been possible to grant
I a larger subvention. At the conclusion of the
Ibaaqueta number of the delegates danced
land Sling the Carmagnole m the gardens of
I the Exhibition.
On Monday, 30th August, several of the
delegates went to visit the technical schcol
s established at Montevrain for children morally
| abandoned where they were entertained at a
| sumptuous lunch at the expense of the Town of
I Paris. On the Tuesday they were treated
Iwith equal hospitality at Villepreux where a
I similar school is established. At the latter
s establishment horticulture and agriculture are
jtaught; at the former, various skilled trades,
jin both cases, the pupils are rescued from the
if street® of Paris, when they have been morally
3 abandoned by their parents, and saved from
^vagabondage by being taught useful trades.
'These institutions are under the control of the
{Council General of the Seine. But the Trades
I Unions exercise considerable indirect influence
iover their management, thus the education
igiven is of a democratic, scientific and abso
lutely secular character.
‘ It should also be mentioned that the
lorganizers of the Congress had graciously
3 placed a large brake at the disposal of the
{English delegates, and obtained more than
^twenty special permissions from the Governiment, the Municipality, and the Prefecture
jof Police, authorizing them to visit every pub
lic institution in Paris and in the neighbour!hood. The delegates, being anxious to call
at workshops and on the societies of their own
trades, were not able to avail themselves exttensively of these privileges. They, however,
|vifflted the State manufactories of tapestry at
'■•the Gobelins and of porcelain at Sevres, the
1 technical schools, the Ecole Diderot, and a few
other establishments. Finally on Monday
the 30th, a public meeting was held in the
evening at the Salle de la Redoute ; where
sewpll- delegates to the recent Congress
spoke, and pointed out that whatever hesitatioaWBight still linger in the minds of English
working men with regard to Socialism, from
iievery point of view the organization of powerIfttl Trade Unions was an indispensable preijliffiinary step. Socialism itself could not be
■realised if the different trades were not organyized and accustomed to collective action. It
t^was the great trade societies who would have
Ito supply the wants of the community when
lithe revolution, pacific or otherwise, had
triumphed over privilege, caste and individual
ism. Such, at least, was the general tone of
this public meeting.
It will be seen, therefore, that the foreign
workmen are at one with the Trade Unionists
of England in the advocacy of strong trade
societies. At the same time, their ultimate
ideal is the Socialism which is now being
taught so extensively in England.
*
But the
French Possibilists differ from what is known,
on the Continent, as Marxism by their belief
in the expediency of allowing each country to
work out its own emancipation according to
its own instincts and customs. They indig
*
nantly repudiate the pretensions of Hatt
Grimpe and other Marxists who would attempt
to dictate to Englishmen how they should
choose as their leaders or what tactics they
should adopt. For this reason, the “ Official
Circle ” of the Social-Democrats of Germany,
composed to a great extent of old personal
allies of Dr. Marx, has taken sides in favour of
the Guesdists ; that is the little handful of
Frenchmen who represent the Marxist policy
in France, as against the autonomist policy
of the Possibilists. In England, the sain®
division exists, and the Socialist League
embodies the Marxist element, while the
Social-Democratic Federation is imbued with
a keener sense of British independence and
repudiates the inspirations of an occult and
in the main German influence.
Yet both
Marxists and anti-Marxists are ardent
admirers of the profound economic works of
Dr. Karl Marx. Both readily applaud theim
*
mortal manifesto issued by Marx and Engels
in 1847 and try to master the intricacies of
Das Capital.^ On the other hand, it is gener
ally believed, that the personal influence of
Dr. Karl Marx, his intimate friends and family,
by their centralizing and autocratic tenden
*
cies, did more to break up the International
than the Dufaure Law and all the other sup
pressive enactments. Actually a daughter of
Dr. Karl Marx is the wife of a leader among
the Guesdists in Paris and another daughter
is a prominent member of the Socialist League
m London. The principal difficulty in obtaining united action among the workmen of
the continent springs from the antagonism
arising out of these family influences and
personal hostilities. There is no real differ
ence in principle. The Possibilists in Paris vote
to a man in favour of resolutions harmonizing
with the theories and doctrines of Dr. Kar
Marx and the Collectivist school of the scientific
* For publications relating to the same see list by Reeves,
185, Fleet Street, E.C., and The Modern Press, 13, Pater
noster Row. Many of these publications are penny pamph
lets, the most popular being the “ Socialist Catechism,” by
J. L. Joynes, B.A., (late Assistant Master at Eton College),
and “The Eight Hours Movement,’’ by Thomas Mar®,
(Amalgamated Engineers).
+ The original edition, in German, may be obtained from
Triibner & Co., Ludgate Hill.. A French translation wM
published for five francs by Maurice Lachatre, Editeut
Paris. An English edition will shortly appear.
�and State Socialists. But there is the an
tagonism of personalities and of policy. Per
haps the advent of English Trade Unionism
in the midst of these differences may help to
bridge over such sources of weakness, for the
time is surely at hand when the old quarrels
that date back more than sixteen years may
be buried and forgotten. In view, however,
of the forthcoming International Congress to
be held in London, it seemed to me indispen
sable to give a few brief details concerning
these great currents of continental opinion.
Adolphe Smith.
LIST OF DELEGATIONS TO THE CONFERENCE.
AUSTRIA.
M. Brod, delegate to the Exhibition and the
Congress.
BELGIUM.
For the General Council of the Belgian Workmen’s
Party, Ed. Anseele, of Ghent, and Dr.
Cesar de Paepe, of Brussels.
(125,000
Members).
For the Federation of the Trade Unions of Ghent,
Louis Bertrand.
For the Federation of the Workmen’s Leagues,
Central District La Louviere, (9,000 Members),
Ch. Minnie.
Federation of the
Miners
of
the
Borinage,
Defuisseaux.
ENGLAND.
For the Trades Unions Congress Parliamentary
Committee, J. Mawdsley. (65,534 Members),
For the London Trades Council, C. J. Drummond
and W. Jones. (25,600 Members).
"The Amalgamated Engineers, John Burnett.
(52,000 Members)Railway Servants Society, Ed. Harford. (9,000
Members).
London Society of Compositors, J. Galbraith.
(6,500 Members).
The Iron and Steel Workers Society, E. Trow.
(2,000 Members).
COLONIES, AUSTRALIA.
South Australia and New South Wales, John
Norton.
GERMANY.
The Sozial Demokrat of Zurich, in the name of the
Parliamentary Committee of the German
Workman’s Socialist Party, Herr Grimpe.
(The Social-Democratic vote throughout the
German Empire is estimated at about 700,000)
The German Workman’s Communist Club of
London, H. Rackow.
HUNGARY.
The Compositors of Buda-Pesth, — Muller.
SWEDEN.
Social-Democratic Federation. C. Palmgren.
FRENCH PROVINCES.
Name of Societies and number of Delegates:—The
Glass Workers of Montlugon, Blanzy, Carmeau, and Chalons, one delegate. The Feder
ated Trades Union of Poitiers, three delegates.
Federated Trades of Blois, two delegates. The 15 J
Boiler Makers of Nantes, one. The Furniture
Trades of St. Estienne, one. The Turners of |R
Nantes, one. Weavers of St. Estienne, two.
The Workman’s Society of St. Estienne, one.
The
"" Blacksmiths of Nantes, one. The Boot----makers of Tours, one. ~
The Locksmiths of
Marseilles, one. The Engineers of _
""
u
Lyons,
two. The Boiler Makers of Lyons, two. The
Painters on porcelain of Limoges, one. The
The Workers’ Union of Macon, one. The
Metal Workers of East Lyons,, one. The I
,
Annual Congress of the Trades of Lyons, three.
Masons and Plasterers of Brest, one. Marble
aud Stone Cutters of Brest, one. Carpenters!
and Joiners of Brest, one. Painters of Brest,
one. Locksmiths and Tinsmiths of Brest, one.
Cabinet Makers of Tours, one. The Leather j
and Skin Trades of the Tarn, one. The Boot
makers of Anger, one.
The Furriers of’
Angouleme, one. The Executive Commission I
of the Trades of Rennes, one. The Metal f
Workers of Rennes, one. The Slate Quarry
Men of Trelaze, one.
The Gilders andi
Decorators of Rennes, one. The BootmakersB
of Rennes, one.
The French Colony of Algeria sent three dele-i
gates who were appointed by the Trades Council®
of Algiers.
Finally the majority of the Trade Societies of I
Paris were represented. Altogether there were®
delegates from 86 Trade Unions which unfortun-|
ately cannot be enumerated here for want of space. |
Nevertheless, if it is desired to communicate with i
any French Trade Society, it will suffice to writes
to the following address;
au Secretaire du Comite National,
Bureau du Proletariat,
58 rue Greneta, PARIS.
PUBLISHED BY
FOULGER & CO., 14, Paternoster Row, London, E.C.
�
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
Report of the International Trades Union Congress, held at Paris from August 23rd to 28th, 1886
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Smith, Adolphe
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 24 p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: Printed in double columns. Includes list of delegates to the conference.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Foulger & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1886]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4981
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
Trade unions
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 (Report of the International Trades Union Congress, held at Paris from August 23rd to 28th, 1886), 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
Conferences
Trade Unions
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/83ddc69054006a0556b8c0fbfa8b31e4.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=r4DSBNFENFjdfjg0W1Dumtcl6JIlI10dv3jPk8p507sgpkxTdJ7VZ9UrqOnK%7EnFtL4VWwPHb1tRxXchs8nYs1rJ1QGjgQPEazcEE2-CmiF6ZvGAbJmaYCNILeU-e3%7EzKJ-r2b1Iry9odx%7E-0P4zDEEd5o8UsBQdrVJtOSLrcOW62zDE2u6d-ZH26HOtRP0ZUkyR2FW2aPuS4zP0KS49AEEM6hkW73w0Uo28FGTw0yN3sCoy2Vx32MV3ub8l5HbxtzRSE4G9hkp2QQFRZYN5H3H8wXv9rTGMQkXnicydV1oZb51t7-1Kxq6CalKcmQpe1NdZiNXSID%7EWAIZoiw8dlBg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
bfb48e6bd5a0e7542502f12d65a9d4bf
PDF Text
Text
Price One Penny.
THE
J. THEODORE L’AUTON.
w
London :
THE MODERN
PRESS, 13, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
1887.
�;•I'
�THE NATIONALISATION OF SOCIETY.
POVERTY.
HERE is in the nature of every man a desire tor happiness, enjoyment, and
pleasure ; a horror of pain and oppression. The physical constitution of
man has craving instincts ; the intellectual part of him has also its desires.
These desires must be satisfied; they cannot be oppressed. All oppression
of a man’s lawful instincts means misery and death for him. The instincts
of human nature are like dormant volcanoes, ready to burst forth when the opportunity
offers. The passions of human nature may lie calmly beneath the surface, but when
they break forth, they break forth with rage: men have in the course of the world's
history risen against their fellow men, and like savage hyaenas have made them their
food. A man will slay his fellow man for the slightest angry word or look.
The lowest and meanest man will strive to avenge an insult; but why should he bear
so meekly the monster of Poverty ? Poverty is the crime which outrages all a man’s
instincts and feelings. What is it which condemns you to live in hovels unfit for
brutes ; to eat the food of swine ; to wear out your life, health, strength, and beauty in
a desperate inhuman struggle for your existence ? Poverty. What is it which robs
you of education, crushes your natural intelligence, and destroys the distinguishing
mark of your superiority ? Poverty. What is it that changes a man from contentment
tQ sedition ; from sobriety to debauchery, from humanity to brutality? Poverty.
What is that it makes men criminals, society a barbarism, and hands down to posterity
as an heirloom, deformed, stupid progenies ? Poverty.
Poverty is the worst crime in the world. The greatest criminal is not shunned as the
poor man. If you are poor, the rich man will not sit beside you, will not eat with you,
will not speak with you; but will sneer at you. While you are delving for a mere crumb
to eat, he is enjoying himself at your expense. While you are passed by as an insig
nificant object he is honoured. Who is he, this rich man ? The man who has taken
advantage of your stupidity and mean opinion of yourself.
Are we rich enough ? Do you think there are no men poor except those who
ask for a crumb of bread for God’s sake ? Poverty means the inability to satisfy your
lawful instincts; if you cannot satisfy your lawful instincts with ^10,000 a-year, you
are poor. But nothing can be more barbarous than our idea of civilisation. If you
can by a self-denial that eats out your very heart; by the economy of a miser, appear
well before the eyes of men, then those that cannot practise your self-denial or your
economy will deem you rich and blessed. Are we free from Poverty, when by a struggle
that wears out our lives we can barely manage to cover our bodies and keep our blood
circulating? In the present social condition of the world, the majority will consider
themselves happy if they can find these two necessaries. Must we then rest satisfied
with these ? Is there no grander civilisation for us ; no more blessedness than a life and
death struggle ? I for one do net believe it; I see in reality no cruel Destiny com
manding it to be so. All things have a cause ; and there is a cause for Poverty. There
is Poverty, universal, degrading, damnable Poverty; men have a life and death
Straggle for existence ; but who is responsible for such a state of things ? Are we not
�4
41
ourselves responsible? The remedy is before us ; we need only apply it. There is no
Tyrant-God ruling over us. Is not the world ours ? The earth will grow us corn and
cotton if we only sow ; will give us food, clothing, light, and heat. Where lies the
fault ? Is it not ours ? The life of mankind is not a life of blessedness at present; we
must make it a life of blessedness. Not the bare necessaries of existence should be the
ultimatum of our desires ; but the abundance that will make life worth living. Let us
try. If in the nature of things such an acquisition be impossible ; if it be decreed by
the immutable laws of the universe that Poverty must exist, then I say with Carlyle,
“ So scandalous a beggarly universe deserves nothing but annihilation,”
WHY WE ARE POOR.
1
How can a man become rich ? What is it that will make a man rich ? You would
say if a shoemaker was making 1,000 pairs of shoes in a day instead of two pairs, that he
was on the road to wealth. Precisely so. If a shoemaker, who by making two pairs
of shoes in a day struggled through life, then he certainly has a better chance of a more
human existence when he can make 1,000 pairs in a day. So also a farmer who rears
1,000 head of cattle has a better chance of being richer than if he only reared ten head
of cattle. For i,ooo pairs of shoes are worth more than two pairs; and i,ooo cows are
worth more than ten cows. The first condition of wealth therefore is;—A man must
have a large amount of saleable commodity of some kind. The greater the amount the
richer he will be.
But though that is the first condition, it is not sufficient. What would be the use of
you making i,ooo pairs of shoes per day if competition with other shoemakers forced you
to sell at a trifling profit; or if people were so poor that they could not buy your shoes.
So then it is not enough that you have a great amount of saleable commodity ; another
condition is necessary. Other persons must have commodities to give you in exchange
for your shoes. What would be the use of you making i.ooo pairs of shoes per day if you
could not exchange them for other commodities necessary for your daily wants ? Tobe
wealthy, or in other words, to have all your wants satisfied, implies two conditions,
viz., you must by your labour produce a great amount; secondly, others must also pro
duce an equivalent amount. The most illiterate workman knows that these two condi
tions are implied in a good day’s wages. If you are a shoemaker, you know that the
more work you do in the day, and the greater the demand for shoes, the greater will be
your wages for that day. So also with every other occupation. The more you produce,
therefore the richer you will be; provided there be a demand for the produce of your
labour. If a shoemaker can make two of pairs shoes in a day, he will be twice as rich if he
can make 4 pairs in a day ; he will be fifty times as rich if he can make 100 pairs in the
day; provided that the condition of demand is co-existing. The question, therefore,
“ How can we become richer ? ” is reduced to this one, “ How can we increase the
produce of labour, and at the same time maintain an equivalent demand for that
produce? ”
HOW INCREASE THE PRODUCE OF LABOUR.
'T
.IP,
Do you imagine that a shoemaker or tailor, who works before his fire plying his awl
or his needle, will ever become richer by that means ? Never. He may by working late
and early add a little to his income ; but that little would be totally insignificant. Take
your ordinary shoemaker or tailor, and you will say that in order to live a life worthy of
being called Life, they should be at least twenty times as rich as they are. They must
consequently produce twenty times as much as they are producing inorder to be twenty
times as rich. Men can never become richer till the produce of their labour increases.
How then can the produce of labour be increased ? Evidently men cannot be left to
themselves, to -work when and how they wish. The shoemaker cannot be left to ply his
aw’l at his own leisure, “ far from the busy haunts of men.” The greatest result in
labour is got from combination or co-operation. A man who by his own aid can make
ten pins in a day, will in a factory make 1,000 in the same amount of time. It is the
combination of all sorts of skill working in union that has enabled men to become
millionaires. We say, therefore, that the only means of increasing the produce of man s
labour is the combination of all the individual workers into factories adapted for their
several employments. Machinery is the great increaser of the labour of man. Brain
and muscle power is valued a thousandfold when applied to machinery. The shoe
maker who expends his energy in finishing off a shoe, can finish 100 shoes with the same
amount of energy when it directs the forces of Nature. The highest result of individual
labour is obtained, therefore, by co-operation and scientific machinery.
�5
HOW MAINTAIN A DEMAND FOR THE PRODUCE OF LABOUR.
A shoemaker may make 1,000 pairs of shoes in the day by the aid of machinery : even
the enormous produce of our factories may increase a hundred-fold ; but what advan
tage would all that be if competition forced down the prices to an irreducible minimum;
or if the poverty of would-be buyers was the cause of the goods lying on hand unsold ?
In order that any advantage may arise from increased production, there must be a
demand for that increase; that is, these two phenomena, Competition and Poverty,
must cease to exist. Competition which forces a man to sell at the lowest possible rate,
and Poverty which condemns the produce of a man’s labour to rot on shelves, are
the two evils which would render an increase of produce on the part of a portion of the
community of no appreciable utility. As we stated before, the only two conditions of
wealth are: ist. increased produce on the part of workers; 2nd. a universal demand
for that produce. To increase the produce of your labour, with a co-existing co
ordinate demand means to increase your wealth; the same conditions carried to an
indefinite degree means indefinite wealth. We have shown how the produce of labour
can be increassd ; we have now to show how a demand for that produce can be main
tained.
The two evils which prevent a universal demand for the produce of labour are poverty
and competition. Let us deal first with poverty. We mean that if a certain portion of
a community work, and produce a certain amount of commodities, and the other
portion, for whom part of these commodities are intended, do not work and produce,
and consequently have nothing to give in exchange for their wants, these commodities
so produced will have to lie unsold. The poverty therefore of those who do not work
is a direct reason why there is no demand for commodities produced ; it nullifies the
labour of those who have produced ; it leaves the producer in the same position as if
he had not produced at all.
It is evident, therefore, that all must work ; there must be no exceptions. There is
no use in one-half of a population working and producing, and leaving the produce to
rot because the other half who have not worked are not able to buy. Labour must be
compulsory. The more labourers, the more wealth. If the poverty of a portion of a
community be the direct cause of the poverty of the other portion, no matter how much
the other portion may produce, then, the only remedy is to remove the poverty by
compelling all to work. No other remedy is possible, Not only must all be compelled
to work, all must be compelled to work in such a manner as to obtain the maximum
result from their labour : the more work the more wealth.
But though actual poverty may be removed by compelling all to work, and a demand
in general created for saleable commodities, still the evil of competition would remain.
Certain branches of industry would compete with other branches of the same industry ;
and while such a condition would exist increased production would only have the effect
of increasing the evil. Competition, therefore, must cease to exist. How. can com
petition be made to cease ? There is only one way : there must be equilibrium ot
occupations, that is, the various industries must be so balanced, that the amount pro
duced in any one industry must not be a surplus of what there is a demand for. If the
produce of any one industry were more abundant than there was a demand for, then
there would be depression or stagnation in that industry. We do not mean, as
some political economists mean who cry out that there is overproduction, that
industries in general should be restricted ; we mean only that industries should not
be allow to overgrow themselves. That does not mean that men should be kept half
idle; if men are not wanted in one industry, there are plenty of other industries for
them.
Hence we conceive that with every man working so that he may have something to
to give in exchange for his wants; with every man, aided by science, producing the
greatest possible amount so that he may have the greatest possible amount to give in
exchange for his unlimited wants ; with equilibrium of occupations, so that no particular
industry would produce more than the population naturally demanded, we conceive
that poverty would be unknown; that the present barbarism and savagery of our
civilisation would disappear ; and society would have more of the elements of perfection.
NO-CAUSES AND FALSE REMEDIES.
I. Ov.er-Population.—Since the dawn of political economy as a science, " over
population ” has been adduced as one among the causes of poverty. That " over-popu
lation ” is essentially a source of poverty is self-evident, if we attach any meaning at all
to the word. If the population of the British Isles were such that in town and country,
�6
moorland and upland, a man could just rind elbow room, then indeed you would say we
were over-populated ; and should try to find elbowroom in some other part of the globe
But we have not arrived at such straitened circumstances as that yet; we are in fact a
considerable distance from that. It is one thing to say over-population is an evil • it is
another to say the British Isles are over-populated. What part of the habitable’globe
was ever yet over-populated ?
We maintain that “ over-population ” is not the cause of either of the two great evils
which we have pointed out as the causes of poverty. We maintain there is no such
phenomenon in the British Isles as " over-population.” That there are multitudes who
can get no employment is no reason for saying there are too many people here. These
multitudes could get employment if labour were properly organised.
Evidently a large population does not diminish the productiveness of labour. Neither
does the fact that there are multitudes without employment prove that there can be no
work here for them ; and that they should go elsewhere to find employment. That
would be the case if the work of a country were identical with the work of miners, who
having a limited quantity of work to do, must necessarily have it finished at some time.
When the mine is worked out, they must go to some other mine. But the work of a
nation is not identical with that. The manufacturer will never be in want of materials
for labour. He can dig down 4,000 miles without injuring his neighbour. To illustrate
further Suppose a settlement of 1,000 persons had formed a society among themselves,
and by judicious apportioning of occupations, had formed themselves into a miniature
nation, in which each man found ample demand for the product of his labour, why could
not 1,000, or 10,000 more settle down there too, provided they adopted and maintained
the same internal.organisation as the first thousand. Where everyone found demand for
the product of his labour, there would be no cry of ‘‘over-population.” But if that
internal organisation were destroyed, and occupations lost their commercial equilibrium,
then, necessarily there would be a loss of employment for some. Suppose a few thousand
missionaries were to go to Africa to evangelise the Hottentots, there would probably be
a cry from some after a time that there. was" over-population " in the Hottentot terri
tory. But [let these few thousand missionaries betake themselves to the making of
drums, wooden pipes, spears, or whatever may be in demand, and the “ over-popula
tion ” would disappear. It is not “ over-population ” that causes want of employment;
it is want of employment that causes “ over-population.” It is the want of equilibrium
or organisation in the occupations of life that condemns men to walk about idle, when
they earnestly desire to work. The existing poverty will not be alleviated by diminish
ing the population. As long as'the various industries remain unorganised, as long as
some are permitted to live in voluntary pauperism and beggary, as long as one industry
is permitted to compete with another, to reduce the value of labour to its lowest value,
so long, with ‘‘overpopulation,” or a sparse population, poverty will exist.
II. Landlordism.—No greater despotism or diabolical wrong than our present
system of landlordism could exist on the surface of the earth. It has been the cause of
misery and death to millions through all the centuries of its existence. It has given a
few a monopoly over the soil of this earth, which was made for the human race; and
thereby has consigned the happiness and lives of the many to the caprice or selfish
tyranny of the few. Men have been forced by landlordism to life-long slavery, not for
their own benefit, but for the benefit of others.
Humane men, therefore, seeing the evils of the accursed system, have cried out for
the destruction of landlordism. Such a cry cannot and will not be vain. Landlordism,
or private property in land, is unjust, and must be swept away. But though landlordism
has restricted the spirit of progress in man, and prevented the development of natural
wealth; it . must be remembered that its abolition would be only half a remedy.
Abolished it must be; but its abolition will not alone suffice as a foundation for
national prosperity. There are many who believe that if private property in land were
abolished, we would then be on the road to wealth and happiness. But land nationali
sation would only be a means towards the first condition of wealth, viz., increased pro
duction. It would not accomplish the second condition, viz., equilibrium of occupa
tions. Were the land owned by the State, we would then have co-operation in labour,
aided by scientific machinery, as the suitable means of getting the greatest produce
from the land, We would then expect increased production from the land. But with
out equilibrium of occupations there would be the same life and death struggle as now.
Were the land possessed by the State there would be increased production ; but what
would that avail if competition forced down the prices of that produce to a low degree.
Land must be nationalised, as the first condition towards increased production ; it must
be followed by equilibrium of occupations.
If State ownership be not of itself the whole remedy, how much less the ownership
�called “ Peasant Proprietary,’’ You will not abolish the evils of landlordism by creating
an army of landlords. You will not destroy a great evil, says Henry George, by
chopping it up into small pieces. To talk of “ peasant proprietary ” bringing any appre
ciable happiness to the cultivators of the soil is to talk nonsense. It is said existing
rents are too high. But suppose all the rent of the United Kingdom were abolished,
what perceptible benefit would it be to any individual in the United Kingdom? The
rental of the land of the “ United Kingdom ” is about ^67,000,000. Wererent abolished,
it would be equivalent to a donation of less than £2 for every one of the population.
“ Well, you say that itself would be something.” Yes, indeed; it would procure for
each a suit of clothes, or some trifling playtoy. It may be said that present high rents
are the cause of great poverty ; but you will not introduce an era of blessedness or
tolerable prosperity by merely reducing them, or even abolishing them. In our present
social condition a few pounds is a matter almost of Life or Death for many ; but if the
life of'man is to be anything beyond the damnable inane anarchy of to-day, a few
pounds will be a matter ®f indifference.
The present cultivators of the soil may desire to have the land sub-divided and allotted
to them, to take their stand on it, and call it their own ; but there are more people in
the British Isles besides the cultivators of the soil. To-day the majority when they rise
in the morning cannot point to any spot of earth, and say, “ Here can I rest unsubjected
to the caprice of any one man to drive me forth a wanderer.” Were land allotted even
in minute sub-divisions to individuals the same could not be said. The entire abolition
of private property is necessary for the first condition of wealth. To sub-divide land
would be a means of preventing co-operation, and far from introducing wealth, would
probably be not a means towards a greater increase of production than we have at pre
sent. But whether there would be increased or decreased production would not be a
matter of much moment as long as our present anarchy of labour existed.
The worst evils of humanity are associated with landlordism. These evils will not
be abolished by instituting the system of landlordism on a small scale, or on any scale
of it. The improvidence, recklessness, and poverty have been a necessary outcome of
the system; and the effects will not be removed till the cause is removed.
III. Overproduction.—-Many remarkable cries have been raised since the creation
of the world, but this cry of “ Overproduction ” seems to be the most remarkable. I
do not. see how any man of common intelligence would say there was such a thing as
overproduction. “You have produced too much,” they say; “the supply is greater
than the demand.” Well, I can only say with Carlyle “ That is a novelty in this in
temperate earth, with its nine hundred millions of bare backs ! ” Good heavens ! what
shall we say of the audacity of the man who stands up and declares too much has been
produced. “ The supply is greater than the demand.” Indeed ! And will you tell me
at what time since the creation of Adam was there a greater demand for all the com
modities which this world can supply ? Millions of bare backs, shoeless feet, hatless
heads, and empty stomachs ; and still the cry is “ there is too much produced.” We
who are workers call God to witness that we cannot lay our hands upon one-twentieth
of what we demand. A supply to satisfy us may be existing on the earth, but gods and
demons forbid us to touch it.
There are millions of commodities hanging up in the shops, and no one buys them.
Very true. But if people came and bought as fast as you could take them down, you
would not say then that there was “overproduction.” People say there is overpro
duction when commodities cannot be sold. But why cannot they be sold ? Evidently
because those who would buy them have no money. And now the ultimate question,
why the would-be buyers have no money, is the very question.we are trying to solve,
and certainly will not be solved by saying that overproduction is the cause of poverty
and no demand; when the fact is that there was never in the world’s history a time
when workers required more if they could only obtain it. There are millions of com
modities, I say, hanging up in shops and we cannot obtain them. We have no means
of obtaining them. Give us the means of obtaining them and then there will not be
overproduction. Grant us the means of producing more, and then we will have more to
give in exchange for all these commodities rotting on shelves.
Increased production on the part of every one is the first condition of wealth ; what
absurdity then to say there is overproduction. For such a ravenous, covetous animal
as man there could never be such a thing as overproduction.
And you would remedy what you call overproduction by compelling workers to cease
their producing for some time until we all get naked and hungry, and then, you say
there will be a universal demand for all kinds of commodities. But if I cannot
obtain one-hundreth of what I want now, how will I obtain all what I want by ceasing
to produce ? The evil lies not with overproduction ; it lies in the fact that there is not
universal production—equilibrating production on each individual’s part.
�8
. IV. 1. REE I rade.—What does Free Trade mean ? It means free and unrestricted
importation of goods. Free Trade has been condemned as the cause of poverty and
depression of trade. The various industries of the “ United Kingdom ’• have had to
compete with foreign produce. Such competition has had the effect of decreasing
prices here, and creating overflowing markets. On such grounds has Free Trade been
condemned.
But suppose we returned to either partial or complete prohibition, how would the
two great evils of deficient production, and anarchy of occupations be remedied ? To
institute protection or prohibition either partially or wholly would be useless unless the
industries were organised. The two essential remedies of increased production on the
part of all and equilibrium of occupations, must be instituted first; all other remedies
will be merely subsidiary.
Absolute Free Trade has its evils just as landlordism has its evils. But the abolition of
,fee Jrade or landlordism would be of themselves only half remedies. No one can ration
ally deny that absolute Free Trade may ruin a country. Were the sole industry of the
United Kingdom orange-growing, and had it to compete with Spain, it is evident our
orange-growmg would be useless. The natural advantages of one country may render
some of its industries capable of destroying similar industries in other less favoured
countries. Absolute Free Trade has not the advantages claimed for it. Its advocates
point to the extension of our industries as a result of Free Trade. They point also to
cheapened prices and say it has brought luxuries within the reach o’f all. But if prices
of commodities have been cheapened, labour has also been cheapened, and consequently
its good effects have been counteracted. As to the extension of industries, they have
been forced into existence by pressure of competition. Absolute Free Trade cannot
continue. It would be antagonistic to the equilibrium of occupations. We will retain
what is lawful of tree Trade; we will abolish what is detrimental. We must have free
what we cannot produce; we must prohibit what we can produce in abundance.
V. Non-Co-Operation.—There are some who say the poverty of the people can be
remedied by co-operation among the people themselves. No one will deny that co
operation is the only means of getting the highest production from labour ; but it must
be remembered that there are two conditions for wealth and prosperity, viz :—-Increased
production and equilibrium of occupations. With co-operation, increased production
would come, but not equilibrium of occupations. Competition would still be in exist
ence, and would be at a higher rate than now. The fact that there is not general co
operation at present does not account for the universal poverty ; for with co-operation,
the competition of the various trades would tend towards their destruction.
. V?' Capitalism.—The Socialists of to-day cry out for the abolition of capitalists.
Capitalists have tyrannised over the workers; have given them wages barely able to
sustain life ; these have been the evils of capitalism. But capitalism is not universal;
and yet poverty is universal. Were the existing system of capitalism swept away, and
the operatives themselves formed into co-operative communities, by each one contri
buting a share of capital, I say even that would be no safeguard against competition
and consequent depression. Co-operative societies have flourished ; but that has been
because of their limited number : if the whole British Isles were formed into co-opera
tive communities there would still be competition. Co-operation truly means increased
production, and consequently increase of wealth ; but it in nowise means just distribution
of wealth. With co-operative communities alone men may work as long and laboriously
as now, and still reap very little benefits of it.
VII. Intemperance, Improvidence, Want of Education.—It is said the evils of intem
perance and improvidence have kept portions of the masses in a condition bordering on
absolute starvation. The amount we spend in intoxicating drinks yearly in the British
Isles is /126,000,000. It is about ^3 per head of the population. Do you believe that
by rooting out intemperance, and thereby saving to everyone that ^3, you will per
ceptibly increase the welfare of the people ? Three pounds granted to each individual
in the year is only a matter of a plain loaf or a sweet one occasionally. We claim for
every individual a life embracing all the advantages which modem civilisation can
bestow. Do we possess that now; or are we in any slight degree approaching it ?
Intemperance must be destroyed as one cf the many evils of life ; but its destruction
must be accompanied by intelligent scientific organisation of mankind. The one will
not suffice without the other.
The want of technical education among our industrial classes has been assigned as
one of the causes of our chronic poverty. We are said to be far behind some of the
Continental countries. Truly. Germany was the first European country to recognise
the advantage of technical training ; and, as a consequence, she has made more progress
than any other country in manufacturing. But at the same time there are two techni-
�9
callj' trained men in Germany for every one that can find employment suited to his
training. All these so-called remedies are useless without equilibrium of occupations.
You may train workmen to the highest degree in their profession but unless the number
trained in each profession be regulated by the demand for them you will have com
petition among the members of these professions, and consequent low wages. Educa
tion alone therefore is no remedy.
HOW APPLY THE REMEDY.
Who is to apply the remedy? Who is to compel the unwilling to work; locate
isolated workers into co-operation; and determine the equilibrium of occupations ?
Evidently such work is the work of a government.
At first sight there may appear difficulties in the way of applying the remedy. But
why should there be a difficulty in applying a remedy if that remedy be proved to be
for the benefit of the people. The first duty of the government would be to divide the
population into industrial communities, so that each community may be capable of
being centres for factories. The next duty would be to determine approximately the
amount of every saleable commodity for which there would be a demand in every com
munity. Let us suppose one of these industrial divisions to consist of 10,000 persons.
We can determine approximately the number of shoes for these 10,000 persons to be
50,000 pairs in the year ; the number of hats 40,000; the number of loaves of bread
30,000. per week. That being determined for such a community, we see that if one
shoemaker could make 1,000 pairs of shoes in a year, then 50 shoemakers would be re
quired for such a community. More shoemakers than 50 in that community would be
an injury to each other. So if one hatter could make 1,000 hats in a year, then 40
hatters would be required for the same community. And if one baker could bake
3,000 loaves in a week, then 10 bakers would be required.
But you say, " What would the remaining 9,900 persons be doing?” Have we not
wants enough to keep these 9,900 employed, even supposing an occupation to be allotted
to each man. There are about 12,000 different occupations in the British Isles ; every
man needs a little of the service of each. Given the amount required to be produced ;
and also the amount each person is capable of producing, it is only a problem of arith
metic to find how many workers are required in each occupation, so as to create an
equilibrium of supply and demand. The population of the British Isles is about
35,000,000 ; the amount of every commodity utilised in daily use by such a population
can be determined. The number to be employed in each occupation can be determined.
We look forward to the development of science, and the means of shortening human
labour, or, at least, the means of getting the greatest possible produce from a man’s
labour, as the principal means of increasing the welfare of man. You may object :
In case machinery and science should be so developed, that comparatively few would be
able by working all day to supply all the necessaries required by the population, multi
tudes would have no occupation; for the very reason, you say, that machinery, and all
means of high production, would tend, as it has tended in the past, to throw persons out
of employment. Granting that such a high rate of production may arise, and that
comparatively few could supply multitudes, it would not follow, that equilibrium of
occupations would be destroyed. If comparatively few, working ten hours a day could
supply ten times their own number, then by reducing the time of labour down to one
hour a day, both suppliers and supplied would have their share of work. The approxi
mate amount of commodities of every description required for the population being
determined ; the numbers to be employed in each occupation, based on the resources
of scientific research being determined ; the next duty of the State would be to organise
the factories already existing, and to institute others in localities naturally adapted to
such factories.
In order that the State may institute and organise factories to the best advantage,
it will be necessary for the State to be the owner of all lands and buildings. Land
must therefore be nationalised. Society must be nationalised. Private individuals
could not be left in possession of either buildings or land ; because the tenants would
have to pay rent to the owners ; and the payment of rent or interest to any private indi
vidual is another name for tyranny and robbery. The State must become the owner of
all lands, railways, ships, buildings, and all means of distribution and exchange. Com
pensation must be given for all these. How much compensation should be given ; or
whether any should be given for land, are debatable questions; but those who are
desirous that our present system of anarchy and poverty should cease, will not dispute
about reasonable compensation. Following, however, computations already made, the
land value of the United Kingdom has been estimated at £,2,000,000,000 ; the railways
�JO anyuA aqy pun ‘iiupnpojd ut paXoyduia oje uopuyndod yynpE jno jo qyjnoj-auo ynoqv
XyUQ qjOJtUOO UI OAty oy yyB ayqBUO pynOAX BUO-XyuOMy BAOqB UBXH XjOAB JOJ Xnp B qjOAX
sjnoq oaxj uEqy ssay ‘paiyddn Xyjadojd ojoax Xjaurqaura jt ynqy payujysuomap uaaq suq yj
■yuBayiuSisuT ysouqB pajaptsuoa aq pyno.vx yunoitre jBqy ‘Xyaiaog pasTjEuopBjq jo uoijbs
-iueHjo aqj japup ‘uoiyByndod aqj jo pBaq jad ogj you st jt ynq 'tuns aSusy e sjuaddr
jj ooo'ooo'ooo'zy jb pajEunysa uaaq snq ,, mopSuyx pajiup ,, aqj jo strops puBy aqj
jo snjBA sqx i uoajaqy SuiqyXjaAa pun 'saurpytnq ‘puBy aqj yyn assqajnd ajBjg aqj pynoa
‘qsB noX ‘.xxoq puy ’diqsjauAxo aqj sauinssB ajEjg aqj uaqAx pajBSuaduioa aq ajojajaqy
jsntu yuasajd jb Xyjadojd ssassod oqA\ asoqj, •aSuEqaxa puB ‘uoijnqyjjsip 'uopanpojd
jo stream aqj yyn ptre 'sdyqs ‘sXuAxyiBj 'sSuipyinq 'spirey yyn jo jouaxo aqj aq yynqs ajEjg
aqj ynqj stream jnqj, •pasqEUOijBU aq jsnm Xjaiaog -pasiyEuopBU aq jsnui ptreq
<; osjb ujbj duaqa b je jnoqny
jnoX jo aanpojd aqj yyas oj noX syaduioa jnqj uoijtjadmoa you ji st ‘dnaqa sayaijjn asaqy
ya8 noX jnqy jubjS uoAxy ‘Suiqjoyo pnq ptre pooj pnq pire ! sa^ i Suiqjoya ptre pooj
deaqa sn joj ajnaojd uoijtyadmoa you ssoq <; Sutqj yutayauaq b uotjpadmoa yon st yng
•uopanp
-oid pasBOJOUT ujojj poAtjap aq yyiAt syyauaq ou sasnaa uoiyiyadmoa ypupy 'ojej jsoaxoj
jtaqy je uauiqjOAx jo so^eax aqy ^utdaaq jo nyqudna st uoppaduiOQ -auiES aqy ureuraj
SBAtjBjado jo sbSeax aqy pun ‘asuajaut yyps Xbui uotjanpojd jo bjej aqy ynq ! anjy Xja7\
I XrpyBOAX you are saApnjado aqy yyps pun ‘aanpojd oy uiaqy adoq jbao pynoa sax sb qanui
sb
aanpojd jo junoure snouijoua ub SuipyaiX are sotjojobj jno yuqy anjy you yi st ynq
SNOLLoafao
•pasqBOj aq pynoAx Suiaq-yyaAX yntaos pun qyyBOAx jo suoijtpuoa aqy
‘puBtuap ajEuipjo-oa b pun uotyanpojd pasEajatq qyjAt aauayq ‘uotyanpojd jo snydjns
ajaqy ajaqAx Xyuo sysixa uoppadtuop •uoppadtuoa joj uiooj ou aq pynoAx ajaqj
'Supsixa Xjysnput jo qauujq Xue ut snydjns ou ‘joj ! ysixa you pynoAx uotypadtuoa suoiyud
-noao jo mnijqqinba qyq\\ •pa^uBqaxa Xytpnaj aq you Xbui paonpo.rd sSutqy aqy qSnoqy
‘XjjaAod ou ‘Supyuads Xyyayjys 'aq ubo ajaqy ‘Sutanpojd auoXjaAa qjiAX. qjB joj qjyuaAX
jo asBOJauT joj uopypuoa ysjy aqy st qatqAx ‘yyB Xq uopanpojd pasuajaur aq pynoAx ajaqjp
•jBaddBsrp pynoAx XyjaAod aynnyadjad puuayBurSpo qaiqAX saauEjsmnajia aqy ! ystxa pynoAx
qyjBaAt joj Xjnssaaau sjb qaiqAX suoptpuoa aqy ‘jnoquy jo uopESiUExtio ub qans qji/W
■sayapjB ayqBajBS aqy jo uoyyonpojd
aqy uo papuadxa jnoqny jo anyn.x ayqEjinba aqy Xq pautmjajayx aq yyiAx saatjd ‘suopnd
-noao jo tumjqyyTnba SutqsiyqBjsa uopyjadtuoa Xq pauyuijayap oje saapd ‘yuasajd yy
auioq je sapryuunb yuaraqjns ui
paanpojd aq trea qaiqAX sapipotutuoa jo uopEyjoduq aqy ysuyB§B uoyyiqTqojd aq osyB ysnut
ajaqy ynq iXjyunca stqy ur aanpojd youuna sax qaiqAX saprpotutuoa asoqy ut apBJj, as-ij
ayaydmoa aq ysnui ajaqq purod ysaAxoy syi oy jnoquy jo anyBA aqy jo UMop buiajoj b puu
uoryiyadmoo aq XyrjEssaaau pynoAx ajaqy ‘ysixa pyno.vx apBjj, aajq; aynyosqu sb Suoy sb yng
•ayqissoduii st yy oy ujnyaj oy pun ‘uoiyaayojg dn uoaiS aAtq oax : uoiyaayojj suuam yuqy
‘pres aq Xeui yy •payjodtui Suiaq tuojj payyqiqojd Xyyayjys aq pynoqs uiopSuiyy payiupy
aqy joj sappuBnb aynnbapE ut paanpojd Suiaq jo ayqEdEO ayaiyjE Xuy -suopEdnaao jo
umTjqyyinba paqsiyqBysa aqy qyiAX ajajjayui oy you sb os payuynSaj aq pynoqs syjodun aqj,
■qyynaAx jo uopipuoa ysjg aqy si tyaiqAx ‘uopanpojd jo yunoure yuajS ynqy aAuq
you pynoAx sax Xjosynauioa you ojoax jnoqny ji ‘jaqyouB jo uopanpojd aqy uo spuadayx
uopanpojd s.ubui auo joj punuiap aqy sb joj ! yyn uo Xjosyn'dtuoa aq pynoAx jnoqnp
•aauaSiyyayui
pajinboB ptre yujujuu sjunpiAipur yuqy oy SuipjoaaB aynyg aqy Xq pauiuijayap aq pynoAx
jEnpiAtpuT qana oy payyoyyu uopudnaao aqjp ’ayByg aqy uiojj yuatuyuioddu stq aAiaaaj
pynoAx {EnpiAiput XjaAvr -jnoquy jo jaXoydma puu ystyHyidEa aqy aq pynoAx aynyg aqg
■paqsqqEysa aauo jnoqny jo tunijqqrnba aqy qjnysip oy payytuijad aq pynoa sjoynynaads
jo sjojnyuoApu ajBAijd oy<y
’jnoquy jo yojyuoa aroqAx aqy oAEty pynoqs ayBjg aqj,
•uiaqy pred aq oy uopusuadtuoa joj
ayyyiy e ytEAX pynoqs sjouaxo saAyasmaqy yyua oq.xx asoqy ysqy ysnf Xyuo st yt ‘paAJBys Xaqy
ayiqAx paqjOAx OAnq oqA\ suoqyttu jo qjo.xx aqy uaaq SBq ruopbtity paytupy aqy ut Xyjadojd
aqy sb ! payaayja aq paau uuoy oyq asEqajnd ,sjboX jo jaqmnu b Xq jouaxo aqy auiooaq
pynoa ayuyg aqj, •yuBogiuSisut sb tuns aqy jo uoiyejapisuoa aqy ayEdiapuB j paynaoApu
OABq J yuamujaAog yuioog aqy japun ynq ! yunoure bSjbj b sjuaddu ynqy saauEysmnajya
yuasajd jno uj -uopuyndod aqy jo auoXjaAa joj obiy ynaqn aq pynoAx ajnqs s.auo qoua
'uoiyuynoyBO aAoqu aqy ^uiAioyyog • Xyjadojd uouiuioa aqy jo uoissassod spjEAxoy ajuqs
yunba ue aynquyuoa pynoAx auo qanyq pi jo sjouaxo aqy atuoaaq oy ojb aydoad aqy ysqy
suuam Xyjadojd siqy yyB jo jouaxo aqy atuoaaq oy st ayuyg aqy Xes oj; -ooo'ooo'oo&bj
jo yuyoy e Suiqum ! ooo'ooo‘oz(>-1/ sXurpyinq aqy ! ooo‘ooo'or7 sdiqs aqy : ooo‘ooo‘oo67
b st
or
�sjiao puB auiua aqj pB jo asnua ajBUipjn aqj uaaq snq XjjaAod jBqj aas ubo uaui
jbuoijbj pB uaqA\ jug [ paapuj 'auiija §upjiuiuioa uiojj ajdoad juaAajd uopBjnqijj pun
Xjjbaoj istnrepxa apaasE snoidaqj, ‘XjjaAod jnq asp outqjou aAjasap ‘Xjasiui oj sSupq
uBinnq uuiapuoa oj sb juejXj b qans si asjaAtug siqj jo jojebjq aqj jnqj OAatpq
oqM asoqj I jsbj jnqj sb uopjassB snouiaqdsEjq b qans oj Xjdai on aqBui j -asjaAiug
aqj jo jojnajp aqj Xq pautEyjo si ji jnqj pun ! uopnjiABJ^ jo axej aqj sb jsixa Xpjns
-saaau sb jsniu XjjaAod jesjoaiuu Suijsixa aqj jBqj OAatpq oqAx suosjad oje ajaqj Mouq j
aqj jo
os quiqj oqAx suosjad ajn ajaqj Axouq j ; ppoAx aqj ui XjjaAod on aq pjnoa ajaqj jnqj
ajqtssoduii si ji Xbs oj uBaui noX o<j i ajqissoduii si ji Xbs noX oq 'uiii] joj aauBqa ou
si ajaqj pps jnq ! aounjouSt pun ‘XjaSpnjp ‘XjjaAod uiojj jpsunq UAopaj oj s§uoj ubui
qang 'sjpqj oj joijbjui si’ ajp siq Xpunjan jnqj spaj jnq ‘sjeuiiue jbuoijejji aqj aAoqn
st aq Xjijebj ui jnqj SA\ouq ! ajp jo apoui jajqou auios joj sSuoj XjaSpnjp Xynp siq jb
Xeaxe Suippojd’ ueui qang -ajiijEU jo suopBJidsE jnjMBj aqj Suispnaj uiojj uiiq pajuaA
-aid jnqj" uiajsXs jniaos aqj pasjna jou SBq ‘aq oj jqSno ajp UBiunq jnq-w jo Supaaj jseoj
aqj ‘ssauajqou jo jauijsui jseoj aqj uiiq in SuiAEq ‘oqAx ubui b ajaqj sj ‘tuajsXs jnqj
Xq spua asaqj Suiuibjje’ uiojj pajuaXaid si jaX pun ‘ajp UBtnnq ajoui b pnaj oj SuiSuoj
pun ‘jajqou Jouiuioaaq jo snojisap si ubui b jBqj ‘joej aqj st ‘Xbs j ‘tuajsXs Xue jo uoijeu
-uiapuoa jsojbbjS aqj, ‘pauiBjjBun pps uopiqtUE jnoX jo jaafqo aqj jnq Xjoixue qjiAX
jno ujoax oabjS aqj oj oS pun ‘qjpaq JnoX ‘Xauoui jnoX ‘ajp apqM jnoX aayuans Xbui
noX : pautBjjB aq oj pua auios 'ajp jo juauiaouauiuioa aqj ui noX ajojaq jnd Xbui noy
■uotjiquiB siq aspnajjouueo ‘juaiuaauEApE joj joSeo pun ‘qjOM oj snoixun puB SuipiM
st oqkx ubui b jnqj jobj aqj st uopipuoa pepos juasajd jno jo sjiao jsajBajg aqj jo auo
•aoijsnfui pun uopjojxa §uispoBjd jnoqjtM. oaij pjnoa Xaqj ajaqAx uop
-rsod b ui saApsuiaqj'puy uaqj ppiOM ‘ujnjaj ui jnoqnj qanui SuiaiS jnoqjiAV pajjoddns
ja8 oj oSbubiu oqAx sjojaop ‘sjoXaxej ‘sjuBqojaui jo sjsoq aqj ‘paqsyqsjsa Suraq suop
-Bdnoao jo tunijqpinbg -asBaa jsnui uiajsXs b qang ‘sjaqjo jo jnoqB[ aqj Xq pajjo’d
-dns saApsuiaqj jaS oj oSbubui juajopui aqj puB ! Xjsauoq jbao spBAajd Suiuuna ! ajasnui
sjanbuoa uiEjg gjOM siq jo sjinjj aqj jo uiiq qoj oj jaqjouB jo jqSp aqj jou jnq
•. qjoAx oj ubui Xja/a jo jq3p aqj aSpapxouqaE a,\\ (PjqnuiuBp jou ji si ‘sjaqjo jo aoun
-uajuiBin aqj joj jjo.xx oj auios sutnapuoa qaiqAX uiajsXs jBqj puy gjOAx oj uEiu Xjoab
jo Xjnp pun jqSiJ aqj aSpapxouipB oax ! ijjoaa jsnui uaui ppoAX aqj jo pua aqj pig
•uopipuoa jBiaos juasajd jno ui ubui Xub joj ssau
-iddeq ou si ajaqj pjOAx auo uj ’SupjaS jo aauBqa Xub aq Xbui ajaqj jaAajuqAx joj jaqjo
qaua uaaMjaq ajquiBjas suouoabj b ‘bjejjeai b ajq puy ptA\ uaui asaqj—pjBAtuo uiaqj
saSjn jnq 'sjjas sb soaij Jtaqj jno §Bjp oj uiaqj jiuuad jou jjiai ssajSojd joj sjoupsut
asoqM asoqg -saajoj oiubSjo jo ssbui ojoui b jpsuiiq ubui .‘ XjaSpnjp jBaiujojnE ajaiu
b ! Xjiubui ub ajojajaqj uiaqj oj st ajig 'ajy uiBjsns oj qSnoua uibS ubo Xaqj ji paysijBs
ajB Xaqj ‘qjjBOAx oj SutJidsB uiojj jbj juqj ‘paqsnja os ojb sbssbui aqg ’ojejjeax b pun
Xjiubui ub qjoqsi juasajd jb ajiq -SutXofua jo ajqBdBO si ubui saijnxnj jo saSejUBApu aqj
pu sueoui qatqAA ! ajnstaj puB qjjBBM Suijq pjno.vv paqojaqs OABq oa\ qaiqAi uiajsXs aqg
'ACESJALSH HHX JO S3f)VJLNVAaV
•uitms jo quts jaqjta jsnui aq uiiq uodn jnaq oj satuoa uopijadiuoa uaqAt
jnq : uoijanpojd-japun jo uopanpojd-jaAO qjtM ‘Xuiouoaa ou jo Xuiouoaa qjiAi ‘Xjjsnpui
ou jo Xjjsnpui qjtAX aauajstxa ub jno aqa Xbui ubui y
Suojjs aqj Xq uodn pajduiBJj
pun UAtop paqsnja aq oj qnaAx aqj pun ‘qjOAx uiojj jyauaq apjq dnaj oj ‘japjnq >[jom oj
‘jaSuoj qjOAx oj uaui sjaduioa jBqj uoppaduioa si ji aas jou saop oqM ‘ uopijaduioo jo
Jia9 aqj sojouSi oqA\ ubui §uiquiqj Xub ajaqj sj 'Xuiouooa puB Xjjsnput jo sjaajja aqj
SutXjipnu jo ajqBdBO st qatqAx ‘uoppaduioa jsuibSe suoioa jiaqj osibj oqA\ ojb ajaqj A\aj
Axoq juq : qjjBOAx jo sjuauiaja bje asaqj jnqj Xpsnf SuiAaipq ‘Xuioucaa pun 'uopanpojd
‘Xjjsnpui joj jno Xja ajdoag ‘asp Surqjauios jo paau si ajaqj aas jou saop auoXjaAa jnq
! jBqj jo paau aqj saas auoXjaAg -sassnp SuiqjOM aqj Suouib Xtuouoaa pun Xjjsnpui jo
sjiqnq ajouiojd pun asnajaui oj si XjjaAog joj jubax oax Xpauiaj Xjuo aqj jBqj pins si jj
■ssauisnq
jo qauBjq ojbuSoo auios ojui pasiuB§jo aq pjnoa sjaqBuiqajBAx siydjns aqj pasnaja
-ap puBUiap aqj ji ubasj -sjBq jo sotXjs axbu joj puEuiap snonupuoa b axou si ajaqj
sb auiBs aqj jsnC saqajBAx ui suoijuoaui axbu jo ‘sajXjs axou joj puniuap jubjsuoo b aq
Pjuoax ajaqj Xjiunuiuioa XqjpaAx e ui ‘auip a]qBjaptsuoa b sjsbj jBqj apijjB ub st qajBAx b
qSnoqg ’uiaqj joj juauiXojduia Xub aq jou ppoAx aiaqj Xpuanbasuoa puB ‘sjayBtuqajBAx
joj puBUiap jaqjjnj aq jou pjnoAx ajaqj ‘saqajBAx Xes ‘sapijjB uiBjjaa qjiAx patjddns
auiooaq pjnoAx pE ajaqAx Xjiuntuinoa XqqBOAX Xjoa b ui JBqj osje panXin aq Xbui jj
•XjautqoEui jadojd Suisn puB ‘paXojduia ajaAx qjOAx oj ajqB
suosjad pB ji aq pjnoAx jnoqBj pnuuu aqj jo junouiu aqi jnajg A\oq : XjauiqaBui jouajui
uiojj paAijap si auiooui jboj§ JBqj, ’jBaX-B ooo‘ooo‘oo£‘iy jb pajEptapa st jnoqEj jpqj
ii
♦
�12
world, what then can be said in its favour ? Poverty has existed now for some hundreds
and thousands of years ; but that is no proof that it is impossible to remove it.
Poverty has existed for centuries, not because of any laws of the Creator, but because
of the laws of men—because of Might against Right. The day has now come when the
few shall not trample the many ; when Might and Right shall be on the same side. A
nobler life than the present is possible for every man; I have shown it to be possible.
No laws of God or the Devil prevent it being possible ; it is man himself that renders it
impossible.
The human race want organisation of labour, equilibrium of occupations. The era
that introduces that, will be a blessed one. Then the time, money, and energy a man
will expend will not be spent in vain ; he will gain some reward for his labour. If his
ambition be reasonable he will have the satisfaction of seeing it gratified. The inhuman
feline scramble for wealth will then cease. The evil deeds which men commit in order
to attain ends they cannot attain by fair means will no longer be necessary. Men will
not then be afraid to live; self-destruction will not be necessary to end the miseries
which are the companions of poverty.
Men too will become more human; more God-like; less brutal: less demon-like.
Incessant drudgery, which deforms the body and leaves no opportunity for intellectual
culture or enjoyment will vanish into the past. Society then will deserve the name.
Each human being brought into this world will be deemed a blessing, not a curse. A
bright era of intelligence will take the place of stupidity and ignorance. Men will
realise that we cannot live without society ; that the more intelligent a man is, the
better for his neighbour. “ It is as reala loss," says Emerson, “ that others should be
low, as that we should be low; for we must have society."
WHO IS TO APPLY THE REMEDY ?
Here let us ask the question : How is it that although schemes for the welfare of
mankind have been propounded, have been demonstrated to be for the good of the
people, have been fought for, still they are unaccomplished ? The masses through all
ages have wished to be emancipated from their slavery ; there have been brave men
through all ages who have struggled for their redemption ; yet their redemption has
not been realised. How comes it ? Well, the reasons are clear. The people of a
country are compelled to be subject to the laws of the country. The laws for the
masses of mankind have through centuries been made by the few who have made them
in their own interest. From the dawn of history the few who have managed to get
possession of the wealth and power have made laws to degrade others in order to elevate
themselves. The laws were not made to benefit the people, because those who made
the laws did not represent the people.
But you say we have changed all that now; the lawmakers now represent the people—
at least the people give them the opportunity of making laws. Perfectly true. But
though the masses have the power of electing persons to represent them in national
assemblies, of what use is that if the people who are to decide for or against Reform are
so ignorant concerning social evils and social remedies that they are unable to knowtbe
merits or demerits of the remedies proposed. One-half of the people of a country are
generally opposed in their opinions on social questions to the other half. Not till the
majority of the people are freed from hallucinations ; not till they come to understand
thoroughly the real causes of human poverty, and the futility of the so-called remedies
of to-day, can you expect any more blessed era than the one we live in. The people
must be educated. Till that is accomplished, nothing is accomplished. It is folly to
suppose that because people are taught to read, they will read, or will be capable of
seeking out for themselves a solution t® the problem of human misery. It is true the
masses are able to read: it is in nowise true that they are able to think. For the
thousand men says Ruskin, who can read and speak, you will find one who can think.
The masses are ignorant and indifferent. If there is to be a nobler life for them their
ignorance and indifference must vanish. "Why are the masses," says Emerson,
" from the dawn of history down, food for knives and powder "? The heirloom of the
masses from the dawn of history down, has been poverty and misery ; and they have
grown so accustomed to it that they take it for granted that poverty must exist in the
world. They have no hope beyond the present. Their only desire is to obtain sufficient
to keep them alive. We can account for such a low standard of human progress ; for
anyone who looks around him, and sees the cruel wrongs and sufferings that men endure
without uttering a word of complaint, will also see that poverty and misery are looked
upon as a thing which must necessarily be, and for which there is no remedy.
When the ignorance of the people will pass away, their indifference will pass away.
They must be educated : in that lies the hope of better things. They must be taught
�13
that there is a remedy for poverty, They must be made to know what that remedy is.
Alas ! what a world of labour lies open there before all earnest men.
One of the many reasons which have kept, and are still keeping nations in a state of
slavery, has been the absence of organised union. They who fight for nobler aims
must fight in unison. And not a union of sentiments alone will win the battle ; but
steady, wise co-operation. Can you point to any nation where the people as a whole
are acting in real unison for their common good ? No. The masses condemned to toil
for mere subsistence, either in the dingy lanes of crowded cities, or on the lone wastes
of mountain land, have no time or energy to think of remedies for social evils even if they
would. Do I then expect from these downtrodden masses the commencement of a new
era? No; but I look forward to those select few to whom the favour of Nature and
Human Destiny have given souls capable of feeling for the degradation of their fellow
men, and clear-sighted intelligence to see wherein lies the cause of our miseries. I look
forward to those noble and courageous few who have endured the worst hardships of
life, have triumphed over them, and are determined to lead a nobler existence or die.
I look not to the things called “ Governments ” for the advancement of a nation, but to
the nation itself. “What intellect,” says Carlyle, “can regulate the affairs of these
millions of labouring men ? No one—great and greatest intellect can do it. What
can ? Only these millions of ordinary intellects, once awakened into action ; these well
presided over may do it.” By each individual getting a clear idea of what he is to do,
and what must be done—only by that means can a nation prosper.
But how can the people be educated ? Let us learn from the past. Men have
laboured in the past, and have written books to point out to mankind a pathway from
their slavery, but their efforts have been vain ; they have passed away unknown to the
working millions. Even to-day movements are on foot for the regeneration of the
human race ; but the nature of these movements are known only to those immediately
connected with them. It is not sufficient to scatter noble opinions broadcast; there are
barren soils for them to fall on. It is in the real contact of mind with mind that the
dormant intelligence rouses itself into action. Men come together in the market place
to buy and sell the scanty produce of each others' labour; but they must also come
together in order to elevate human existence.
Looking forward earnestly to the advent of a more human existence, and asking
myself the grounds of my hope, I again appeal to those noble few in whom the spirit of
Right and Justice must make itself known against oppression and injustice. Ye
courageous Few! my hope rests upon you. Organize! organize! organize your fellow
men. They are ignorant, and know not the way ; you must point it out to them. The poor
two-footed slave far away on his mountain patch knows nothing of you or of your thoughts
till you speak. Hide not, I say, the light that has been given you. Gather together
your fellow-men in the thoroughfares and there teach them that a nobler life than a life
of slavery is possible for every man. The doctrines which have caught men’s hearts,
and which they have followed for centuries, were so preached. Teach them there is a
remedy for all the miseries of our present existence ; that they themselves are to apply
it. Is there a man who shall dare to say we are well enough ? For the base, worthless,
indifferent you must have pity. You may have enemies, as all noble men have had
since the creation of the world. But fear not; the spirit of a nobler existence is abroad,
and the time of man’s redemption is at hand. The institutions of the past have failed
to bring social happiness to mankind. They must change. There are some who cannot
foresee the good a change may bring them ; but fear they may lose by it. These will be
your enemies. But venture forward ; you shall have the many millions on your side.
You may make sacrifices, but you should remember that there is but one life given you,
and no chance for you for evermore after that. The tomb shall close over you, and
your chance of leading a noble life and of causing others to lead it shall have passed
away for ever.
Is life worth living at present ? “ Life is an ecstasy” says Emerson; but alas how
few there are who can say likewise. Is it worth living a life of monotonous drudgery ?
There is no form of life worth living at the present moment if it be not in combatting
with all the energy that is in you against the tyrannical wrongs, the insane bedlam delu
sions of our age. No Demon-God is ruling over and condemning you to misery and
scorn. If we are in misery it is because of our own unwisdom. Then why are we
unwise ? If the life of man can be elevated why not attempt it ? This beautiful earth
was made for us, and shall we be condemned to drag out our existence in some obscure
corner without any chance of beholding the fairest portions of it? The wonders of
creation and the knowledge and secrets gained by generations are unknown to the mass
of men : they are born and they die as the lower animals. Let us then urge forward,
fearing not for the cause that has Justice and the masses of men on its side, heeding not
�M
the opposition of those who foolishly fear a change, and be determined that we mus;
have a better life, or die nobly struggling for it. Let us not fear: we shall not be alone
the whole civilized world has risen against tyranny, oppression, and slavery. When all
men shall know each others efforts, and shall be bound together in one common brother
hood, to demand freedom it shall not be denied them.
SUMMARY.
Chap. I.—The feelings of man are easily aroused; he will rise up in resentment
against an angry look er word. But why not arise with noble indignation and with
earnest endeavour strive to throw off the yoke of poverty that outrages all the dearest
instincts of man ?
Chap. II.—Why are we poor ? We are poor because, first, we do not produce enough :
second, the demand for the products of labour is not co-ordinate with production itself.
Chap. III.—How, then, can we increase the produce of labour ? By co-operation ; bv
the establishment of factories; by the highest adaptation of scientific machinery ; by
compulsory labour.
Chap. IV—How maintain a co-ordinate demand for the produce of labour? By
establishing equilibrium of occupation ; by having as many workers in an occupation
and no more than the wants of the community necessitate.
Chap. V.—What are the false remedies for our universal poverty? Diminution of
population, destruction of landlordism, restriction of production, protection, co-opera
tion, abolition of capitalism, education, temperance, providence.
To diminish population by emigration or other means, and still leave occupations
disorganised, will not cause any decrease in the universal poverty.
The United
Kingdom seems to be over-populated because the workers are not organised. In a
community either populous or otherwise, without equilibrium or organisation of occupa
tions, the great monster of Competition will exist. So with the other false remedies,
which are no remedies because such phenomena as over-population, over-production,
intemperance, improvidence are the effects of poverty and the disorganisation of
occupations ; while the abolition of landlordism, free trade, and capitalism would be
only half-remedies.
HOW APPLY THE REMEDY.
Chap. VI.—The State would (ist) determine approximately the amount of every saleable
commodity necessary for the population. (2nd) It should determine the number of workers
to be employed in each industry, so as to produce the amount required, and no more.
(3rd) The occupations so organised should be carried on co-operatively, totally under
State supervision, compulsorily. The State must be the owner of all lands, conveyances,
means of transit, of distribution and exchange. Everything tending to destroy equi
librium of occupations should be prohibited.
OBJECTIONS.
Chap. VII.—Is not our production as high as we could expect ? Does not competition
bring cheap articles within the reach of all ? How is it possible for the State to buy up such
immense property as the land, railways, ships, buildings ? At the high rate of produc
tion proposed, would not some industries in a short time produce so much that there
would be no further use for them ? Would not increased habits of industry, thrift, and
temperance remove poverty ?
ADVANTAGES OF THE REMEDY.
Chap. VIII.—Life would cease to be an inanity and a warfare. To become rich it would
not be necessary for one to prey on another. A man’s ambition would be realised.
Inhuman strife and dark deeds would be unknown.
Man will become more god
like, less demon-like.
WHO IS TO APPLY THE REMEDY ?
Chap, IX.—The people must apply the remedy, The people must be educated, must be
made to understand there is a remedy for poverty ; that they themselves are to apply the
remedy. They must be taught that poverty is the worst crime in the world ; that they
are many, their oppressors few. They must know that henceforth their watchwords
must be “ Union ! ” “ Organisation ' ” You whom nature has gifted with a love of.
justice and nobleness, be you in the vanguard, and in social circle or public thorough
fare, by word and action, proclaim the doctrine of man's social redemption !
�OBJECT.
The Establishment of a Free Condition of Society based on the prin
ciple of Political Equality, with Equal Social Rights for all and the
complete Emancipation of Labour.
PROGRAMME.
1. All Officers or Administrators to be elected by Equal Direct Adult
Suffrage, and to be paid by the Community._
2. Legislation by the People, in such wise that no project of Law
shall become legally binding till accepted by the Majority of the People.
3. The Abolition of a Standing Army, and the Establishment of a
National Citizen Force; the People to decide on Peace or War.
4. All Education, higher no less than elementary, to be Free, Com
pulsory, Secular, and Industrial for all alike.
5. The Administration of Justice to be Free and Gratuitous for all
Members of Society.
6. The Land with all the Mines, Railways and other Means of Tran
sit, to be declared and treated as Collective or Common Property.
7. Ireland and all other parts of the Empire to have Legislative
Independence.
8. The Production of Wealth to be regulated by Society in the com
mon interest of all its Members.
9. The Means of Production, Distribution and Exchange to be
declared and treated as Collective or Common Property.
As measures called for to palliate the evils of our existing society the
Social-Democratic Federation urges for immediate adoption
The Compulsory Construction of healthy artizan’s and agricultura
labourers’ dwellings in proportion to the population, such dwellings to
be let at rents to cover the cost of construction and maintenance alone.
Free Compulsory Education for all classes, together with the provision
of at least one wholesome meal a day in each school.
Eight Hours or less to be the normal working day in all trades.
Cumulative Taxation upon all incomes above a fixed minimum not
exceeding ^300 a year.
State Appropriation of Railways, with or without compensation.
The establishment of National Banks, which shall absorb all private
institutions that derive a profit from operations in money or credit.
Rapid Extinction of the National Debt.
Nationalisation of the Land, and organisation cf agricultural and
industrial armies under State control on Co-operative principles.
As means for the peaceable attainment of these objects the SocialDemocratic Federation advocates :
Adult Suffrage. Annual Parliaments. Proportional Represen
Payment of Members ; and Official Expenses of Election
out of the Rates.
Abolition of the House of Lords and all
Hereditary Authorities.
Disestablishment and Disendowment
of all State Churches.
tation.
Membership of Branches of the Federation is open to all who agree
with its objects, and subscribe One Penny per week.
Those ready to form Branches should communicate with the
Secretary, Social-Democratic Federation, Bridge House, Blackfriars, E.G.
�Socialism and Soldiering ;
with some comments on the
Army Enlistment Fraud. By George Bateman (Late 23rd Regi
ment), with Portrait. With an introduction by H. H. Champion
(Late Royal Artillery). Price One Penny.
The Working Man’s Programme
(Arbeiter Pro-
gramm). By Ferdinand Lassalle. Translated from the German
by Edward Peters. Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d.
The Robbery of the Poor.
Demy 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d.
By W. H. P. Campbell.
The Appeal to the Young.
By
Prince
Peter
Kropotkin. Translated from the French by H. M. Hyndman and
reprinted from Justice. Royal 8-vo., 16-pp. Price one penny.
The most eloquent and noble appeal to the generous emotions ever penned bv a
scientific man. Its author has just suffered five years' imprisonment at the hands of the
French Republic for advocating the cause of the workers
Wage-Labour and Capital.
From the German of
Karl Marx translated by J. L. Joynes and reprinted from Justice.
New and cheaper edition, Royal 8-vo., price id.
By Edward Carpenter.—Social
Progress and Indi
The Man with the Red Flag:
B eing John Burns’
vidual Effort ; Desirable Mansions ; and Co-operative Production.
One penny each.
I ’Ik
14
Speech at the Old Bailey, when tried for Seditious Conspiracy, on
April gth, 1886. (From the Verbatim Notes of the official short
hand reporter.) With Portrait. Price threepence.
The Socialist Catechism.
with additions from Justice.
By J. L. Joynes. Reprinted
Demy 8-vo., price id. 20th thousand.
Socialism and Slavery.
By H. M. Hyndman,
(in
reply to Mr. Herbert Spencer’s article on “ The Coming Slavery.”)
New Edition, with portrait. 16 pp. Royal 8-vo., price one penny.
The Emigration Fraud Exposed.
By
What an Eight Hours Bill Means.
By T. Mann
H.
M.
Hyndman. With a Portrait of the Author. Reprinted by per
mission from the Nineteenth
for February, 1885. Crown 8-vo.,
price one penny.
(Amalgamated Engineers). New edition with portrait.
Thousand. Price one penny.
Socialism and the Worker.
By F.
A.
Sixth
Sorge.
Price id.
An explanation in the simplest language of tne main idea of Socialism.
The Chicago Riots and the Class War in the
United States. By H. M. Hyndman. Reprinted
from Time, June, 1886.
Price one penny.
International Trade Union Congress,
t
August, 1886. Report by Adolphe Smith.
Price Three-Halfpence.
held at Paris,
24-pp., Royal 8-vo.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The nationalisation of society
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
L'Auton, J. Theodore
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14, [2] p. ; 27 cm.
Notes: Publisher's list and information on the Social-Democratic Programme on unnumbered pages at the end.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Modern Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1887
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4980
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The nationalisation of society), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Nationalisation
Socialism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/80e9996980e2c27ff46dce43d319598f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=koDpNjaKdNaoky3RKtmocs147Exr1qwA9QPwjzRcfK9Mkr7vaSC7RAaJisHx%7EhkosnnxVNqL4-tZpOUUREcfZaFr3VruFS8FChsNUmvGVpjF0Pnfxfi2XbQNDrsZXpk-NhGoyayFL2lEV0F3in8tghPq75QxSFuX3UJt%7EfMzKBZMryF53XKrtvglSCtIpjNYL7%7ExaFsRJ23194u0ZQwXS8cwdfDodJcftw8vTjIuqSUcFtRNo1FCFamowBrQORygjAXHWB1jaZ0U%7E%7ENR70PsdoGrOlKfYXO4K7DChKrT9q1nKGGPV%7Epl5AY%7EhHAyizu%7EuUErX4N-1m7lsxRF25gqYg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ecebb09cca30d63e51417489e00da298
PDF Text
Text
£ -2-? 3 I
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
SOCIALISM.
To the Editor -------Sir,
The efforts of the members of the “Trinitv
Church Mutual Improvement Association ” to increase
their store of useful knowledge deserve nothing but
praise. But, judging from the report you give of a
lecture on “Socialism” by the Reverend President, I
fear the members will be liable to mistakes of a serious
kind if they confine their search for truth within such a
limited area as that apparently covered by this exposition.
That Christ was a great Socialistic teacher is beyond
dispute, and that he taught and practised “self-sacrifice ”
is not by any means a full statement of the facts. He
taught rich men to “sell all that they possessed”, and
his earliest followers, we are told, did so, and had “ all
things in common”. Are we to understand that the
lecturer is prepared to direct his flock to follow this
example, in both the spirit and the letter ? If not, what
becomes of the assertion that the Christ-like form of
Socialism is the “only one” which will “ever be
possible ” ?
�I do not understand the phrase “ Compulsory Social
ism , nor to what system it can be applied. Hence I am
unable to judge of its asserted “ absolute impossibility”.
The lecturer appears to have implied that this system of
compulsory Socialism” was “experimented upon in
France , and “ caused the streets of Paris to be
drenched in blood”. It is not explained which event
was referred to—the early French Revolution, that of
1830, or the more modern Commune? In either case, the
reference was entirely misleading, and Socialism, either
compulsory” or “arbitrary”, was in no sense whatever
the cause of the events mentioned. This muddling-up
of Socialism, Atheism, and other disliked “isms” is a
very common practice, especially in addressing an audience
believed to be not too well read in history. But at the
present day such inaccuracies and loose statements are
risky and liable to be detected, even in least expected
quarters. Hardly less obscure and misleading were the
lecturer’s definitions of “ Individualism” and “ Christian
Socialism ”. The Rev. Stewart Headlam would have
demolished the lecturer’s position in a few minutes, and,
unless the reporter failed to catch the drift of the state
ments made, the result of the prescribed line of action
would certainly be “confusion worse confounded”.
If Socialism is to be described at all, it should be fairly
and candidly done, because the exhibition of a mere cari
cature of so important a movement will certainly not
“mutually improve” any persons who listen thereto.
Systems of Socialism have been and are many and various,
and a proper historical description of them must be both
interesting and instructive. Such a retrospect would
reach back to Crete and Sparta, the ancient German com
�3
munities (from one of which, the Anglo-Saxons came), the
Essenes of Judea, the Anabaptists, and many other forms
of Socialistic association. Of later years the labours of
worthy old Robert Owen, Fourierism, the theories of
Paine, Spence, Godwin, and others would require notice.
Later on still the work and writings of Karl Marx and his
school, with the views of Mill, Spencer, Bax, the leading
spirits of the Social Democratic Federation, the leaders of
the Co-operative movement, the Fabian Society, and a
host of modern writers and speakers—all these would haw1
to be carefully considered before moderate justice could
be done to the subject of Socialism. Certainly this vast
subject is not one to be disposed of by a vague, hackneyed,
and utterly misleading reference to the French Revolution
—an event no more the result of any form of Socialism
than it was the consequence of the discovery of the Coper
nican system or of the mariner’s compass.
Let me explain that I am not a Socialist, any more
than the reverend lecturer is one, except in the sense that
now-a-days we are all more or less acting under the
influence of Socialistic principles, whether we know it
or not. This great subject is one which is daily engaging
the deep attention of many of the wisest and best men
and women of the age, in this and other countries. The
absorbing problems of land and labour, and capital and
labour, are being thought out and solutions sought; and
into the possession of the ripe fruit of all this study and
investigation humanity will one day enter. I may, or I
may not, agree with Mr. Morris, Mr. Hyndman, or Mrs.
Besant, in the conclusions at which they arrive ; but that
they and a thousand others are doing useful work I am
bound to admit. Such a movement is not to be thrust
�4
aside by a Podsnapian wave of the hand, nor settled and
disposed of in a half-hour lecture.
The old laissez faire system has been tried and found
grievously wanting, and the doctrine of “ every man for
himself ” has failed to satisfy the needs of the age. This
movement towards Socialism is not the work of “Agi
tators ”, and therein lies the silly old mistake into which
so many well-meaning people have fallen. Agitators are
effects, not causes ; they are the products of the spirit
that moves in millions of human breasts, a spirit that
cannot be sneered down, nor even chained down, by any
human power. Agitators are only the outward and visible
signs of the inward and spiritual aspirations of the people.
We may few of us live to see it, but I recognise even
in this much misunderstood, and so often fatuously misrepresented Socialism, one of those hopeful and noble
onward and upward tendencies of humanity, that are
working day by day towards that golden age sung of by
the poets, and which, as Southey says,
“ Shall bless the race, redeemed of man, when wealth
And power, and all their hideous progeny,
Shall sink, annihilate, and all mankind
Live in the equal brotherhood of love I ”
January 20th, 1890.
Yours, etc.,
PAT),
[Note. — The editor of the newspaper in which the
report referred to appeared, declined to insert the above
letter.]
A. Bonneb, Printer, 34 Bouverie St., Fleet St., E.C.
�
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
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rad
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 4 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Letter to the editor of an unidentified newspaper, which had published a report to which the letter (unpublished) is a reply. Signed "RAD". Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
A. Bonner, Printer
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1890]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N546
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Socialism), 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
Socialism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4ecca55de37ccf2224b0b73b9c3893ab.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=aDmeFpRplKtSeclP70jr9tuV1beXfsBhA7y68h%7Em7nMzHajxeTTjzuE2TiZc127iz67xRUL0kAqhl2VqLGTweSVqYGsShIEDYlE6mF%7EJ3uD0NkMkMhLThVQVZftzlZFnem9gUuQyHB3FJhuyAvjR0q4KIwjnOCnQpFyMF2vhrQmmDOwup0L93rLoFJ-MzxfHa-s5zirS%7EftbphqohPUH4yBB77i4fXbgx2Na96GFGRRRXcMgD5%7ETEjXMKsfXmD3X7t8yIHG%7EsiljTbBWNBDeqycl8aC4FyJVkBN3UMQRq0LkxBSL3gfO6xyXA7nw-0aIZw7N8alb6TWAf5kwdsEb-g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7793a42b8125a175a24f6f6da181c214
PDF Text
Text
335
LLO
PRICE ONE PENNY.
THE
!
I NEW CONSCIENCE,
:
OR
RELIGION OF LABOUR.
j
BY
■
HENRY D. ILLOYD.
Reprinted by permission from the “ North American
Review f and Revised by the Author.
•
EDITION.
THIRD
LONDON :
Published for the New Fellowship, at 34, Great Ormond
Street, W.C.
1893.
No. 6.
Fellowship Series.
��Four hundred years before the workingman of Nazareth
in behalf of the toilers of the world came to deliver his
message of love and a sword, a new conscience stirred
some obscure heart in Greece to speak for liberty for the
labourer.
Plato was dreaming of the elevation of man through
impossible Republics and preposterous stirpiculture, and
had no ear for this new voice. But Aristotle, man of
science, knowing that the humblest of opinions may come
to be the biggest of facts, puts it on record, though
evidently merely as an eccentricity of contemporary
thought. “ There are some,” he says, “ who think that it
is only the fashion of despotic government which makes
one man a slave and another free, and that the tie must be
unjust because it is founded in force.” His was one of the
greatest of minds, but it never divined that in this whisper
of the new conscience of a few nameless Greeks lay the
full diapason of a cry, before which would fall many a wall
of citadeled oppression, built on sand because founded on
force : unjust and therefore unsound. That still small
voice rolls around the world, shaking the oppressor out of
his seat, whether king, priest, man-stealer or monopolist.
To the accompaniment of the guns of Fort Sumter and the
Wilderness it sang the chorus of union and liberty, which
Lincoln in 1861 heard sounding forth from the mystic
chords of the American heart. Those unknown Greeks
were the first Abolitionists. Lincoln signed only a chapter
of the emancipation which they proclaimed, and that not
the last chapter. Ceaseless growth means ceaseless
emancipation. The symphony Lincoln heard plays on.
One by one the cries of imprisoned and imprisoner blend
into the strains of a widening freedom.
�THE NEW CONSCIENCE.
4
It is the fashion of scholars to speak of the Greek
intellect, the Roman will, the Hebrew conscience. The
Hebrew had a conscience, not because he was a Hebrew,
but because he was a man. The same birthright belongs
to the Greek and to all of us. It was the voice of con
science, “ that prophetic sign of my divine monitor,” which
always spoke to Socrates when what he was about to do
would be wrong, and by the same revelation God wrote
the Ten Commandments on the hearts of men before they
were graven on the tables of stone.
Fichte says that the greater the wealth and rank the
greater the vice. Seldom does the new conscience, when
it seeks a teacher to declare to men what is is wrong,
find him in the dignitaries of the church, the state, the
culture that is. The higher the rank, the closer the tie
that binds those to what is, but ought not to be. It is the
tramp, Christ, who has not where to lay his head, the
peasant Luther, the poor mechanic William Lloyd
Garrison, who are free to listen to new truth, and brave
and free to speak the words that lead men out of old
church, and old state, and old industry. The new con
science which warns civilisations to do justice to the
workingmen, has always encountered the opposition of the
mighty ones of earth. If this spirit of love and liberty
stirred in the heart of any Jews of the old dispensation,
their priests, unlike the scientific observer of Athens, let
the fact find no record in their scriptures. Aristotle
declared that no man could be a workingman and lead
a life of virtue. In ancient times, learned, pious,
patriotic, noble, all agreed that the victor who had the
r’ght to kill had the right to command, and that he who
was given his life had no right to demand his liberty.
Lawyers invented the doctrine that the slave could not
buy his freedom, for the money he proffered for it must be
his master’s. The early Christian Church did not so much
disapprove of slavery as of the enslavement of its own
members.1 In the United States religious synods voted
that the slavery agitation should be suppressed by laying
on the table, unread, all petitions, resolutions, and other
papers about it, and Evangelical Alliances forbade young
people to dance, but refused to declare it sinful for a bishop
�5
THE NEW CONSCIENCE.
to hold slaves. Boston hissed the fanatic who declared
that the theatre would receive the gospel of anti-slavery
truth earlier than the churches. But in two years slaves
on the stage in “Uncle Tom” shot their hunters amid
loud applause, while the pulpit remained silent or hostile.
As for property, its broadcloth mobs attacked meetings of
women for proclaiming the new freedom, dragged
Garrison. through the streets of Boston to hang him for
maintaining the right of the black workingman to fuller
growth, and its Presidents and Supreme Court Judges ran
with the bloodhounds to catch the fugitive labourer. The
courts then, as now, made many things successful which
they can never make respectable.
When the subject of the extension of slavery in the
territories was before Congress, a Southern member
arose and told how he loved his black “ mammy.” He
had been nursed at her breast with her own black baby.
“ I love that black mammy,” the Southern member
fervently exclaimed, “ and when I go into Nebraska I
want to take her with me.” “ We do not object,” said
Ben Wade, “to your taking your black mammy with you
to Nebraska; but we don’t mean to let you flog her or sell
her when you get there.” Pro-Slavery law and order
easily proved that to buy and sell workingmen in the
market was constitutional, pious, profitable, based on
contract, benign. All that the new conscience equid reply
was : “ Hear the whistling of that lash, that drip
o
*f
blood,
the cries of that mother, the cries of the children ; see
those empty homes, those human faces twisted out of
shape, master’s as well as man’s.”
It was ridiculous, was it not, to meet those judges and
bishops and millionaires and great editors with this talk
about the lash, and blood, and the sacredness of the
persons of working men and working women ? There'
was no argument in it, only sentiment. The gravestones
of Arlington and Gettysburg prove that sentiment can
*
*
force a hearing.
There came a day when the black mammy could not be
sold or flogged, at home or abroad, when families could
* National Cemeteries in which the soldiers killed in the Civil
War are buried.
�6
THE NEW CONSCIENCE.
not be torn asunder at the auction block, when the great
brothel was closed where half a million of women were
flogged to prostitution, or worse still, degraded to believe
it honourable, when a professedly Christian nation ceased
to deny, by statute, the Bible to every sixth man and
woman of its population. This was what the new con
science did for the slaves with the help of religion, but
against the opposition of the church ; with the help of
the spirit of justice, but against the opposition of lawyers,
judges and legislatures ; with the help of the true science
of labour, but against the efforts of the economists and
capitalists. After all is over, lawyer, priest, professor,
and money-maker find that they were wrong and con
science right, that the theory that treated men and brothers
as chattels or goods was illegal, unjust, irreligious, un
economical, and wealth-destroying.
For twenty-three hundred years the argument never
reached a higher plane than that attained by the forgotten
Greeks, who held that they were unnatural ties which were
founded on force. This revolt against ties founded on
force finds another echo, in the aspirations and ideals of
those who are to-day seeking for themselves and others
the right to work in secure tenure of employment, to live as
long a life as their neighbours live, to live it as freely and
to rear healthfully and happily children to live after them.
It was the force of battle that overcame the labourer of
the old régime ; it is the force of the market that subdues
the labourer of to-day. The tie between the labourer and
the master is still one of force, although it is not now one
of visible chains. You say, “The labourer is free, he
consents.” Yes, free as the captive was—to work for
what he can get or die. Like him he consents to save his
life, or, more accurately, a part of his life. The Con
gressional Committee, investigating the strike of the
Reading Railroad’s men, asked General Manager Whiting,
as reported by the Associated Press : “ Have you made no
effort to supply the places of the striking miners ? ”
“No, sir.”
“ Why ?”
“ Because we desire and expect our old men to come
�THE NEW CONSCIENCE.
7
“ On your own terms ? ”
“ At the old rates, yes.”
“What force do you rely upon to bring these men
luack ? ”
“Well, sir, their necessities.”
It is not by free will that the workingmen of to-day
■work ten, twelve, or fourteen hours, take competitive
wages, live in poor tenements at high rents, spend their
■days as the mere servants or grooms of machinery, and,
sending out their little boys and girls, and their pregnant
wives to work, sacrifice almost everything that makes
-•family life for you and me so sweet. They do not submit
;by consent to live a life not much above half the average
length of that of the prosperous. Workingmen the world
•over are struggling to free themselves by every means of
strikes, protest, organization, even to the desperation of
physical violence. Singular behaviour, is it not, for men
"who are only doing what they want to do? They are
■kept down by force, by the force of competition instead of
■conquest, by the strategy of the generals of supply and
demand. Once it was the force of the wairior, now it is
the force of the capitalist. It was their weakness and the
■strength of others which formerly made the workingmen
merchandise, and force still keeps them at the mercy of
the markets. But the unresting heart of man is always in
-revolt against ties founded on force.’ Yesterday it de•clared that government is the control of man by man, and
7that the rights of rulers are drawn from the consent of the
..governed. To-day it avows that property is the control of
man by man. That the rights of the ruled are the source
■of the rights of the rulers in property as much as in
.government. That if the common people can be allowed
to vote in government, they can be allowed to vote in that
•other government, property. That if they do not insist
•upon their right to vote upon all affairs of property, they
■will lose their right to vote in matters of government.
'That there is no conscience, new or old, which compels
the many to die undeveloped in order that the few may
Hive misdeveloped.
What stirred the warriors’ heart to spare the captive
instead of killing him was the first beat of a new conscience.
�8
THE NEW CONSCIENCE.
When it grew stronger it said: He is more than a com
modity. Grown stronger still, it says to us: His labour is
more than a commodity. The central doctrine of the
slave power was that the labourer was merely merchandise.
The central doctrine of the money power is that labour is
merely merchandise. Society supports the latter, as it did
the former, with the consolidated array of all its institutions
and laws. But both doctrines, and all that is built upon them,
are absolutely destructive not only of the liberties of the
labourer but of the liberties of all. The conscience that said
the labourer shallnot be a commodity though despised of the
builders is now a cornerstone. A new conscience takes its
stand before all our institutions, and says to them: Labour
shall not be a commodity, for the labour is the labourer.
Under the theory of merchantable man the employer
said: My workmen. Under the labour commodity theory
the employer says: My workmen. Neither means mysheep to feed, but my sheep to shear. Congressman
Hutton, of Missouri, says about the Reading strike: “I
am tired of reading about strikes. Capital should be at
liberty to pay whatever it sees fit for labour, and to employ
whom it chooses.” An iron manufacturer lately said: “ If
you employed on a large scale you would soon find that
you ceased to look at your men as men. They are simply
so much ¡producing power.”
If the Captains of Industry can reduce ore to iron only on
these terms of reducing men to units of power, the sooner
the Captains of Industry are discharged, and their places
filled by Brothers of Industry, the better.
Henry Ward Beecher, after the Emancipation of
Slavery, said, amid enthusiastic applause, “We have struck
the shackles from the slave, and made him free and a
citizen. Now he must take care of himself, and work out
his own social and industrial salvation.” “Why? asked
the new conscience, Is he not still your brother ? Because
you have abolished one of the wrongs done him by you,
does that give you the right to maintain the other wrongs t
Are you not still his neighbour? When you work with
him, and divide proceeds into profits and wages, will the
God of Plymouth Church considerately turn his back, so asnot to see whether you love your neighbour as yourself?
�THE NEW CONSCIENCE.
9
The remark of the great pulpit-orator epitomizes the
whole spirit of our civilization towards the labourer.
The ancients bought and sold men; we buy and sell the
heartbeats only. The new theory that though the working
man is not a thing, his labour is a thing, marks but a slight
advance on the old. It means that the labour can be
bought and sold regardless of the man behind it; that the
buyer, the employer, can take any advantage of the seller,
provided he does it under the formulas of supply and
demand; that to buy his life of him cheap and sell it dear
is all we have to do with the labourer; that the only con
science the buyer needs is to observe the rules of the
market; that he can depress or raise prices without moral
responsibility for the backs bent or hearts broken by his
manipulations; that he can take more than he gives,
regardless that the “ goods ” he gets are the lives of workers
who cannot survive if they receive less than they give; that
buyer and seller have a right to deal with each other as if
they were business animals instead of business men. The
labour is the labourer, because the man has to live twentyfour hours in order to be able to work eight or ten. His
heart and head, his thoughts, his wants, his aspirations, all
co-operate to produce the so-called commodity which, at the
sound of the factory bell, is ready to begin the work of the
day. When the man leaves the factory, he but takes the
“ commodity ” away to recuperate his wasted energies for
another day. That which he has left within those walls is
not a thing. It is himself. “ The great fundamental prin
ciple of anti-slavery is that man cannot hold property in
man,” said Garrison, The doctrine that “ labour is a
commodity ” gives man property in man, and is therefore
iniquitous and void. If labour is a commodity, the labourer
is a commodity, and chattel-slavery still exists, freed only
ofall its Biblical and patriarchal restraints, possessed of powers
for abuse more dangerous because indirectly exerted.
If you shall not buy the whole man, you shall not buy or'
sell part of a man. You shall not count into your purses
the ruddy drops, from morn till noon, from noon to dewy
eve, and then say, “ I know not whence they came or how.”
We who “buy” labour, who take the expenditure of
life that labour can part with, and do not return to the
�io
THE NEW CONSCIENCE.
labourer that share in the produce of labour which will
permit him to repair his vitality, maintain a family, attend
to his political duties, save enough for sickness and old age,
have enough for such play and rest as will enable him to
live to his allotted span, are, in the words of the Bible,
“ man-stealers.” In our day and civilization such a man
stealer is as bad and wicked as the slave-holder in his.
We who take from any business profits or interest on
capital, while any of our employees are suffering for want
of means for full growth as individuals, or citizens, are
man-stealers, and we as man-stealers are to-day, as of old,
robbing children of their years of joy, men of their prime,
and mothers of their motherhood. It is no excuse for
merchant or manufacturer or mine-owner or railroad cor
poration that the “ system ” permits, even commands, such
wrongs. Mankind and God never separate the sinner and
sin. The sinners will go down with the “system” if they
don’t change it. The money power so contracts with the
working man, working woman, or working child that it gets
the whole of him or her or it, as Wordsworth says, “ health,
body, mind, and soul,”—it gets the whole twenty-four hours
of him, her, or it—and says, “I cannot share with you
enough to let you live at the rate of twenty-four hours a
day for a natural life. I and my system can find others in
the free labour market so wretched that by themselves
they cannot live a week. They are willing to give me out
right ten hours a day if I will but pay them enough to live
at the rate of fourteen hours a day for the few years their
bodies can stand it. As you know our God is a God of
competition, supply and demand, “free” contract. You
must take the wages the other man will take, or yield to
him your “ sacred right to work.” This may seem hard to
you, but you must admit that it is right, for all our good
and brave business men and their college professors will
easily prove to you that you are not a man, but merely a
seller in the market, and your labour is not your life, only
a commodity. When the employer, the nation, the world of
employers sit in comfort, and the employed are massed in
the tenements whence comes the bitter cry of the outcast,
and where poverty, prostitution, intemperance and prema
ture death are chronic, are they on one side any less the
�THE NEW CONSCIENCE.
ii
oppressors, are those on the other side any less the victims
of force, because the fashionable world says, “ Labour is a
commodity?” The incantations of political economists
cannot cure disease. Conscience cares nothing for the fine
phrases of professors, statesmen, lawyers, clergy, employers,
for their theories and philosophy of business. It says,
“ What have you done ? ” What are the results ? Bother
your theories and doctrines of rights ! Show me the facts,
not the formulas ! It looks at Chicago and New York, at
Cain in his palaces and Abel in the slums, at the profits of
one “ brother ” and the wages of the other. It does not
ask what church de you go to on Sunday, nor who were
your professors in political economy. No, it only repeats
the question asked under similar circumstances some thou
sands of years ago, What hast thou done ? Where is thy
brother?
Let us listen while a delegation from the Money-power
remonstrates with the new conscience for its unreasonable
sentiments and ideas. Here they come, one by one, and
range themselves about. First speaks the Merchant
prince :
I have a right to buy where I can buy cheapest.
Conscience.—See these little stunted hollow-eyed girls
coming out of that factory !
Lawyer.—Wages are settled by contract.
Conscience.—Where can I find white-haired working
men ?
Capitalist.—Every man has a right to do what he will
with his own.
Conscience.—-What is the price of a Senatorship to-day?
Statistician.—Never were food, fuel, clothing so cheap.
Conscience.—Little Mary Mitchell works in Waterbury’s
rope works five days a week, from six in the evening till
six in the morning.
Railroad King.—Every man makes his own career. I
was a working man myself twenty years ago, and now I
keep a carriage, a butler, and several judges and legislators
“ in four States,” and—
Conscience.—That tired-looking man is a conductor of a
sleeping-car belonging to a company owned by half-a-dozen
men worth three hundred million dollars, which is not
�12
THE NEW CONSCIENCE.
enough for them, so they squeeze a few more dollars a
month out of him by making him on every alternate trip
do twenty-eight and a half hours’ continuous work without
sleep.
Banker.—Our wealth is increasing one billion dollars a
year. We have boards of trades, the best railroads in the
world, packing houses that can kill ten thousand hogs.
Conscience.—The sickening stench, the blistered air, the
foul sights of the tenements, and the motherhood and the
childhood choking there !
Conservative.—This is the best government in the world.
America is good enough for me.
Conscience.—Listen to that “ tramp, tramp, tramp” of a
million men out of work.
Philanthropist.—The church is renewing its youth. We
give millions of dollars for hospitals and foreign work and
domestic missions to carry the gospel to the poor of all
nations.
Conscience.—I hear a voice in the Abbey that cries, We
do not want charity; give us work.
Manufacturer.—Without this system of industry the sub
jugation of North America to civilisation would have been
impossible—we could never have shown the world the mag
nificent spectacle of—
Conscience.—There is a little boy standing ten hours a
day up to his ankles in the water in the coal mine !
Coal Monopolist.—I have a statistician who can prove—
he can prove anything—that the working man is a great
deal better off than he ever was, that he makes more than
I do, that small incomes are increasing and large ones
decreasing, and there is no involuntary poverty, and that
the working men could live on twenty-five cents each a day,
and buy up the United States with their savings—and—
Conscience.—How long shall it be cheaper to run over
working men and women at the railroad crossings in the
cities than to put up gates ?
Clergyman.—The poor we are to have with us always.
Conscience.—That sewing woman you see pawning her
shawl has lived this winter with her two children in a
room without fire. Are you wearing one of the shirts she
finished ?
�THE NEW CONSCIENCE.
13
Statesman.—The working man has the ballot and the
newspapers. He is a free citizen.
Conscience.—As the nights grow colder see how the
number of girls on the streets increases!
Now what can a man of affairs, a business man, a reason
able man, one who understands political economy and the
Constitution of the United States and all that do with such
a disputant as this ? The more the pride of America
points to its magnificence, and boasts of its Declaration of
Independence, the more does the new conscience point to
the wrongs and sufferings of these miserable men, women,
and children—and so few of them too !
All extreme cases, you say ? Just so. It was the
possibility of its extreme cases that destroyed slavery. The
possibility of such extreme cases as these demand the
abolition of the system and the philosophy which permits
them.
Upon the false theory that men cease to be brothers
when they buy and sell, upon the theory that employer
and employee are not fellowmen, but merely dealers in a
non-human market, is built up the false society in which we
live. The new industry and finance have put the labour of
mankind under the control of the Money Power, which
declares its right to deal on all sides with men according
to the rules of a prize-ring called Supply and Demand.
Conscienceless and greedy as the old slave power, its
competitive rents give us the slums. Its competitive wages
leave women the choice between suicide of body or
suicide of soul, and tempt men to find in the stimulant
of drink a substitute for the stimulant of food. Professing
the gospel of competition, it imports contract labour, breaks
up trade-unions, employs and disemploys labour in order
to buy cheap of men who have no commodity but them
selves to sell. But when it turns about as seller, it
confronts the buyer with pools, trusts and combinations
denying competition. The revolution of the new industry
and the concentration of wealth have given the Money
Power unlimited means to buy, and the morals which
permit it to buy men as commodities, permit it to buy
everything, even the.things once held too sacred for traffic.
The system that denies the manhood of man in the most
�14
THE NEW CONSCIENCE.
sacred function of all, labour, must deny it in all the
relations based on this foundation. The system which
permits the welfare of the labourer to be settled by
competition, the law of the market, the false claim of
property to do what it will with its own, must allow all
welfare to be settled by the same philosophy. If the
Money Power can make life and the means of life mere
commodities, it makes it right to buy life as cheap as
possible, to sell it as dear as possible. It makes it, when
bought, the buyer’s own. Hence the capitalist’s claim of a
right to do as he will with his own is the claim of a right to
do as he will with human lives. Such a system, and it is
exactly ours, has no moral reserves with which to meet the
Money Power when it applies these principles as it is
doing to-day in every direction to the moral ruin of society.
Just this result is being worked out. The Money Power
with its huge fortunes and corporations built up on the
right to treat life as a mere commodity, more and more
treats everything else as a mere commodity—from the
virtue of employees to that of trustees, public and private.
It refuses to respond when called to account. It simply
asserts its right to buy cheap and sell dear, and to do what
it will with its own. Andrew Carnegie, before the Nine
teenth Century Club, dismisses the labour agitation by
saying in eftect, “Since no man in the United States need
be a pauper unless by his own deliberate act, there is no
labour question.” Must American citizens wait to redress
their wrongs until they have been made veritable paupers
by the Steel Rail Trust and its confederate price con
spiracies? That was not the way of the fathers. The
price of tea in the American Colonies was cheaper after the
imposition of the stamp tax than before. Nothing could be
so light as that—a burden of less than nothing. But
Justice Dana, in the presence of a great assemblage of the
angry townspeople of Boston, standing under the Liberty
Tree, administered an oath to Mr. Secretary Oliver that he
had not distributed and would not distribute the cdious
stamps.
The people of Boston did not wait until they had been
made paupers. “ Enslave but one human being,” said
Garrison, “and the liberties of the world are put in peril.”
�THE NEW- CONSCIENCE.
15
Surrender to the Money Power the right to make but one
price, the control of all prices will surely follow. They
who control the prices of a nation control the liberties of
its markets, and those who control the liberties of its
markets will come to control all its other liberties.
The student of the evolution of freedom from Athens
and Calvary to Appommattox and Trafalgar Square, says,
When you see a cause against which all the powers of
law, church, culture, and wealth are united, there is a
cause worth looking into. If there was nothing in it, why
should all these mighty institutions be so disturbed about
it ? And if you find all customs, statutes, learnings, creeds,
logics, bazaars, and currencies against it, look at it still
more searchingly. All these have always at the first been
united against any new conscience, and have always
conspired against it, even to the death. Let those who
are the great because others are small—let those who are
the happy because others are wretched—let those who are
rich because others are poor—listen out of their golden
security for the crier of the new consience. His voice
foretells a new day. If the working men and farmers
have once, twice, thrice recognised and saved great
truths neglected by the powers of the earth, it is quite
possible they may do it again. It is possible they are
doing it now. The ardent, sighing for a cause, bemoaning
that they were born too late for the Anti-Slavery agitation,
have, in to-day’s ferment of the poor and lowly, the
greatest cause of history.
The abolition of chattel
slavery has but cleared the ground. Toynbee Hall in
London, and similar schools elsewhere, have been formed
to carry university culture down to the working men. The
movement is wrong from end to end. It is the universities
that are in need of culture—of the culture of the working
men in hardship, and equality, and sacrifice.
The great New England divine, Lyman Beecher was
very much put out because the fanatic William Lloyd
Garrison would not leave the slavery question to settle
hself. It would do so, Beecher said, in a couple of
centuries. Erasmus deplored, in the case of Luther, that
the great change of the Reformation was not allowed to
work itself out slowly, calmly, and without violence and
�16
THE hEW CONSCIENCE.
disruption. But there has always been one thing that put
God and man into a hurry-injustice.
It is a singular truth that only in poor and primitive
communities is there enough for all. Charles Dickens
could see no beggars in Boston forty years ago. Like the
early England, the early new England was one of great
poverty, but of great independence and equality. “ No
rich man, no poor in it,” said Wendell Phillips, one of the
patricians of modern New England, “ all mingling in the
same society; no poor house, no beggars, opportunities
equal.” Thorold Rogers says, in his Economic Interpre
tation of History, “ The means of life were more abundant
during the Middle Ages than they are under our modern
experience. There was, I am convinced, no extreme
poverty. The essence of life in England during the days
of the Plantagenets and Tudors was, that every one knew
his neighbour, and that every one was his brother’s
keeper. Though there was hardship in this life, the hard
ship was a common lot.” It is only when communities
get rich that there is not enough for all. The indepen
dence and equality of early England and New England
were close to the ideals of Christ. But towns and the
temptations of riches have been too much for the virtue of
the quickest of hand and eye, and they have moved away
into Beacon Street and the West End, and left their
brothers in the tenements and factory towns. But if there
was enough before the steam-engine and the Pool, there is
enough now. Those who control the labour of England,
Old and New, must direct it more evenly to equal
advantage, or they must give way to those who will.
The lot of the people must be settled by the common
people. If railroads and factories cannot be built and
operated without their labour, neither can the proceeds be
divided without their consent and co-operation. If the
common people can be allowed to vote freely in govern
ment, they can be allowed to vote freely in property. It
is not necessary to befuddle the subject with the fogs of
political economy or constitution or legal intricacies. The
simplest elements of justice, freedom, and love, supply the
only profundities needed. The question between the
money-power on one side and the people on the other,
�THE NEW CONSCIENCE.
with the labourers and farmers in the van led by men like
Emerson, Mazzini, and Carlyle, is simply and sharply a.
question of More! more fi>r the People, less for the Power..
If you want to quibble about words, and say that all men
are working men, then the question must be defined as
one between rich working men and poor working men
between working men with luxuries, and working men.
without; those around the parks and those on the farms
those who own the machinery, and those who operate it;
between the working men who monopolise, and those who
are monopolised; between the workmen who get the
privilege of living in shanties as their share of coal-mining
in Pennsylvania, and the working men who get dividends
on five hundred million dollars of coal stock. Bring on all
the statisticians in the world to figure out that the farmers
and working men are better off than they were. Thorold.
Rogers proves it is not true, but if it were, it is beside the
point. They are not getting their share. Never was
there a country, says a popular preacher of Chicago, in
which the rich have done as much as in America for the
poor. But the truth is, never was there a country in
which the poor have done so much for the rich.
The leaders of the revolution of the new industry have
quite mistaken the terms of the contract with society under
which they have been hired to do these great things.
Society hired them to work for society. But the captains
have assumed that all they led in making was to be their
own, and that they could do what they willed with their
own. They still have something to learn.
The Conservative cries out, “You are going to destroy
society.”
Did it destroy society to abolish slavery ?
The Conservative cries out, “ This is revolution ! ”
No, it is the remedy.
The revolution has already occurred. That took place
when the mighty wheels of the new industry whirled the
peasant and his children away from his little homestead,
the artisan away from his cottage loom and his village
shop and non-competitive brotherhood, and herded them
into tenement houses and factories. It was the revolution
which took the husbandmen, labourer, and artisan out of
�18
THE NEW CONSCIENCE.
the Golden Age of the 15th century, which preceded the
new industry. Then living was cheap and men were
dear, the working day in field and town was but eight
hours a day. Master and men both belonged to the same
union, no man could compete with another of the same
fraternity, and the employee had the same right to his
place that the employer had.
It is the revolution which has changed all that.
During the last century has come the realisation of the
vision of the ancient Greek poet who foresaw a time when
“ the shuttle would weave and the lyre would play ot
itself."'
That is the revolution.
Time was when judges sent men to jail for forestalling,
•cornering the markets. That was in the “ dark ages.”
Now the money power establishes “ trusts” in everything,
and our judges tell us that the burden of monopoly is “light.”
That is the revolution.
The new industry has broken up the brotherhoods of the
-old industry, and has swung the few strongest and cleverest
of the working men into palaces, and front pews, so far .
■away from their old comrades and fellow workers that, as
one of them said : “ I have no time to remember their
faces, much less their names.”
That is the revolution.
It is the revolution that has capped the new industry with
the high finance, and tied up the people in the paper chains
■of charters, contracts, and stock-exchange securities.
‘“The time is coming,” said the Earl of Derby not long
ago, “ when the people of Europe will repudiate their
national debts, which now take eight hundred million
■dollars a year from them.”
That is the revolution. And the gospel of the revolu
tion is the doctrine that you can do anything with your
-fellow-man provided you do it in the market.
The remedy is in the new conscience, which says simply
that a man shall never be so much of a buyer or seller as
to cease to be a brother, and that labour shall not be made
a market thing.
Before us is the practical question, What is the next
step ? The next step, like the first step, is more liberty
�THE NE W CONSCIENCE.
*9
for the labourer. His emancipation still invokes us. Con
science has freed him from frightful abuses, but frightful
abuses remain. His growth is not yet full and free. Civi
lization groans under the evils of the revolution wrought
by the new industry and its philosophy. The denunciation
by our prophets, the outcries of the farmer and working
men, the attempts to regulate factories, railroads, mines,
tenements, infant-labour are all confessions of the evil,
and confessions of the impotence of the system which pro
duced those ills to remedy them. A gospel of hatred is
rising in classes and masses which hate employers, hates
employees, hates household service, hates household ser
vants, hates foreigners, hates pools, hates trades-unions,
hates the grangers, hates reformers, hates politics. All
these are symptoms of a high fever. But a new mankind
has been conceived and will be born—a winged beauty
out of the earth-measuring worm—which will not know
force, and fraud, and hatred, and will let love, their
natural tie, bind men and nations together. The prac
tical work of to-day is to abolish the cannibals of compe
tition, warriors of supply and demand, tyrants of monopoly,
monsters of the market, devourers of men, women and
children, buyers and sellers of life. The progress of
humanity, says Emerson, consists of recognition of the
truth that every private and separate good is delusion.
Property, capital, and money making as now permitted
are still systems of man hunting. Monopoly is force, and
force is slavery, and slavery must be abolished. A lover
of birds, Maurice Thompson, tells us that as he wanders
through the southern forests he knows afar off when he
as nearing a human habitation by the songs of the birds
near the cabin, which declare to all the world, by a
special tenderness of tone, that they love man and have
made their nest near his. The heart of man is not less than
■the heart ot the bird.
Churches come and go, but there has ever been but one
religion. The only religion has been that which clears off
one by one from the face of the earth-stains that hide
the God imprisoned in the flesh, which breaks down one
by one every barrier which incarnation has put in the way
of the growth of the God within in the likeness of the God
�20
THE NEW CONSCIENCE.
without. In the sight of the new conscience wherever man
walks, there is the Holy Land, and it raises the cross of
the new crusade which shall deliver it from the infidels
who deny the divine right of the people that the will of
God shall- be done on earth as in heaven. It insists that
every question between men is a religious question, a
question of moral economy before it becomes one of politi
cal economy, and will make all political, industrial, and
social activities functions of a new Church—a church of
the deed as well as of the creed—a church that will not
only preach Christ, but do Christ—a church where science,
the revelation of what has been, will never be at war with
religion, the revelation of what ought to be—a church
which will make its worshippers share this world as well
as the next world—a church which will recognize no
vested right of property in man except the right to love
and be loved—a church which will declare that the
difference in the death rate between the classes and the
masses is evidence of murder done for money—a church
which will look upon idleness by the side of industry,
wealth by the side of poverty, luxury by the side of want,
health by the side of disease, as impious and profane in
the highest degree, the real sins against the Holy Ghost—a
church which will stop the manufacture of poor houses,
because it will stop the manufacture of poverty—a church
which will not let any man offer charity to those to whom
he refuses justice—a church which will not help the poor,
but will set them to helping themsslves, and will slay the
infidel in the path—a church which will abolish all middle
men in morals, and will make every man doubly guilty
who grinds the face of his fellow by an agent, guilty for
himself and guilty for the agent—a church that will offer
not even the lowliest member of the communion of man
kind crumbs from the table, but a seat at the table and a
full meal three times a day every day—a church that will
consider it more practical to keep its buildings open and
its congregation at work in relays night and day than to
let “brothers" starve and freeze or go astray for want of
sympathy or advice—a church which will persecute the
heretics who give the highest bidder the best pews in the
churches and the best chance in the courts—a church
�THE NE W CONSCIENCE.
zi
which will teach that the life eternal is the life we are
living now—a church which will not let the poor give up
all of this world on the unsecured promise of the rich to
divide the next world—a church that will judge civilization
not by the six million dollar cathedral on Murray Hill,
*
but by the children in the back alleys—a church that will
“dine with the poor and preach to the rich,” until there
are no more poor—a church which says that those who
are to be brothers hereafter must be brothers here—a
church that will know what its members believe only by
what they do—a church which recognizes nothing as love
which does not bear justice as the fruit—a church of law
and order, but the law is for the rich as well as the poor,
and the order is to be peaceful growth for the least of
■these little ones—-a church which will prevent the anarchy
from below by punishing the anarchy from above—a
church which will deny the right of infanticide to the
employer, now denied by society only to the parents—a
church which declares the sacred right to work to mean
that he who works a full day shall live a full day, and that
■employment is a right, not a charity—a church which will
restore reverence to men by giving them leaders in church,
state and business worthy cf reverence—a church which
will make every social wrong a moral wrong, and every
moral wrong a legal wrong—a church which will teach
men to turn the other cheek when they can do it as free
men, not as slaves—a church which will deliver with the
message of peace, the message of a scourge for the money
changers in the temple—a church which will tell the
merchant-prince that between him and his ruined com
petitor, and between him and his employees there is a
moral question greater than the question of markets—a
•church which will abolish the merchant-prince, and the
■factory corporation sooner than let them abolish the child
hood of children—a church which will not let the
•employers profess on the fourth of July that all men are
born equal, and then fatten the rest of the year on the
advantages of organization which they deny to the
■employee—a church in which God will be natural and men
One of the fashionable quarters of New York.
�22
THE NEW CONSCIENCE.
supernatural—a church which will abolish charity and
philantrophy, for these cannot be between brothers, and
need not be where justice is—a church in which no man
will have a right to do with his own what he will, but only
a right to do what is right—a church which will take the
weak and despised out of the earthy Inferno of dirt, and
want, and ignorance, to which they have been condemned
by the oppressor—a church which will keep a hell hot in
this world to punish the oppressors here for every blow
they strike at God through his image, man—a church
which will tell the sinner that repentance fit for heaven
only begins by restitution and reparation on earth—a
church which will teach that brothers must share both the
mess of pottage and the birthright—a church which will
worship God through all his sons made in his image,
through a mediator, Mankind, which, having suffered all
and sinned all, can sympathize with all, and will carry all
the weak and weary ones safe in its bosom—a church
which will realize the vision of Carlyle of a Human
Catholic Church.
Henry D. Lloyd.
�“Fellowship is heaven and lack of fellowship is hell: fellowship is life, and
lack of fellowship is death.”
HE NEW FELLOWSHIP was formed by a few persona
who believed that in order to realise the social ideal of'
Freedom, Equality, and Brotherhood, it was desirable that
those who upheld it should co-operate to give it the fullest pos
sible effect in their relations with one another and with the world.
The movement to secure equal social freedom by political agen
cies should be supplemented by an independent ethical movement
a movement which should keep the fundamental moral issues un ob
scured, help to make clear the springs of political activity, purge
social and family life of its selfishness, and insist upon the claims of'
an ideal of fellowship in the pursuit of a Common Good. It is.
not sufficient to urge the claims of this ideal by word of mouth only;
but it must be recommended by the example of lives lived in obedi
ence to it, and by its embodiment, as far as possible, in all social
institutions and relationships. The more fully and strikingly it finds
expression in these ways, the more certainly will follow those poli
tical changes which are necessary to give all men the chance of
realising it.
Further information respecting the New Fellowship may
be obtained from the Hon, Secretary, J. F. Oakeshott, 8i
Great Ormond Street, W. C.
�The following Publications of the New Fellowship can be
obtained at 34, Great Ormond Street, W. C. :—
SEED-TIME, the Quarterly Organ * .
THE MANIFESTO OF THE NEW
THE ElHICS
?.DAMS
.
3d.
.
FELLOWSHIP. 3d.
OF SOCIAL REFORM.
.
.
THE MORAL
ASPECT OF THE
PROBLEM. By Thomas Davidson
By Maurice
. 2d.
.
ECONOMIC
.
. 2d.
THE LIFE AND DEATH OF WILLIAM FREY. By
Professor Beesly ...... 2d.
ON THE RELIGION OF HUMANITY. By William
Frey ........ 2d.
THE NEW
LABOUR
CONSCIENCE,
...
OR
RELIGION
.
THE CLASSES AND THE MASSES
"WEALTH AND THE COMMONWEALTH
.
.
OF
.
id.
.id.
id.
�
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 new conscience, or religion of labour
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 3rd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 22 p. ; 19 cm.
Series: Fellowship Series
Series number: No. 6
Notes: Publisher's list on back cover. Reprinted with permission from the "North American Review" and revised by the author.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Lloyd, Henry D.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
New Fellowship
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1893
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G2853
Subject
The topic of the resource
Labour
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 (The new conscience, or religion of labour), 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
Christian
Labour and labouring classes
Labour and Labouring Classes-Great Britain-History
Socialism
Socialism and Christianity
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/53b25632583f1763222bc31436bcddcb.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gjKbhD5rIAc-GkSAcAoDyOZDpqQzhDC29Lzd8rFB4RVc8ZRmyisV%7EGNhfXjm61wqw4lw96-ThztjZrIn2D-Tey0TS-upLRJnlPjBjO6jD6yXG1BQO4qCbFy4g-2b40DVR0qO1l9ZmrSlNivYAZXv3l4tGilfk-nmFGa4%7EYh5xDZYYYx1Mwvre1JZ49SIjQtYXF4gD9-nHRouObtgfIuPd24dkQ7UlPMQlKuM2EUhr5uwWttQXdfy5i0Wg44zN91C1rCInoZ4dTQPeDvYWuIS1L8IAyM8TwoNDqTcnC62bNLVEARhCAMSOtn4Nu-u3VcSwzDNPcyU8dn9Tl3zIYMitQ__&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/7be69ad8f8c4ecb7c5744a0577af001f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=g5QiK5aDBa4LxLFBAFD6WDRrFdR1wVezO8YhpR4xozNuwMnXE46o8yug7QnAnGJlaQWc44Apmv8gBrQy9FupVT8nZdD8aEA%7Eelk6e4vtbpzfKj25HWkIrYuLaZbECRBf9kp4SSMvp7JtAunVC9SvssFHm5RHk%7ETVVY4ltjGSL4RObWaw1FvvBuTFdupUmN%7EW4ApNyUKlrBc9i6QlwEdiIBzTe6SODArcDMrk6Wp1dxAr51Vm4mAfUpu000v3QYFuj7%7EUByuvqHNsFZ-cDHZRJe8bufIjJE6W26dX%7EgrzzZUWay9tyO0yvKCYX30ASjasqZSsDoQeDfwezdApVnarTA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
bf561e76bed248625997a91080bd344a
PDF Text
Text
PRICE ONE PENNY^
AND
EDWARD CARPENTER.
(Reprinted from TO-DAY, February, 1885.^
UonHon :
THE MODERN PRESS,
13, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
1886.
��HE Progress of Society is a subject which occupies much
attention now-a-days. We hear the shouts and cries of
reformers, and are inclined sometimes to be vexed at their
noisy insistance and brandishing of panaceas ; but when we come to
look into the evils to which they draw our attention-—under our very
noses as it were—and see how serious they are : when we see the
misery, the suffering all around us, and see too how directly in some
cases this appears to be traceable to certain institutions, we can
hardly be human if we do not make some effort to alter these insti
tutions, and the state of society which goes with them; indeed at
times we feel that it is our highest duty to agitate with the noisiest,
and insist at all costs that justice should be done, the iniquity swept
away.
And yet, on the other hand, when retiring from the heat and noise
of conflict, we mount a little in thought and look out over the world,
when we realise what indeed every day is becoming more abundantly
clear—that Society is the gigantic growth of centuries, moving on in
an irresistible and ordered march of its own, with the precision and
atality of an astronomic orb—how absurd seem all our demonstra
tions ! what an idle beating of the air! The huge beast comes on
with elephantine tread. The Liberal sits on his head, and the Con
servative sits on his tail; but both are borne along whether they
will or no, and both are shaken off before long, inevitably, into the
dust. One reformer shouts, “ This way,” and another shouts
“That,” but the great foot comes down and crushes them both,
indifferent, crushes the one who thought he was right and the one
who found he was wrong, crushes him who would facilitate its pro
gress and him who would stop it, alike.
, I confess that I am continually borne about between these two
Opposing views. On the one hand is Justice, here and now, which
must and shall be done. On the other hand is Destiny indifferent,
coming down from eternity, which cannot be altered.
Where does the truth lie ? Is there any attainable truth in the
matter ? Perhaps not. The more I think of it, the more am I
�4
persuaded that the true explanations, theories, of the social changes
which we see around us, that the forces which produce them, that
the purposes which they fulfil, lie deep, deep down unsuspected ; that
the profoundest hitherto Science (Buckle, Comte, Marx, Spencer,
Morgan, and the rest) has hardly done more than touch the skirt of
this great subject. The surface indications, currents, are elusive;
the apparent purposes very different from the real ones; individuals,
institutions, nations, more or less like puppets or pieces in a game ;
—the hand that moves them altogether unseen, screening itself
effectually from observation.
Let me take an illustration. You see a young plant springing
out of the ground. You are struck by the eager vital growth of it.
What elasticity, energy! how it snatches contributions from the
winds and sunlight, and the earth beneath, and rays itself out with
hourly fresh adornment! You become interested to know what is
the meaning of all this activity. You watch the plant. It unfolds.
The leaf-bud breaks and discloses leaves. These, then, are what
it has been aiming at.
But in the axils of the leaves are other leaf-buds, and from these
more leaves! The young shoot branches and becomes a little tree
or bush. The branching and budding go on, a repetition apparently
of one formula. Presently, however, a flower-bud appears. Now
we see the real object!
Have you then ever carefully examined a flower-bud ? Take a
rosebud for instance, or better still perhaps, a dahlia. When quite
young the buds of these latter are mere green knobs. Cut one
across with your pen-knife : you will see a green or whitish mass,
apparently without organisation. Cut another open which is more
advanced, and you will see traces of structural arrangement, even
markings and lines faintly pencilled on its surface, like the markings
that shoot thro’ freezing water—sketches and outlines of what is
to follow. Later, and your bud will disclose a distinct formation ;
beneath an outer husk or film—transparent in the case of the dahlia
—the petals can already be distinguished, marked, though not
actually separated from each other. Here they lie in block as it
were, conceived yet not shapen, like the statue in the stone, or the
thought in the brain of the sculptor. But they are growing mo
mently and expanding. The outermost, or sepals, cohering form a
husk, which for a time protects the young bud. But it also confines
it. A struggle ensues, a strangulation, and then the husk gives way,
falls off or passes into a secondary place, and the bud opens.
And now the petals uncurl and free themselves like living things
to the light. But the process is not finished. Each petal expanding
shows another beneath, and these younger ones as they open push
the older ones outwards, and while these latter are fading there are
still new ones appearing in the centre. Envelope after envelope
exfoliated—such is the law of life.
�5
At last however within the most intimate petals appears the central
galaxy—the group of the sexual organs ! And now the flower (the
petal-flower) which just before in all its glory of form, colour and
fragrance seemed to be the culminating expression and purpose of
the plant’s life, appears only as a means, an introduction, a secondary
thing—a mere advertisement and lure to wandering insects. With
in it lies the golden circle of the stamens, the magic staff of the pistil,
and the precious ark or seed-vessel.
Now then we know what it has all been for! But the appearance
of the seed-vessel is not the end, it is only a beginning. The flower,
the petals, now drop off withered and useless; their work is done.
But the seed-vessel begins to swell, to take on structure and form
just as the formless bud did before—there is something at work
within. And now it bursts, opens, and falls away. It too is a husk,
and no longer of any importance—for within it appear the seeds, the
objects of all this long toil!
Is the investigation finished ? is the process at an end ?—No.
Here within this tiny seed lies the promise, the purpose, the vital
principle, the law, the inspiration—whatever you like to call it—of
this plant’s life. Can you find it ?
The seed falls to the ground. It swells and takes on form and
structure—just as the seed-vessel which enclosed it took on form
and structure before—and as the flower-bud (which enclosed the
seed-vessel) did before that—-and as the leaf-bud (which enclosed
the flower-bud) did before that. The seed falls to the ground ; it
throws off a husk (always husks thrown off!)—and discloses an
embryo plant—radicle, plumule and cotyledons—root-shoot, stem
shoot and seed leaves—complete. And the circle begins again.
*
We are baffled after all! We have followed this extraordinary
process, we have seen each stage of the plant-growth appearing
first as final, and then only as the envelope of a later stage. We
have stripped off, so to speak, husk afLer husk, in our search for the
inner secret of the plant-life—we have got down to the tiny seed.
But the seed we have found turns out (like every other stage) to be
itself only an envelope—to be thrown away in its turn—what we
want lies still deeper down. The plant-life begins again—or rather
it never ends—but it does not repeat itself. The young plant is not
the same as the parent, and the next generation varies again from
this. When the envelopes have been thrown off a thousand and a
hundred thousand times more, a new form will appear; will this be
a nearer and more perfect expression than before of that withinlying secret—or otherwise ?
To return to Society : I began by noting the contrast, often drawn,
between the stern inexorable march of this as a whole, and the
* Though not really a circle any more than the paths of the planets
are really ellipses.
�equally imperious determination of the individual to interfere with
its march—a determination excited by the contemplation of what is
called evil, and shapen by an ideal of something better arising with
in him. Think what a commotion there must be within the bud
when the petals of a rose are forming! Think what arguments,
what divisions, what recriminations, even among the atoms. An
organization has to be constructed and completed. It is finished at
last, and a petal is formed. It rays itself out in the sun, is beautiful
and unimpeachable for a day; then it fades, is pushed off, its work
is done—another from within takes its place.
One social movement succeeds another, the completion of one is
the signal for the commencement of the next. Hence there can be
no stereotyping: not to change is to die—this is the rule of Life ;
because (and the reason is simple enough) one form is not enough to
express the secret of life. To express that require an infinite series
of forms.
Even a crab cannot get on without changing its shell. It outgrows
it. It feels very uncomfortable—pent, sullen and irritable (much as
the bud did before the bursting of the husk, or as society does when
dead forms and institutions—generally represented by a class in
power—confine its growth)—anxious, too, and oppressed with fears,
the crab—retires under a rock, out of harm’s way, and presently,
crack! the shell scales off, and with quietude and patience from
within another more suited to it forms. Yet this latter is not final.
It is merely the prelude to another.
The Conservative may be wron& but the Liberal is just as wrong
who considers his reform as ultimate, both are right in so far as
they look upon measures as transitory. Beware above all things of
utopianism in measures ! Beware, that is, of regarding any system
or scheme of society whatever as final or permanent, whether it be
the present, or one to come. The feudal arrangement of society
succeeded the clannish and patriarchal, the commercial or competi
tive system succeeds the feudal, the socialistic succeeds the
commercial, and the socialistic is succeeded in its turn by other
stages ; and each of these includes numerous minor developments.
The politician or reformer who regards any of these stages or steps
as containing the whole secret and redemption of society commits
just the same mistake as the theologian who looks upon any one
doctrine as necessary to salvation. He is betrayed into the most
frightful harshness, narrow-mindedness, and intolerance—and if he
has power will become a tyrant. Just the same danger has to be
guarded against by every one of us in daily life. Who is there who.
(though his reason may contend against it) does not drop into the
habit of regarding some one change in his life and surroundings as
containing finally the secret of his happiness, and excited by this
immense prospect does not do things which he afterwards regrets,
and which end in disappointment ? There is a millennium, but it-
�7
does not belong to any system of society that can be named, nor to
any doctrine, belief, circumstance or surrounding of individual life.
The secret of the plant-life does not tarry in any one phase of its
growth; it eludes from one phase to another, still lying within
and within the latest. It is within the grain of mustard seed ; it is
so small. Yet it rules and is the purpose of every stage, and is like
the little leaven which, invisible in three measures of meal, yet
leavened the whole lump.
Of the tendency, of which I have spoken, of social forms to stereo
type themselves, Law is the most important and in some sense the
most pernicious instance. Social progress is a continual fight
against it. Popular customs get hardened into laws. Even thus
they soon constitute evils. But in the more complex stages of society,
when classes arise, the law-making is generally in the hands of a
class, and the laws are hardened (often very hardened) class
practices. These shells have to be thrown off and got rid of at all
costs—or rather they will inevitably be thrown off when the growing
life of the people underneath forces this liberation. It is a bad
sign when a patient ‘ law-abiding ’ people submit like sheep to old
forms which are really long out-worn. “ Where the men and women
think lightly of the laws. . . . there the great city stands,” says
Walt Whitman.
I remember once meeting with a pamphlet written by an Italian,
whose name I have forgotten, member of a Secularist society, to
prove that the Devil was the author of all human progress. Of
course that, in his sense, is true. The spirit of opposition to
established order, the war against the continuance (as a finality) of
any institution or order, however good it may be for the time, is a
necessary element of social progress, is a condition of the very life
of Society. Without this it would die.
Law is a strangulation. Yet while it figures constantly as an
evil in social life, it must not therefore be imagined to be bad or
without use. On the contrary, its very appearance as an evil is
part of its use. It is the husk which protects and strengthens the
bud while it confines it. Possibly the very confinement and forcible
repression which it exercises is one element in the more rapid
organization of the bud within. It is the crab’s shell which gives
form and stability to the body of the creature, but which has to give
way when a more extended form is wanted.
In the present day in modern society the strangulation of the
growth of the people is effected by the capitalist class. This class
together with its laws and institutions constitutes the husk which
has to be thrown off just as itself threw off the husk of the feudal
aristocracy in its time. The commercial and capitalist envelope
has undoubtedly served to protect and give form to (and even
nourish) the growing life of the people. But now its function in that
respect is virtually at an end. It appears merely as an obstacle
�8
and an evil—and will inevitably be removed, either by a violent
disruption or possibly by a gradual absorption into the socialised
proletariat beneath.
At all times, and from whatever points of view, it should be borne
in mind that laws are made by the people, not the people by the
laws. Modern European Society is cumbered by such a huge and
complicated overgrowth of law, that the notion actually gets abroad
that such machinery is necessary to keep the people in order —that
without it the mass of the people would not live an orderly life ;
whereas all observation of the habits of primitive and savage tribes,
destitute of laws and almost destitute of any authoritative institutions
—and all observation of the habits of civilised people when freed
from law (as in gold-mining and other backwood communities)—
show just the reverse. The instinct ofamanis to an orderly life,
the law is but the result and expression of this. As well attribute
the organization of a crab to the influence of its shell, as attribute
the orderly life of a nation to the action of its laws. Law has a
purpose and an influence—but the idea that it is to preserve order
is elusive. All its machinery of police and prisons do not, cannot
do this. At best in this sense it only preserves an order advan
tageous to a certain class ; it is the weapon of a slow and deliberate
warfare. It springs from hatred and rouses opposition, and so has
a healthy influence.
Fichte said : “ The. object of all government is to render govern
ment superfluous.” And certainly if external authority of any kind
has a final purpose it must be to establish and consolidate an internal
authority. Whitman adds to his description of “ the great city,”
that it stands “ Where outside authority enters always after the
precedence of inside authority.” When this process is complete
government in the ordinary sense is already “rendered superfluous.’
Anyhow this external governmental power is obviously self-destruc
tive. It has no permanence or finality about it, but in every period
of history appears as a husk or shell preparing the force within
which is to reject it.
Thus I have in a very fragmentary and imperfect way called
attention to some general conditions of social progress, conditions
by which the growth of Society is probably comparable with the
growth of a plant or an animal or an astronomic organism, subject
to laws and an order of its own, in face of which the individual
would at first sight appear to count as nothing. But there is, as
usual, a counter-truth which must not be overlooked. If Society
moves by an ordered and irresistible march of its own, so also—as
a part of Society, and beyond that as a part of Nature—does the
individual. In his right place the individual is also irresistible.
Now then, when you have seized your life-inspiration, your
absolute determination, you also are irresistible, the whole weight
of this vast force is behind you. Huge as the institutions of Society
�are, vast as is the sweep of its traditions and customs, yet in face of
it all, the word “I will ” is not out of place.
Let us take the law of the competitive struggle for existence—
which has been looked upon by political economists (perhaps with
some justice) as the base of social life. It is often pointed out that
this law of competition rules throughout the animal and vegetable
kingdoms as well as through the region of human society, and there
fore, it is said, being evidently a universal law of Nature, it is useless
and hopeless to expect that society can ever be founded on any
r other basis. Yet I say that granting this assumption—and in
reality the same illusion underlies the application of the word
1
“ law ” here, as we saw before in its social application—granting
I say that competition has hitherto been the universal law, the last
word, of Nature, still if only one man should stand up and say, “ It
shall be so no more,” if he should say, “ It is not the last word of
my nature, and my acts and life declare that it is not,”—then that
so-called law would be at an end. He being a part of Nature has
I
as much right to speak as any other part, and as in the elementarylaw of hydrostatics a slender column of water can balance (being at
l
the same height) against an ocean—so his Will (if he understand it
aright) can balance all that can be arrayed against him. If only
one man — with regard to social matters — speaking from the
very depth of his heart says “This shall not be: behold
something better; ” his word is likely stronger than all insti
tutions, all traditions. And why ?—because in the deeps of his
P individual heart he touches also that of Society, of Man. Within
ft himself, in quiet, he has beheld the secret, he has seen a fresh crown
of petals, a golden circle of stamens, folded and slumbering in the
L
bud. Man forms society, its laws and institutions, and Man can
!
reform them. Somewhere within yourself be assured, the secret of
that authority lies.
The fatal words spoken by individuals—the words of progress—
are provoked by what is called evil. Every human institution is
good in its time, and then becomes evil—yet it may be doubted
whether it is really evil in itself, but rather because if it remained
it would hinder the next step. Each petal is pushed out by the
next one, A new growth of the moral sense takes place first withinthe individual—and this gives birth to a new ideal, something to
love better than anything seen before. Then in the light of this
new love, this more perfect desire, what has gone and the actually
existing things appear wizened and false (i.e., ready to fall like the
petals). They become something to hate, they are evil; and the
perception of evil is already the promise of something better.
Do not be misled so as to suppose that science and the intellect
• are or can be the sources of social progress or change. It is the
moral births and outgrowths that originate, science and the intellect
only give form to these. It is a common notion and one apparently
�gaining ground that science may as it were take Society by the hand
and become its high priest and guide to a glorious kingdom. And
this to a certain extent is true. Science may become high-priest,
but the result of its priestly offices will entirely depend on what
kind of deity it represents—what kind of god Society worships.
Science will doubtless become its guide, but whither it leads Society
will entirely depend on whither Society desires to be led. If
Society worships a god of selfish curiosity the holy rites and priest
hood of science will consist in vivisection and the torture of the
loving animals ; if Society believes above all things in material
results, science will before long provide these things—it will surround
men with machinery and machine-made products, it will whirl
them about (behind steam-kettles as Mr. Ruskin says) from one end
of the world to the other, it will lap them in every luxury and
debility, and give them fifty thousand toys to play with where
before they had only one—but through all the whistling of the
kettles and the rattling of the toys it will not make the still small
voice of God sound nearer. If Society, in short, worships the
devil, science will lead it to the devil; aud if Society worships God
science will open up, and clear away much that encumbered the
path to God. (And here I use these terms as lawyers say “ without
prejudice.”) No mere scientific adjustments will bring about the
millenium. Granted that the problem is Happiness, there must be
certain moral elements in the mass of mankind before they will
even desire, that kind of happiness which is attainable, let alone
their capacity of reaching it—when these moral elements are
present the intellectual or scientific solution of the problem will be
soon found, without them there will not really be any serious attempt
made to find it. That is—as I said at the head of this paragraph
—science and the intellect are not, and never can be, the sources of
social progress and change. It is the moral births and outgrowths
that originate; the intellect stands in a secondary place as the tool
and instrument of the moral faculty.
The commercial and competitive state of society indicates to my
mind an upheaval from the feudal of a new (and perhaps grander)
sentiment of human right and dignity. Arising simultaneously
with Protestantism it meant—they both meant—individualism, the
assertion of man’s worth and dignity as man, and as against any
feudal lordship or priestly hierarchy. It was an outburst of feeling
first. It was the sense of equality spreading. It took the form of
individualism—the equality of rights—Protestantism in religion,
competition in commerce. It resulted in the social emancipation
of a large class, the bourgeoisie. Feudalism, now dwindled to a
husk, was thrown off; and for a time the glory, the life of society
was in the new order.
But to-day a wider morality, or at least a fresh impulse, asserts
itself. Competition in setting itself up as the symbol of human
�II
equality, was (like all earthly representations of what is divine)
only an imperfect symbol. It had the elements of mortality and
dissolution in it. For while it destroyed the privilege of rank and
emancipated a huge class, it ended after all by enslaving another
class and creating the privilege of wealth. Competition in fact
represented a portion of human equality but not the whole: in
sisting on individual rights all round, it overlooked the law of charity,
turned sour with the acid of selfishness, and became as to-day the
gospel of “ the devil take the hindmost.” Arising glorious as the
representative of human equality and the opponent of iniquity in
high places, it has ended by denying the very source from whence
it sprung. It passes by, and like Moses on the rock we now behold
the back parts of our divinity !
Competition is doomed. Once a good, it has now become an
evil. But simultaneously (and probably as part of the same pro
cess) springs up, as I say, a new morality. Everywhere to-day
signs of this may be seen, felt. It is felt that the relation which
systematically allows the weaker to go to the wall is not human.
Individualism, the mere separate pursuit, each of his own good, on
the basis of equality, does not satisfy the heart. The right (un
doubted though it may be) to take advantage of another’s weakness
or inferiority, does not please us any longer. Science and the intel
lect have nothing to say to this, for or against,—they can merely
stand and look on—arguments may be brought on both sides. What
I say is that as a fact a change is taking place in the general senti
ment in this matter; some deeper feeling of human solidarity,
brotherliness, charity, some more genuine and substantial apprehen
sion of the meaning of the word equality, is arising—some broader
and more determined sense of justice, Though making itself felt as
yet only here and there, still there are indications that this new
sentiment is spreading ; and if it becomes anything like general,
then inevitably (I say) it will bring a new state of society with it—
will be in fact such new state of society.
Some years ago at Brighton I met with William Smith, the
author of “Thorndale ” and other works—a man who had thought
much about society and human life. He was then quite an invalid,
and indeed died only a week or two later. Talking one day about
the current Political Economy he said : “ They assume self-interest
as the one guiding principle of human nature and so make it the
basis of their science—but,” he added, “ even if it is so now it
may not always be so, and that would entirely re-model their
science.” I do not know whether he was aware that even then a
new school of political economy was in existence, the school of Marx,
Engels, Lassalle, and others—founded really on just this new basis,
taking as its point of departure a stricter sense of justice and a new
conception of human right and equality. At any rate, whether
aware or not, I contend that this dying man—even if he had been
�12
alone in the world in his aspiration—-feeling within himself a deeper,
more intimate, principle of action than that expressed in the existing
state of society, might have been confident that at some time or
other—if not immediately—it would come to the surface and find its
due interpretation and translation m a new order of things. And
I contend that whoever to-day feels in himself that there is a better
standard of life than the higgling of the market, and a juster scale
of wages than “what A. or B. will take," and a more important
question in an undertaking than “ how much per cent, it will
pay ”—contains or conceals in himself the germs of a new social
order.
Socialism, if that is to be the name of the next wave of social life,
springs from and demands as its basis a new sentiment of humanity,
a higher morality. That is the essential part of it. A science it is,
but only secondarily ; for we must remember that as the bourgeois
political economy sprang from certain moral data, so the socialist
political economy implies other moral data. Both are irrefragable
on their own axioms. And when these axioms in course of time
change again (as they infallibly will) another science of political
economy, again irrefragable, will spring up, and socialist political
economy will be false.
The morality being the essential part of the movement, it is im
portant to keep that in view. If Socialism, as Mr. Matthew Arnold
has pointed out, means merely a change of society without a change
of its heart—if it merely means that those who grabbed all the good
things before shall be displaced, and that those who were grabbed
from shall now grab in their turn—it amounts to nothing, and is not
in effect a change at all, except quite upon the surface. If it is to
be a substantial movement, it must mean a changed ideal, a changed
conception of daily life ; it must mean some better conception of
human dignity—such as shall scorn to claim anything for its own
which has not been duly earned, and such as shall not find itself
degraded by the doing of any work, however menial, which is useful
to society; it must mean simplicity of life, defence of the weak,
courage of one’s own convictions, charity of the faults and failings
of others. These things first, and a larger slice of pudding all
round afterwards!
How can such morality be spread ?—How does a plant grow ?—
It grows. There , is some contagion of influence in these matters.
Knowledge can be taught directly ; but a new ideal, a new sentiment
of life, can only pass by some indirect influence from one to another.
Yet it does pass. There is no need to talk—-perhaps the less said
in any case about these matters the better—but if you have such
new ideal within you, it is I believe your clearest duty, as well as
your best interest, to act it out in your own life at all apparent costs.
Then we must not forget that a wise order of society once estab
lished (by the strenuous action of a few) reacts on its members. To
�T3
a certain extent it is true, perhaps, that men and women can be
grown—like cabbages. And this is a case of the indirect influence
of the strenuous few upon the many.
Thus—in this matter of society’s change and progress—(though
I feel that the subject as a whole is far too deep for me)—-I do
think that the birth of new moral conceptions in the individual is
at least a very important factor. It may be in one individual or in
a hundred thousand. As a rule probably when one man feels any
such impulse strongly, the hundred thousand are nearer to him than
he suspects. (When one leaf, or petal, or stamen begins to form on
a tree, or one plant begins to push its way above the ground in
spring, there are hundreds of thousands all round just ready to
form.) Anyhow, whether he is alone or not, the new moral birth is
sacred—as sacred as the child within the mother’s womb—it is a
kind of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to conceal it. And when
I use the word “ moral ” here—or anywhere above—I do not, I hope,
mean that dull pinch-lipped conventionality of negations which
often goes under that name. The deep-lying ineradicable desires,
fountains of human action, the life-long aspirations, the lightninglike revelations of right and justice, the treasured hidden ideals,
born in flame and in darkness, in joy and sorrow, in tears and in
triumph, within the heart—are as a rule anything but conventional.
They may be, and often are, thought immoral. I don’t care, they
are sacred just the same. If they underlie a man’s life, and are
nearest to himself—they will underlie humanity. “To your own
self be true . . .
Anyhow courage is better than conventionality : take your stand
and let the world come round to you. Do not think you are right
and everybody else wrong. If you think you are wrong then you
may be right; but if you think you are right then you are certainly
. wrong. Your deepest highest moral conceptions are only for a
time. They have to give place. They are the envelopes of Free
dom—that eternal Freedom which cannot be represented—that
peace which passes understanding. Somewhere here is the invisible
vital principle, the seed within the seed. It may be held but not
thought, felt but not represented—except by Life and History.
Every individual so far as he touches this stands at the source of
social progress—behind the screen on which the phantasmagoria
play.
�THE INTERNATIONAL LIBRARY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE.
Vol. I. Woman, in the Past, Present,
and Future. By August Bebel, Deputy in
the Reichstag.
Translated from the German by H. B.
Adams Walther. Demy 8-vo., cloth, price 5s.
Vol. II. The Co operative Common
wealth : an Exposition of Modern Socialism.
By Laurence Gronlund, of Philadelphia.
cloth, price 3s. 6d.
Demy 8-vo.,
“ The book, while just as readable and captivating as Henry George’s
Progress and Poverty, is far more logical and thoughtful: at the same time,
it is in a masterly manner adapted to the Anglo-Saxon public.”—New York
Volkszeitung (one of the largest Socialist papers in America).
‘‘The best account of German or State Socialism in English.”—-Mw
York Sun (the largest capitalist newspaper in the States).
“The grandest and highest minded statement of Socialism I have ever
seen.”—H. D. Wright, Chief of Massachussetts Bureau of Labour Statistics.
Socialism made Plain.
The social and
political manifesto of the Social-Democratic Federation
issued in June 1883, with proposals for organisation of
labour issued in November 1883. Fifty-first thousand.
Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price id.
44 JUSTICE,” the Organ of the Social Democracy.
' Every Saturday, one penny.
Summary of the Principles of Socialism
By H. M. Hyndman and William Morris.
Second
edition, 64-pp. crown 8-vo., in wrapper designed by Wm.
Morris, price 4d.
This gives an account of the growth of capitalist production, and con
cludes with a statement of the demands of English Socialists for the imme
diate future.
The Socialist Catechism. By J. L. Joynes.
Reprinted with additions from Justice.
price id. Tenth thousand.
Socialist Rhymes.
By
Reprinted chiefly from Justice.
J.
Royal 8-vo.,
L.
Joynes.
Royal 8-vo., price id.
The Modern Press, 13, Paternoster Row, E.C.
�Wage-Labour and Capital.
By Karl Marx.
Translated by J. L. Joynes and reprinted from Justice,.
Price 2d.
This is the only work of the great Socialist thinker which has been
translated into English.
Socialism and the Worker.
Sorge.
By F. A.
Price id.
An explanation in the simplest language of the main idea of Socialism.
Socialism
and
Slavery.
By
H.
4
M.
Hyndman. (In reply Mr. Herbert Spencer’s article on
the li Coming Slavery”). Crown 8-vo., in wrapper,
price 6d.
The Working Man’s Programme (Arbeiter
Programm). By Ferdinand Lassalle. Translated from
the German by Edward Peters. Crown 8-vo., paper
cover, price 6d.
Socialism versus Smithism: An open
letter from H. M. Hyndman to Samuel Smith, M.P. for
Liverpool. Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price 2d.
The Appeal to the Young.
By Prince
Peter Kropotkin.
Translated from the French by
H. M. Hyndman and reprinted from Justice. Royal 8-vo.,
16-pp. Price one penny. Tenth thousand.
The most eloquent and noble appeal to the generous emotions ever pen
ned by a scientific man. Its author is now suffering five years imprison
ment at the hands of the French Republic for advocating the cause of the
workers.
The Future of Marriage.
Woman.
By a Respectable
Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price 4d.
English and French Morality; from a
Frenchman’s point of view.
Paper cover, is.
By Yves Guyot, Depute.
Herbert Spencer on Socialism. By Frank
Fairman.
16-pp. crown 8-vo., price id.
The Modern Press, 13, Paternoster Row, E.C.
'
�BY
THE
SAME
AUTHOR.
Towards Democracy. New edition, with numerous
added Poems, crown 8vo, cloth. 260pp. Price 2s. 6d.
Modern Science : a Criticism. Crown 8vo, paper, 76
pp. Price is.
Modern Money-Lending ; or, the Meaning of Divi
dends. A Pamphlet. Price 2d. Second edition.
England’s Ideal. Price 2d.
To be had of the Publisher,
John Heywood, Deansgate
and
Ridgefield, Manchester;
11, Paternoster Buildings, London.
and
�
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
Social progress and individual effort
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Carpenter, Edward
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 13, [3] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Reprinted from To-day, February, 1885. Publisher's list on two unnumbered pages at the end. List of other works by author on unnumbered page at the end.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Modern Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1886
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
T394
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 (Social progress and individual effort), 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
Social change
Social Reform
Socialism