1
10
2
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bc2ee93a7b6f05df98ecc1744f9cde1e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=kFCZeRr22LMVGHmRvXe8enL-8oNLvN3UWaf9nxwaG1RaOFacsKq945C2sm5HnY-PNYECBbkVhTRAXhnQ4zfzcIGRqrrAX6t82BFal9Yllb1uqUrMuI5HmBn9BmT9DYRwN0gbMWPRKNW7Sf4-SyyD6CnC96fybNBi3W8hw6ljWmgxmLmNwNpwM29N7frrtvTL5rilmWLlJCf1LmVmYkIhmK6TUWZU3o-i0QgfaaxJOWmtEubdn-eXWi7vXCbvwIyQlxNg%7Ej8aw1iDVnBJfJrByJGeFNoehUdPXupNO-MBT7q7VNhbH3506blPqRsK%7EvU1fMBdsMgJp-2gh65GuBspiw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b5ae19bd1efb889517e4ac9d0b539471
PDF Text
Text
I
I
/
f
fc /
Smithism.
Socialism
AN OPEN
LETTER
FROM
H. M. HYNDMAN,
TO
SAMUEL SMITH,
PRICE
M.P.
TWOPENCE.
{Sold for the Benefit of the Democratic Federation}.
Printed
THE
and
Published
MODERN
at
PRESS,
13 & 14, Paternoster Row, London, E.C.
��SOCIALISM u. SMITHISM.
AN OPEN LETTER
From H. M. HYNDMAN
To SAMUEL
SMITH,
M.P.
Sir,
Pressure of more important matters has prevented
me from answering the two letters which you wrote to
me last summer criticising the manifesto of the Demo
cratic Federation, entitled “ Socialism Made Plain.”
Now that you have published them, however, and they
have been noticed a little in the press, it may be well
that I should point out to you the misstatements and
errors they contain.
You begin, for instance, by directing my attention to
the Eighth clause of the Jewish Decalogue. “ Thou shalt.
not steal” is, you say, one of God’s commandments,
and upon this you base your “ Christian morality.” I
have no objection to that. Only permit me to point out
to you, in turn, that you commence the application of
the commandment a good deal too high up. My view
is that to steal labour is to steal the most valuable of all
property, that which indeed is the basis of all property,
and without which there would be no property at
all for anybody to steal. Sir, I beg you to think
of that when next you are paying the wage-slaves
in your cotton-mill a fraction of the value of the labour
they have expended for the benefit of you and your class.
�4
Possibly it may occur to you at the same time that the
Founder of your faith denounced the landlords and
capitalists of his day far more furiously than I should
think quite polite speaking of them as “ hypocrites who
lay waste widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long
prayers, the same,” Christ said, “shall receive the
greater damnation.” So you see that there are some
“ neighbours ” whom your God does not “ love.” Nor
do I.
I feel, however, that it is a little out of place to bandy
biblical quotations with a Liverpool lawyer. So I will
not touch upon your prophetical account of what would
be the result if our suggestions were put in practice.
Such apocalyptic sketches read a little silly when signed
•“ Samuel Smith.” Rather let us deal with political
economy and figures. I will say in passing^that I am
treating of my own country and its inhabitants. I am
•quite content to know something about, them without
•setting to work to unravel the intricacies of remote and
.ancient Asiatic civilisations altogether beside the ques
tion at issue between us.
We contend then that labour applied {to natural
objects is the source of all wealth. You reply that the
organising brain is quite as necessary as labour, and that
Watt’s great invention of the steam engine “ added more
than a million pair of hands could do to the wealth of
the country.” At this rate Watt and his immediate
descendants should have received all [the] additional
wealth due to the steam engine. But to start with I
deny that Watt individually invented the~steam-engine.
It would equally have been invented at the end of the
eighteenth century if he had never lived, though his
�5
improvements made it available a little more rapidly..
Moreover, he could not even have made those improve
ments but for the existence of skilled workers immedi
ately around him; and these certainly he did not
“ invent ” for they were the result of thousands or
millions of years of human progress. But even admitting
for the sake of argument the truth of your contention—
what then? Who gets the chief benefit of Watt’s in
vention ? Assuredly not the labourers. It is a matter
of fact, which you can verify or not as you choose, that
the mass of the working people of this country were
better off—that is could buy more food and better
raiment in proportion to their wages—during the period
just prior to the application of steam on a large scale
(1720-1775) than they have ever been since. The pro
fits due to the steam-engine have therefore been taken
not by Watt, who, according to you, invented it, nor by
his descendants, who, I presume, should have inherited
it, nor by the workers who helped to perfect it and have
ever since served it, but by the capitalists who have used
it as a machine to grind such profits out of the labour of
their fellow-creatures.
So much for the contention
that steam has so greatly benefited your working country
men.
But you still claim payment for “the organising
brain.” Here again I might fairly urge that if all were
living in comfort and health the organiser, as such,
would have no right to complain if he were paid no
more than his fellow. The Roman organiser, th&villicus,
received a less ration than the slaves whose labour he
organised, precisely because his duty was less exhaust
ing than theirs. Even to-day it is not the direct
�6
organiser, manager, or superintendent who draws such a
vast salary, but the idle capitalists who sit at home
drawing interest and profits. I read with amusement
your pathetic description of “ the anxious careworn ”
capitalists who “have become bankrupt.” Doubtless
you had your noble Liverpool cotton cornerer, Mr.
Morris Ranger, in your mind. Probably he is quite
sound on “ Christian morality ” too ?
Seriously, we know something of what the profits of
the Lancashire cotton trade have been since the beginning
of the present century, and how they have been ground
out of the very life-blood of women and little children. It
is rather late in the day, Sir, for you to put forward such
men as the Lancashire cotton-lords and Liverpool
cotton-brokers as self-sacrificing lovers of the human
race, as “anxious careworn” philanthropists nobly
taking a trifling percentage in order to provide three
millions of their country-people with bread. No, no, my
dear Sir ; good, worthy Christian man as you are, law
yer, Member of Parliament, philanthropist, cotton
spinner, social reformer, and the rest of it, your own
original business shoud have taught you the danger of
proving just a trifle too much.
Turn to the Report of the Inspector of Factories for
the year 1875, and there read how the wage-slaves of
Lancashire still fare under the system of production for
the profit of capitalists.
I note that you are a Malthusian—a truly Christian
doctrine that by the way. I have dealt fully with the
familiar fallacy of Malthus in my book on “ The
Historical Basis of Socialism in England,” just published
by Messrs. Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., so I will not
�expose it further here. I will only observe that in.
England the’power of man over nature increases at a
far greater rate than any possible increase of population.
There are too many idlers—including, saving your pre
sence, “ lawyers, parsons, shopkeepers, landlords,
capitalists, innkeepers, publicans, Members of Parlia
ment, members of the army and navy, &c.”—not too
many workers in this England of ours. Ireland—but I
am really amazed. Are you not the Samuel Smith,
Liberal M.P. for the city of Liverpool ? Are you
not a firm supporter of this “ Liberal ” Government ?
And yet you can see nothing but over-population in
Ireland.' How odd 1 Famine in Ireland, Sir, is due to
landlord robbery taking the food from the people in the
shape of rack-rent; as misery and starvation in England
are due to capitalist and landlord robbery taking the
labour, which means the food, from the people in the
shape of rent and profits. Why, Sir, your party founded
their Irish Land Bill on this very contention. And you
don’t know it !
Let me make our general position a little plainer.
Owing to the fact that the means of production, the
land, the capital, the machinery and the credit are in
the hands of the upper and middle classes, the workers
who have no property whatever beyond their mere
labour-force, are obliged to sell that labour-force as a
simple commodity, and therefore to sell themselves as
wage-slaves in return for a bare subsistence. They give
back however the value of their wages to the employing
class in the first quarter of their day’s work. Thus, by
means of monopoly and economical oppression enforced
by the State, which the upper and middle classes own
�8
and control, the workers are legally robbed of threefourths of the labour-value they produce. This threefourths, called economically surplus value, feeds fat
those who chant aloud every Sunday “ Thou shalt not
not steal,” after having done a good six days’ thieving
in the week. They hold on tight to the labour-value
they have robbed, and denounce as scoundrels the
meddlesome moralists who will cry “ Stop thief! ”
I would remark, in reference to the last clause in your
letter, that we do not propose to “ divide ” the land.
This, if you had known anything of modern social and
political economy, you would have seen beforehand.
Our proposal is to put in the first place heavy cumulative
taxation on all rents as on all other incomes, and having
thus gradually expropriated the landlords and capitalists,
to work the railways, the shipping, the factories, and
the land in the most skilful fashion on a large scale with
the most improved machinery under a Democratic State
or Communal management. In this way only will the
infamous confiscation of labour which goes on under our
present competitive system be put a stop to. Produc
tion being now a social business exchange must be a
social business too.
So much for Letter I. Now for Letter II. and its
figures. Your jaunt to Whitehall Gardens seems to me
to have been bootless. Mr. Robert Giffen has “ let
you in,” as he has let in many an unwary Member of
Parliament before you. Statistics don’t always mean
exactly the same to our dexterous manipulator of the
Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, as anyone
who has watched his career is very well aware. I fancy
Mr. Giffen had a little private chuckle as you went
�9
jubilantly down the staircase and set to work there and
then to make ready his Anti-Socialist address for the
Statistical Society. That address to the Statistical
Society you have, I daresay, read and rejoiced over.
Five years ago, however, Mr. Robert Giffen, who was
then deeply concerned to show how enormously capital
was growing in this country—there is a sort of fascina
tion for some minds in the contemplation of gigantic and
successful robbery—Mr. Robert Giffen, I say, then
showed that the working classes (that is to say, the
producing classes and those engaged in distribution as
wage-earners apart from profit) received only
^338,700,000 a year out of a total income of
^1,200,000,000. Mr. Giffen still puts the income at
£1,200,000,000 a year. I put it at ^1,300,000,000
but I am content to take the smaller figure without any
detriment to my argument. Out of either income I say
that the workers get now only ^300,000,000. My
reasons for giving these figures as the share which the
producers receive are, (1) that of late years the average
wages of the working classes have certainly decreased ;
(2) that in 1868 the late Mr. Dudley Baxter—quite as
competent a statist as Mr. Giffen—put them at
^257,000,000 ; (3) that five or six years ago Mr. Giffen
himself put them at ^338,700,000 as already stated ;
(4) that a most careful survey which I myself have
made of the different trades and the average wages of
the workers in them brings me to the conclusion that
/"3oo,ooo,ooo is not an understatement at the present
time. The total you give would include not merely the
wages of producers but of domestic servants, of the
army and navy, and of a whole army of hangers-on of
�IO
the profit-making classes. Even the Economist considers
Mr. Robert Giffen’s recent estimate of ^620,000,000 a
flagrant example of statistical fudging. Besides, if
we were to assume that the working classes earn
what you say they do, viz.: £500,000,000 a year,
or ^200,000,000 a year more than they actually
take, you have still omitted a most important
element in the problem. That is, how much do the
workers refund out of their scanty wages to the
capitalist class in the shape of rent for houses
whose entire value has already been paid for two or
three or in some cases twenty times over ? How much
do they refund in the shape of profit on retail articles
and adulterated wares ? The average amount paid by
the workers as rent for bad and insufficient lodging
alone amounts to from one-fifth to one-third of their
weekly wages. Sir, our figures are quite correct, and
even Mr. Giffen’s recent paper, stripped of its^optimistic
veneer and boiled down to bare-facts, proves that they
are so. You will observe that in spite of what he wrote
or said to you he puts the incomes over ^150 a year at
just ^"600,000,000 a year, as I did, or ^575,000,000. But
in the face of this Mr. Giffen states that there is
no spare capital to divide with the workers nor
has there ever been; in fact the capitalist class
could not possibly carry on at all with less than
they .receive. Statists, like another imaginative set
of people, should cultivate a good memory.
In
1878 this very man, Mr. Robert Giffen, the Head
of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade,
the owner and principal writer for the Statist
newspaper, a frequent contributor to the Times, &c., &c.,
�II
proved conclusively that the capital of this country,
apart from ordinary profits, interest, rents, &c., was
actually increasing at the rate of ^250,000,000 each year—
more than three-fourths of the total amount received by
the producers in wages.
*
The total increase of capital
in England between 1865 and 1875 was, he averred,
certainly not less than ^2,500,000,000 ; do read the
amount, Sir—two thousand five hundred millions ster
ling in ten years. On this point also compare Mr.
Mulhall whom you quote as an authority.
Poor “ anxious, careworn ” capitalists, humane 2 per
cent, philanthropists, how heavy those ill-gotten gains
must have lain in their breeches pockets ! Made out of
the labour of others, Mr. Samuel Smith, every penny of
it, many of whom are now rotting in the pauper grave
* After the publication of Mr. Giffen’s address in the Times, I
wrote a letter to the Editor of that journal pointing out that Mr.
Giffen had greatly changed his views as to the share taken by
capital since 1878, and that according to the figures which he then
gave, and those which he now put forward, the amount of wages
received by the working-class had increased nearly ^300,000,000—
from 7^338,700,000 to ^620,000,000—during five years of general
depression of trade. This letter was printed, and drew from Mr.
Giffen the reply that my statement was utterly untrue ; that he had
never made any estimate of the income of the working-classes, or of
any other class, until the date of that address to the Statistical
Society ; and that he could not imagine where I got my figures
from. Mr. Giffen added that he only “ assumed ” the total income
in 1878 at ^1,200,000,000.
This, although he had stated to
Mr. Samuel Smith, M.P. a few months since that he had arrived
at the very figures “by adding together the incomes of every
person in the country.”
I could only rejoin that the simple
processes of addition and subtraction applied to the figures set
forth by Mr. Giffen five or six years ago, gives the result of which
he complained. And I asked how a Statist of his studies and
reputation could declare authoritatively that capital was increasing
at the rate of ^250,000,000 a year, unless he had made some such
computation ? Up to the moment of writing the Times has not
printed my letter. I am obliged therefore to give this explanation
here, and to ask doubters to turn to Mr. Giffen’s own calculations
.as the best possible refutation of himself.
�12
yard before their time by reason of this robbery. Where
do God and Christ and the eighth commandment come
in ? Pray give us a few texts. Better still, perhaps,,
reprint for us the list of millionaires from the middle
class Spectator, and spread broadcast a copy of Lord'
Overstone’s will.
You argue in places as if we Socialists wished to main
tain the present form of society subject to taking the
property of the upper and middle classes—as if compet
ition would still go on, and wages being high the
population of the whole earth would flock hither. When
we see them coming we shall make preparations for
their reception, take my word for that. But we know
well that they will follow our example and deal with,
their own oppressors on the spot.
In the meantime,
we are striving to overthrow our present society, not out
of sheer malignity and eternal “ cussedness,” as you.
suppose, but in order to substitute State co-operation
and organisation of labour in all departments for that
competition for gain above, and competition for bare
subsistence wages below which bring about such terrible
results. We hold also that all class distinctions must
inevitably be abolished. Even as it is, though but one
fourth of the people are engaged in useful production,,
and they not to the best advantage, there is enough and
to spare for all to live in comfort if the wealth created
were equitably shared. At present the introduction of
improved machinery is absolutely kept back by cheap
labour and overwork of men, women, and children. A
man, a woman, or a child costs less food, that is lessfodder or fuel, than a horse, a mule, or an engine. Such
a state of things for the mass of the people as now exists-
�13
we call anarchy—you call it order. You say gin drives
to misery: we say nine times out of ten misery drives
to gin. All the wretchedness and grinding competition
you speak of at pp, io and n of your pamphlet are
due to the system which you champion—the system,
namely, of monopoly and luxury for the few, of bare
subsistence wages, overwork, and drudgery for the
many.
They will be changed when that system is
■changed, and not till then. Production for profit means
moral degradation not for one class alone but for all. I
hope for a revolution, I strive for a revolution—peaceful
if possible, forcible if need be. Re-organisation in some
shape is essential, for nothing can be worse for the workers
than the existing state of things. Under a system where
all should work none would be deprived of wholesome
leisure, and healthy enjoyment of natural beauty. There
is no lack of room for workers, but drones and robbers
have had their day.
You say that I am guilty of misstatement about the
number of landowners, and you refer me to that monsstrous fraud, the so-called “ New Doomsday Book ” of
1872. Surely you must be aware that the “ Financial
' Reform Almanack” long since showed that the
number of landowners in that bogus return is deliberately
multiplied over and over again. Walk down from your
office to 50, Lord Street, oh statistical member for the
city of Liverpool, and purchase for yourself, by the aid
of one shilling, a copy of that most valuable compilation.
By the way, 8,000 landowners pocket ^35,000,000 a year
in rents. I have no special animosity against landowners
myself for they are, economically speaking, mere
hangers-on of the capitalists; but you are a Social
�14
Reformer—not a Socialist, I’ll never accuse you of that
again, believe me—so I should like to know whether you
approve of that “ division ” of property?
The point,
however, we are at is the number of landowners.
I
don’t think, after your visit to Lord Street, you will
quote that Blue Book of 1872 again where I am likely
to hear of your doing so. 30,000 landowners over against
30,000,000 of people is still quite near enough to the
facts for me.
Those who hold building plots, though
far fewer than you state, would gain infinitely more by
securing the full fruits of their labour than they would
lose under a socialist system by what they themselves
might see fit to vote for the service of the state, As to
the present condition of the land owing to bad seasons,
American competition, and above all bad land-laws, I
am perfectly advised.
I am also aware that Lord
Leicester, Sir John Lawes, Sir James Caird, and my
friend, Mr. J. Boyd Kinnear, all estimate that under a
proper system of cultivation the land of Great Britain
would produce profitably more than twice what it pro
duces at present.
In conclusion I would recommend you to clear your
mind of cant—Christian, capitalistic, or other cant—and
to view these matters without bigotry and without pre
judice. You evidently take the Bible in one hand and
bourgeois economy in the other, and mix them carefully
ip the interest of the possessing classes. “ He that hath
let him grab more.” That is the sum and substance of
your philosophy—social, economical, political, and
religious. The class which provides the “ more ” begins
to understand where wealth comes from, and in spite of
all your rhetoric about Nihilism, Communism, and so
�I5
forth, they protest against the confiscation, the neverceasing confiscation of labour which goes on at their
expense. Ere long you will hear from them, in no gentle
tones, the repetition of that commandment with which
you began your letter, and I end mine :—“ Thou shalt
NOT STEAL !”
I am, Sir,
Your most obedient, humble servant,
London, November 2^th, 1883.
H. M. HYNDMAN.
To Samuel Smith, Esq., M.P., &c., &c.,
Liverpool.
�Printed and Published at the Modern Press
13 & 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
Socialism versus Smithism : an open letter from H. M. Hyndman to Samuel Smith, M. P.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hyndman, Henry Mayers [1842-1921]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15, [1] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Sold for the benefit of the Democratic Foundation. End of text dated, London, November 24th, 1883.
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
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
T464
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Socialism versus Smithism : an open letter from H. M. Hyndman to Samuel Smith, M. P.), 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
Politics-Britain
Samuel Smith
Socialism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/66b8fad5d0f378b8e65a8650cc351f70.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=CjrCtZBiiiB83hUxsWDJMxj7IujC7pjetbMA1%7ESHVFKdXaAsy3OUmNC6bW4czSHHsiUzpp78mGl%7EXK7vHD2C5YtKPBEe6sV4RrFReUpe7mJknHtp4xQFE7Z6er5BzFGlM0X2KYSUjqi8qJbeuYsK4lfLWo%7EyJSf%7E15%7EB7oNwoc3%7EUXbRFf74vypntOn8xAhkJ6kt571KPMVX6oPZjKMmH%7EUnPIKN6NDA5j8XluzLTDN-bPTe26nTXqHFZmCnP6LTtf2omPYOJ22Bos5iict2UBatEQopLZwrZDH7UyBAB7Dop-00c9yz7s8YIAy9YL2UzX6BVjGqvBj7bKPuGVj9%7Eg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
dec8b8b413e3a359d4f26cf6435cd109
PDF Text
Text
PRICE QNE PENNY.]
[SEVENTIETH THOUSAND.
WHAT SHALL I DO
WITH MY VOTE?
A Few Plain Words to the New Voters.
BY
ERNEST PARKE.
■4-
The Right Hon. JOHN BRIGHT writes: “I have read your pamphlet, which
■contains much that is good. It is not easy to write as briefly and as simply as
is needed for the instruction of a large portion of the new voters ; but they will
understand much that you have written for them.”
Mr JOSEPH ARCH writes t “I have read your pamphlet very carefully. It
contains some very good advice to the new electors. Any one contesting a
county division would do well to widely circulate your pamphlet.”
-------- ♦--------
Princes and lords may flourish or may fade;
A breath can make them, as a breath has made.
But a bold pe santry, their country’s pride,
When once destroyed, can never be supplied.
The Deserted Village
--------- *--------
London
W. Reeves, 185 Fleet St., E.C.; The Cobden Club ; or, The Author.
Birmingham: The National Liberal Federation, Colmore Row.
Manchester: The National Reform Union, 46, Brown Street.
Liverpool: The Financial Reform Association, 18, Hackins Hey.
All Booksellers in town and country.
�JRead these Facts
-------- ~0--------------
There are about 520 members of the House of Lords.
490 of them are Landowners, owning 15,213,000 acres, and
the rental is at least .£12,750,000.
They draw out of the national moneys for salaries, pensions,
etc., over £600,000 a year, of which the Royal princes take
£104,642, the Bishops £165,771, and other peers the rest.
Since 1850, the peers and their relations have had over
£100,000,000 out of the taxes.
If you want to know what they have done for it, look at
page 8.
The annual income of the bishops and parsons of the Church
of England is about £6,000,000.
The greater part of this belongs to the whole nation, and
might go to pay for the schooling of the children.
In about 120 years over 8,000,000 acres of common lands
have been enclosed.
Taxes on food and other goods brought into a country arepaid, not by the foreigner who sends them, but by the people
who buy them, because taxes make the goods dearer. It is
not the Chinaman, but the Englishman who pays the tax on
our tea.
If a tax were put on corn, every man who bought a loaf
would help to pay it and the benefit would go into the land
lords’ pockets.
If Tories deny this, read to them what Sir Stafford Northcote,
their leader, lately wrote, (see page 12).
�A TALK ON THE QUESTIONS OF THE DAY.
THE VOTE.
At last, after many years of waiting and hoping, you have the
vote, and you will be able to use it most likely this autumn. Up
till now you have been of very little account in politics. No one
cared what you thought because you had no power. But that is
all changed, and as your class is now very powerful, many people
will be telling you not only what to do, but what to think. But
you will be wise to think for yourselves, and not take your
opinions second-hand from anybody.
IT IS SECRET.
The first thing you should remember about the vote is that it
is quite secret, and no one can know how you have voted unless
you tell him. If any persons say that they can find out, it is not
true, and they are merely trying to make you vote for somebody
whom they think you dare not vote against. If you don’t say
how you vote, no one else can. This way of voting secretly, or
by Ballot, was made law by the Liberals in 1872, though the
House of Lords did all they could to prevent it. They were
afraid that the farmers would vote against their landlords some
times instead of voting for them. Many of you, I dare say, know
cases where, years ago, farmers have been turned out of their
farms for voting against the landlord or his friends; but that
cannot happen now, unless the farmer tells somebody how he
voted. Some years past the Marquis of Exeter, a great Tory
landowner, since dead, ordered all his tenants who were widows
to get married again or else leave their farms. . The women had
no votes, and he wanted only men as tenants, so that he could
make them vote as he liked. The Ballot has put a stop to doings
of that sort, and that is the chief reason why the House of Lords
opposed it so long.
WHOM WILL YOU VOTE FOR?
Feeling now quite sure that the vote is secret, the next thing
is, to whom will you give it ? It seems natural that you should
support that party which has for so many years tried to get you
the franchise. You know that the men who have struggled to
fet you your rights are Liberals. They have worked for you in
'arliament and out of Parliament. They have shown themselves
to be your friends before you had any power, and they are still
more likely to keep friends now you have got it The Tories,
�4
till a very few months back, always said you were not fit to have
the franchise because you were not educated. Then the Liberals
passed the Education Act in 1870, which gives every child in the
land an education, and soon we hope to make the schools free,
because it is for the good of all that every child should be educated’
The Tories thus lost this excuse, and then they took to saying
that you did not care anything about the vote, and would n®t
know what to do with it when you had got it. Last of all,
when they found it was of no use trying to keep it from you, they
said they had been in favour of your having it all along. They
became afraid you would vote against them, and so they are now
trying to make you believe they have always been your friends.
I don’t think you will be deceived so easily. You will most
likely agree with me that these facts form very good reasons why
you should trust your votes to the Liberals. But there are very
many other reasons.
ARE YOU CONTENTED?
A short time ago Sir Stafford Northcote, the leading Con
servative in the House of Commons, said he was afraid people
would be going about telling you that you had wrongs to be
righted and ends to gain, and that you were as good as your
betters. It is plain that he does not think so. He seems to
believe that you are quite happy and contented. If you are, it
will be of no use any one telling you otherwise. But if you are
not, if you think the laws, as they concern you, want altering,
then Liberals and Radicals mean, if you will help them, to get
the laws altered so that they may be just towards you and favour
you as much as others. Your vote will enable you to do this.
Up till now you have otly had to obey the laws ; now you can
help to make them as well as obey them.
THE LAND LAWS.
The Land Laws will have most interest for you, because they
affect your means of getting a living. If they are not good laws
as they stand now, farming must be bad, and you cannot get
better wages. Now, Liberals and Radicals believe that our
present Land Laws need altering, for they partly account for
there being so many millions of acres of land not being tilled
now. The result is that wages are low and thousands of labourers
have left the land, and either gone into the towns to try to get a
living, or else gone to America and other countries where men
are better paid for working on the soil. Mr. Chamberlain, M.P.,
says it is reckoned that there are about 800,000 fewer persons
living on the land in England now than fifteen years ago. Think
of that! It is the same as if two thousand villages, each with
400 people in, were all empty and the people gone away—God
knows where. I can tell you of a case in my native county
arwickshire—which will show you one way how this has
come about. A landlord there has about 3,000 acres, and besides
that he is a rich man. When times got bad, about 1875, his
�5
tenants asked him to reduce their rent. He refused, and they
left their farms. He had plenty of money, and it did not matter
to him if the farms were not taken. But what became of the
labourers on this estate ? They had to work or starve, and as
there was no work for them there, they had to go wherever they
could get it. I dare say most of you can call to mind cases like
this one. This landlord, who never lifted his finger to work,
had the power under the present law to send scores of hard
working farmers and labourers out of their homes, and
besides that the land produced no food, and the other rate
payers in the parish had to pay the rates that this land should
have paid. This is one way in which the law wants altering. If
the land will produce enough for the farmer and the labourer—
the men who really work—it ought to be farmed to grow food
for the nation. The landlord—the man who does not work—
can take his share out of the land after the other two have got
their living, but he should not be allowed to let the land lie idle
and starve the labourer because he cannot get as much rent as
he wants. He cannot be allowed to act like a dog in a manger,
who won’t eat the bait of corn himself, or let the horse eat it.
When a ship is in a storm, the passengers don’t throw the captain
and the crew overboard, but they pitch the useless lumber out.
So, when farming is bad, either through bad laws, bad seasons, or
bad prices, the farmer and the labourer should justly be the last
to suffer, and the rich, do-nothing landlord should feel the pinch
first. One good way to effect this is that suggested by Joseph
Arch—make landlords let their farms by compelling them to
pay rates, whether, empty or not. They would be glad to let
them then, if only to get rent enough for the rates.
THE DEAD MAN'S CLUTCH.
Other laws which must be done away with are the laws which
permit settlement and entail. These allow a landowner to tie
up his land for three generations, so that his son and his son’s
son do not own the land to do what they like with, but only
receive the rents as long as they live. The result of these laws
is that the landlord is not ©ften willing to spend any money
to improve the land, because all he cares about is to get as
much rent as he can as long as he lives, and if the farmer
makes the soil bear better, the landlord will only raise the
rent. Consequently the land is not tilled nearly so well as it
should be, and it does not find work for so many labourers as
it ought to. These laws the Liberals and Radicals will try to
do away with, and if you help them, they will certainly do it.
THE GAME LAWS.
In the same way, we must do away with the game laws. The
game feeds on the farmer’s crops, and as he keeps the game,
it ought to belong to him—if it belongs to anybody. I wonder
how many thousand English labourers have been sent to prison
for disturbing the sleep of those sacred rabbits and hares ! Land
�6
lords and parsons sit on the bench and try the cases, and they
order men to pay heavy fines or to go to prison, without ever
thinking of how great a temptation it is to a poor man to kill a
rabbit for his children’s dinner. But the game has been preserved
long enough. We must now make some laws to preserve the
labourers.
ABOUT ALLOTMENTS.
The law as to allotments is the one in which you will, perhaps,
feel most interest. In many parishes there have been allotments
for years which have been let out to a favored few, often at rents
much higher than were paid by the farmer on the other side of
the hedge, and when one of the labourers offended the parson or
the squire, the allotment was taken from him. In 1882, however,
as you may know, the Allotments Extension Act was passsed by
Parliament. Mr. Howard Evans, who has for many years worked
hard for the labourer’s rights, and whose name is well-known to
every reader of the Labourer's Chronicle, collected the facts and
figures for this Act of Parliament; and Mr. Jesse Collings, M.P.,
whose political life has also been mainly given up to the good of
the labourer, got it passed into law. By this Act it is ordered
that all land left for charity shall be let to labourers in allotments
if they ask for it, at the same rent as the farmers round about
pay. As Mr. Collings made the Bill, if a labourer could not get
the charity land, he was to apply to the judge of the nearest
County Court, who would inquire into the reason why he was
not allowed to have it, and the matter would soon have been put
right. But when the House of Lords examined the Bill, they
ordered that the labourers had to apply to the Charity Commis
sioners in London, instead of the County Court, which meant in
most cases they could not get the land at all if any difficulty arose.
To help labourers who were in this trouble, Mr. Collings started a
society for which a lot of Liberal gentlemen find the money, and
now any labourer who cannot get the people who manage the
Charity lands to let it out in allotments, should write to the
Secretary, Allotments Extension Association, Birmingham, and
he will advise and help him. But this is another law which must
be altered so that all Charity land shall be let out to labourers
who requre it If you show that you mean to have this done,
the law will be changed very soon. Mr. Collings is trying to get
another bill passed, called the Yeomen’s and Small Holdings Bill,
which will make it much easier for labourers to get allotments
•md plots of their own. But if you want good laws like this to
be passed, ask the men who come to you to be sent to Parliament
whether they will vote for such bills, and then you will know
what to do when you hear their answer. The Liberals and
"Radicals mean to get the people back on the land again, and that
the labourer shall have a bit of land to farm for himself, so that
he will have something to look forward to in his old age besides
the workhouse.
�7
TAKING THE PEOPLE'S COMMONS.
They alfeo mean to stop landlords putting fences round com
mon lands, which do not belong to them, but which belong to
the people of the parish. Landlords are very fond of enclosing
land like this, and often say they do it so that the land may
grow something instead of lying idle. But that is no reason why
they should farm it for their own good. Why not let it out in
allotments to labourers, and let the rent go to the good of the
parish instead of into the pockets of the landlords ? Mr. Jesse
Collings is going to try to pass a Bill making landlords who have
fenced in land that does not belong to them in the last fifty years
give it up again. In the last 120 years about eight millions of
acres, or land equal to one-third part of all the workable land in
England, have been enclosed by landlords. Parliament was, and
is now, full of landlords ; and they can pass Acts which favour
their own class very easily. For instance, when a fstrmer becomes
bankrupt, the landlord can send the bailiffs and seize his cattle
and goods for rent, but other people to whom he owes money
have to take their chance of getting paid, and often lose their
money because the landlord has taken all the farmer has got.
Why should not the farmer’s goods be sold and the money divided
fairly amongst those to whom he owes debts ?
LAWS MADE BY LANDLORDS FOR LANDLORDS.
But there are many ways besides this in which the lords and
landlords in Parliament have made laws to suit themselves. When
a man dies and leaves a lot of money, the people who come into
it have to pay a heavy tax. But, if a landlord leaves a lot of
land instead of money, those who come after him hardly pay
anything for tax. Do you think this is fair ? Then, again, the great
squires and lords often do not pay as much for rates as they
ought to. The reason of this is because they are so rich and
powerful that the people who charge them dare not charge them
their full share. I could name six or more of our noblemen, all
of them with over £50,000 a year, who pay much less rates for
their parks than their tenants do for their farms, and they
pay nothing at all for their immense palaces. It would seem
fairer if these very rich landlords were to pay rather more
instead of less, than poorer folks. But there is a worse case
than all these of how they have put their taxes on to the
backs of the common people. About two hundred years ago,
in 1660, when that immoral and base king, Charles II., came
to the throne, the nobles stopped paying him the rents for their
lands which they had always paid to the Government, and instead
they imposed Excise and Customs duties. This meant that they
taxed beer and other things that the people used, and thus the
people paid to the Crown the taxes which the land had always
paid. Then, in 1692, as the taxes did not bring in enough money,
the nobles agreed to pay 4s. out of every pound they received as
rent, but when land got worth more and rents rose they did not
�8
pay any m6re taxes; and the result is that now, instead of the
landlords paying about thirty-four million pounds in taxes for
their land, they only pay a little more than one million. They
have made the poor pay the biggest part by taxing the things
that are used most—such as tea, tobacco, and beer. Here are
some of the taxes which the poor pay though most of them do
not know it. Out of every shilling they pay
For cocoa, l|d. is for tax;
For coffee, l|d. is for tax;
For currants and raisins, 2|d. is for tax;
For tea, 4|d. is for tax.
For every 8d. spent in tobacco 2|d. is for tax, and |d. for
tobacco. Taxes make a shillingsworth of spirits cost 4s. 4|d.
The tax on a shillingsworth of champagne (which poor men
don’t buy) is £cL
TAXING THE POOR.
I will give you an instance of how the poor were taxed. This
case was brought before Parliament in 1842. William Gladstone,
a labourer, earned 11s. a week, and spent 7s. 7d. on food, as
follows :— 1 ounce of tea, 2 ounces of coffee, 8 ounces of sugar,
8 ounces of meat, 8 pounds of flour, seven pints of ale, and a
quartern of brandy.
s. d.
The real cost of these was .................. 2 4^
The taxes on these were
.................. 5 2|
7 7
Thus out of the £28 a year that this poor man earned, £18
went in taxes. A man who had £10,000 a year ought, at the same
rate, to have paid about £4,700 a year in taxes. Instead of that
he paid not more than about £500—that is the poor man paid
nearly ten times as much as the rich man, according to his means.
Since that day the poor man’s taxes have been lightened—chiefly
by Mr. Gladstone and the Liberals—but there is still plenty of
room for change, for even now the poor man pays a good deal
more than the rich man, considering how little he has to pay
with. Liberals hope to reform this, and make the laws so that
rich and poor pay each according to their means.
THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
You will remember that last autumn, when meetings were
being held all over the country to get the Franchise Bill passed
so that you can have the vote, a great deal was said against the
House of Lords. They had refused to pass the Bill. Everybody
expected they would not pass it, because they have always de
layed or refused to pass every Bill of importance that the
Liberals in the House of Commons have brought in for the
good of the people. Before 1-832 the Lords usedto govern the
country how they liked, without taking much notice of what -+-he
people who paid the taxes wanted. Nobody but wealthy
�9
*u-rdt, could sit in Parliament, and the House of Lords really chosethe greater part of the House of Commons. But in 1832 the
Liberals passed the great Reform Bill, after nearly two years’'
struggling with the Lords and the King. The Peers agreed to it
at last, because there had been riots all over the country, and
they could see, if they did not, we should have civil war inEngland. They did not know whether the soldiers would fight
against the people, or side with them; so, in their fear, they
passed the Bill. By this Bill large towns like Manchester, Leeds
and Birmingham were allowed to send members to Parliament,
and little villages of a few hundred people, and, perhaps, with
only a dozen electors who were in the pay of some lord, stopped*
sending members. This was the beginning of that great reform
which has brought it about that now every man in the country
who has a house has a vote.
TKH4T THE LORDS HAVE DONE.
It is easy to see that the more power the people got, the less
was left to the lords, but they have struggled hard to keep their
wrongful power. They have always opposed bills to make elec
tions cheap and stop bribery, because they were rich and could
afford to bribe. They opposed the Ballot because it prevents
them knowing how a man votes, and so they cannot threaten to
turn him out of his farm or cottage if he does not vote as they
want. They refused to do away with cruel laws which punishedpeople severely because they were Roman Catholics or Jews, or
because they went to chapel instead of to church. They, of
course, opposed the first efforts that were made to give the poor
man’s child a cheap education, partly because they were afraid
of the poor knowing how the lords have treated them for hun
dreds of years, and partly because there would be many other
people to teach the children besides the church parson. Then
they opposed the Liberals taking the taxes off paper, because
they knew when paper was cheaper the poor would be able tobuy newspapers for a penny or a halfpenny, and these would
educate the workman and tell him of his rights and his power.
They did all they could to prevent people in the towns from,
having town councils to manage their affairs for them.
HOW THE LORDS HAVE RULED IRELAND.
In Ireland they have been far more powerful than they have
here, and the result is seen in the dreadful condition of that un
happy country. For years the Lords refused to pass every Bill
which the Liberals proposed for the good of the Irish people;
and, as the English did not care quite so much as when theLords refused English Bills, the reforms were much longer
delayed. The greater nrnnber of the farmers there only have small
plots of land. They build their own houses of mud, and make
all the fences and hovels on the land at their own expense, but
when they cannot pay the high rents to their landlords they are
turned out on to the roadside to beg or die. I could tell you of
�10
cases where as many as seven hundred men, women and
children—some of them sick and ill—have been turned out of
their homes in one day because the landlord wanted to knock
down their houses and turn the land into sheep-farms. This sort
of treatment has been going on for hundreds of years, and the
Lords refused to alter the laws which allowed it, although some
Irish landlords themselves said they were most unjust. It is no
wonder that landlords get shot, and Fenians come over here and
make disturbances. It is almost certain that if we had had no
House of Lords, we should have had no Fenians. The high rents
and bad laws in Ireland will also explain why Irishmen come over
for harvest time and do work which Englishmen might do.
Always remember that our House of Lords, by refusing to pass
better laws for Ireland, has made that country so that millions of
the people have left it and come here to live or gone to America.
Mr. Gladstone and the Liberals overcame the Lords in 1881, and
passed a Land Act in spite of them. Ireland is much quieter
now, and when we have given the Irish full justice it is to be
hoped that they will live at peace with us. We must let them
know it is not the English people but the English lords who
have refused them j'ustice. Our lords own immense estates over
there, but most of them spend the money in London and abroad
which their Irish tenants pay. This helps to make Irish trade
bad and the people more discontented.
HARSH AND CRUEL TO THE POOR.
Then, again, the Lords have always been in favor of punishing
the poor severely. How the squires send men to prison for
making a rabbit run away you already know. But that is mercy
itself to what the Lords allowed by the laws. In 1810 it was
lawful to hang a man for stealing half-a-crown’s worth of goods,
and the Lords refused to alter the law although the House of
Commons wanted to. Between 1810 and 1845 it was reckoned
that 1,400 people were hanged for doing what, if they did it now,
they would only be sent to prison for. But the Lords refused
for years to alter the law, although often asked to do so. These
noblemen were rich and well fed, and did not know, or care,
what a temptation it is to a poor and hungry man to steal a loaf.
I wonder how many poor people have been sent to prison for
months for stealing a turnip not worth a farthing ? Of course it
is wrong to steal a turnip, but often a man’s character has been
taken away for life because he took some such trifling thing.
When rich men do worse things (for only very poor people steal
turnips) they generally have a chance to get off by paying. For
instance, in January last (1885) a married clergyman in Lincoln
shire committed shocking assaults on two little girls. He was
only fined £20 and lost his situation. If a poor man had done
such a thing, he would certainly have had a long time in prison,
and most likely would have been sent to penal servitude for ten
or fifteen years, and his family would have gone to the work
�11
house. So, when a noble lord, not long since, assaulted a servant,
instead of being sent to prison and hard labour like any other
man, they arranged it so that he hardly suffered at all.
THE LORDS, THE LAND, AND THE LABOURERS.
But you will feel most interest in regard to what the Lords have
done about the land and the labourers. Every effort that has
been made to get justice for the farmer has always been opposed
by the Lords, although they pretend to be his friends. You
know that when tenants leave their farms, however mutch they
may have improved them, their landlords were not bound to give
them any money to pay them back what they had spent in making
the sheds better, or in manuring the land, or doing other things
that improve the farm for all time. The House of Lords have
always opposed any attempt to protect the property of the tenants
from greedy landlords. In just the same way they tried to defeat
the Bill giving the farmers the right to kill hares and rabbits.
How they have passed Bills enclosing immense quantities of
common land, and how they spoiled the Bill giving you the right
to have charity lands cut up into allotments, I have already told
you. In Ireland they refused to cottage allotments the same fair
treatment which the law gave to large farms. Then the workmen
in towns have suffered from the action of these noblemen just as
badly. They refused to women and children working in coal
mines the protection from hard masters and long hours, which
Liberals tried to get for them in 1842. Many of the lords are
owners of coal-pits, from which they get immense incomes, and
they did all they could to keep women and children at work in
them for long hours because their labour is cheaper than men’s.
They also tried to spoil the Employer’s Liability Act, which gives
a workman or his widow a claim against his employer if he is
hurt or killed through his master’s or the foreman’s carelessness.
In fact, the House of Lords has always opposed every Bill
intended to do good to the working classes or make them more
free. These noblemen sit in the House of Lords because they
are the eldest sons of their fathers, and not because the people
elected them. That may have been a very good reason many
years ago,
BUT IT WONT DO NOW.
No matter whether the Liberals or the Conservatives are in
power in the House of Commons, the House of Lords is always
Tory, and no one will say it is fair that the Liberals who have
been elected by the peeple to govern them should have all their
work delayed or spoiled by a lot of rich landlords who are elected
by nobody. Even if a peer goes to prison, as some do sometimes,
he can go back and make laws for us or spoil other men’s good
work. The People’s League, whose offices are at 14, Bucking
ham Street, Strand, London, has been formed to spread the truth
about the Lords amongst the voters, and you may be sure that
when their evil deeds are more generally known by the voters,
�12
the House of Lords will be either changed or done away with.
The People’s League, before it had been started three months,
had over 100,000 members, and it is still growing rapidly; so
you see very great numbers of your fellow workmen have made
11 p their minds that we can do better without the House of Lords
than with it, and I hope you will think so too.
WANTING TO TAX THE LOAF.
There is one change which a good many Tory landlords and
others want to make. They would like to put a tax on all corn
that comes into the country—that is, they want to tax the loaf.
But you will find that nearly all the people who want to do this
are landlords or their friends. They will tell you that if a small
tax is put on the corn you will have more work and more money.
It is not true, and I will tell you why. The landlord would get
a lot more rent, but will you be willing to pay more for your
bread that rich men may still be richer ? There used to be a tax
on bread. Between the years 1815 and 1846 bread was always
taxed, and what was the state of the people at that time ? Far
worse than it is now. Landlords were better off, but the working
men were starving. Farmers were ruined by thousands. The
workhouses were full; thousands of families had no food, no
clothing, nothing; there were riots in many places, women sold
their we'dding rings for bread, people boiled nettles for food and
ate bad flesh. At this time there were only half as many people
in G-reat Britain as there are now. Do you want these dreadful
sufferings over again ? They were the result of a tax on bread,
which benefits nobody but the landlords. Your wages are very
much higher even now than they were then. Joseph Arch has
written a book which shows up the shocking state of the country
at that time but folks who want to tax your bread don’t tell you
of these things. They say to you, “ What is the use of cheap
bread if you have no money to buy it with ?” They mean you
to understand that if bread was dearer you would have more
money. It is false. Bad as trade is now, it was far worse when
bread was taxed, and would be still worse if we were so foolish
as to allow it to be taxed again. The real change that wants to
be made i-s to alter the land laws so that the soil may be freely
tilled. There would be plenty of work then, and very much
more corn grown at home than there is now.
HOW TO MEET A TORY DODGE.
In the month of April (1885) Sir Stafford Northcote, the
Conservative leader in the House of Commons, wrote—“As
regards the future, I am distinctly of opinion that a return to a
protective duty on corn would be impossible, and that the idea
that a Conservative Government would attempt to impose one is
groundless.” Lord Salisbury a few days afterwards expressed the
same opinion. When a Tory comes to you trying to make you
believe that a tax on corn would raise your wages, show him this
sentence of Sir Stafford Northcote’s, and ask him why he is so
�13
dishonest as to recommend a plan that his own leaders will not
carry out and declare to be impossible.
THE CHURCH.
Now there is the question of the State Church. You know
that the Church of England, which does not include nearly half
the nation, uses for itself alone money which was meant just as
much for the poor as for the parsons. The Church is thus very
wealthy and powerful, and though the parsons are often good
and kind men, in many cases they use their power against the
poor who go to chapel, or who don’t send their children to the
church school, and they forget these poor people when the time
comes round for giving out blankets and coal. Sometimes
these parsons are magistrates and I have known some who have
been very severe in sending men to prison for poaching. When
they are on the Boards of Guardians, they often forget what
their Great Master told them about being kind and merciful.
Well, the Radicals are working to put an end to the special
power which the State gives to the Church of England, and they
wish to have the enormous wealth of the Church spent for the
good of all the people. For instance, it might be used in paying
for the schooling of the children. It was meant for all the
people years ago, and it ought to belong to all the people now,
instead of to only a part. These parsons are usually great friends
of the squires and the landlords. They taught you at school and
at Sunday school to be contented in that state of life into which
it shall please God to call you. You have learnt since that it is
a good thing for a man to better himself when he can. It is easy
to see why the parsons have taught you to be contented, for, as a
rule, they want the laws to stop as they are, instead of being
made better. The parsons and the bishops have always done
their best to prevent changes being made for the good of the
people. They often say the State church is the poor man’s
church, but if that is so, it is a strange thing the bishops and
most of the parsons always oppose laws meant to give poor men
their rights. The laws ought not to favour one church more
than another, and we must do away with the State church, so
that church and chapel will be on the same footing.
VOTE FOR PEACE AND AGAINST WAR.
Lastly, always vote for peace. No lasting good comes to
working men or anyone else from war, which wastes our taxes
and sheds the blood of our fellow men, and all for no real good.
Often wars are made by our rulers without the people being
asked, but the people have to find the money and the men,
although often they don’t agree with the objects for which war
is being made. War makes trade bad and wages low. Nothing
but misery and sorrow comes from it. It may be to the advan
tage of lords and gentlemen who are officers to fight and get
higher rank, but it can never be to the good of working men to
make war except to defend ourselves whaa attacked, and that
�14
we shall be always sure to do. It will help you to understand
what a curse war is when I tell you that out of every pound we
now pay in taxes 16s. 3^cL goes for war, war debt, or war prepa
rations and 3s. 8jd. for all other purposes of government.
WEIGH THESE CLOSING WORDS WELL.
. I have tried to show you some of the objects which you may
like to strive for. If you set your mind upon getting them, you
Can do it, for there are thousands and thousands of your brothers
and relations in the towns who are bent on getting the laws and
changes I have set before you. But how are you to do it ? By
acting together; and, if possible, through your Union. Taken
one at a time, your votes are worth very little : taken altogether,
there are no just and right things you cannot accomplish in timeby means of your votes. But you must not think these objects
can be gained without long and hard work. You must show the
men who want to be your Members of Parliament that you mean
to have these things, and tell them that if they won’t vote for
what you want, you won’t vote for them. We send men to Par
liament to do as we want, not to do as they like, and we must
make them understand it. The Liberals in town and country
everywhere will help you to improve your condition; they will
aid you in gaining whatever is rightly yours. Stand shoulder to
shoulder ; work steadily with your mates for the same just ends,
and there is no class in this country which is strong enough to
deny you your rights when right is on your side.
ERNEST PARKE.
103, Camberwell Grove, London, S.E.
�15
Bow the Lords and Bishops have Voted.
Some Samples oe Hereditary Legislation.
1807—Rejected Bill appointing a Committee of Council for Education.
1810—Rejected Bill abolishing Punishment of Death for stealing
goods value 5s. Seven bishops voted against the Bill. None for it.
More than 200 crimes then Capital.
1825—Rejected Catholic Relief Bill.
1829—Disfranchised 40s. Freeholders in Ireland.
1831— Rejected Reform Bill. 21 bishops assisted. Great riots.
1832— Mutilated Reform Bill in Committee. Renewed riots. Runon the Bank of England. Country on the brink of Revolution.
Refused to open Universities to Dissenters.
1833— Compelled withdrawal of Irish Education Bill.
1833- 57—Denied civil and political rights to Jews. 20 bishops
assisted. Rejected the Commons’ Bill seven times.
1834—Refused to allow more than 20 persons to meet for worship
in private house. Three times rejected Tithe Abatement Bill; also
Bill for legalising marriages in Dissenting chapels.
1836—Ordered banns of Dissenters’ marriages to be read before
Boards of Guardians. Mangled Municipal Reform Act.
1838—Refused to mothers the custody of infants during separation
caused by fault of father.
1839— Continued death penalty for sheep-stealing. RejectedNational Education Bill.
1842—Refused to give women and children working in mines the
full relief of the Commons’ Mines Regulation Bill. Prevented protec
tion of miners for 30 years.
1845—Refused compensation to the Irish tenants, and so for 25 years.
1858—Refused church rates abolition, and for next 11 years; 24
bishops in the majority.
1860—Rejected Bill taking tax off paper, which meant cheap press..
1868— Threw out Irish Church Disestablishment resolutions. Emas
culated Artisans’ Dwellings Bill.
1867-70—Thrice refused University Tests Abolition.
1869— Mutilated Irish Church Bill. Refused to allow Life Peerages.
1870—Mangled Irish Land Act.
1871—Rejected Army Purchase Bill. Threw out Ballot Bill and
next year made secrecy optional.
1873-6-7-9—Refused to amend Burial Laws.
1879 and since—Refused to legalise marriage with a deceased wife’s
sister.
1880—Rejected Compensation for Disturbance Bill. Ireland became
in a state of anarchy. Threw out Irish Registration of Voters Bill.
1882—Made Allotments Extension Act unworkable.
1883—Maintained Trap Pigeon Shooting. (No Bishops attended tovote.) Spoiled English Agricultural Holdings Bill, but retreated.
1884— « Hung up ” the County Franchise Bill.
After reading the above, do you net think that the House of
Commons was right when, in 1649, it resolved that the House of
Lords “ was useless, dangerous, and ought to be abolished ?”
�ALL THE NEW VOTERS
Should Read
The English Labourers’
CHRONICLE.
THE
1
Organ of the National Agricultural
Labourers’ Union.
ORDER OF ANY NEWSAGENT.
SOLD IN EVERY COUNTY.
Full of Interest for Workers and Voters.
The CHRONICLE contains—
News and Political Articles,
by Well-known Writers,
AFFECTING THE
WELFARE AND WAGES
OF THE LABOURERS.
ONE PENNY WEEKLY
�
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
What shall I do with my vote? : a few plain words to the new voters
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Parke, Ernest
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15, [1] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from internal evidence (list of House of Lords votes ends with date of 1884, and text refers twice to 1885). Advertisement for the English Labourers' Chronicle on unnumbered page at the end.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
W. Reeves
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1885?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
T469
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
Politics
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 (What shall I do with my vote? : a few plain words to the new voters), 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
Great Britain-Parliament
Great Britain-Parliament-House of Lords
Great Britain-Politics and Government-1837-1901
Land tax
Politics-Britain
Socialism