2 10 52 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0fc5552cd5e8fc29da1724397db0f46f.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=CmiLPUT0vsljhn6kTSrR21Zcv6Ct1xR%7EvjVTCZJHWC9bC%7E6q8zZ1Oxeh7efShRqneq9cJjAS%7EnSwWaKm-G2i%7EhoVTxzynj6gX9IhTU-2V1PgZeYUQ3hwb840izbzcavqHQ9D8fSvpg31mtCPH7cQKJD7TOdLrbPzzkAZQxeTXA5xttNNj6Z3wjuIuAizDe3jUFEfdYJRvKR3eHHGkxAoEoJa2SkMAx%7E3Pt9d4hQm5%7ER-5H4S84n-uOP14bKifqiM5WHWPEluXP01JSfBtUKpBiHvPsLzLSGteGlSyM-FPEkdiJXJcraV2baTVqraAYVXnSCvUAIy3JrUnT-Mt8UNCA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM cdad33cf09b36e20f409a2fdda209682 PDF Text Text CT&> PRICE ONE PENNY. HERBERT SPENCER I ON SOCIALISM. A TO THE REPLY THE ARTICLE ENTITLED COMING SLAVERY, (In the “ Contemporary Review” for April, 1884.) BY v FRANK FAIRMAN/ l,e*( TheoAef-e THE 13 and R- UJKrlct" MODERN 14, PATERNOSTER PRESS, ROW, LONDON, E.C. AND OF W. REEVES, 185, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E C. 1884. �“ Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee.” �HERBERT SPENCER ON SOCIALISM. “ Is Saul also amongst the prophets ? ” seems to have been at one time the proverbial formula for expressing surprise, bordering on incredulity, at the appearance of any wellknown individual in a new and unexpected character, and the like feelings may probably be evoked by the inquiry—“ Is Herbert Spencer also amongst the humourists ? ” A careful and repeated perusal, however, of his latest deliverance on social questions in the April number of the Contemporary Review, and a comparison of it with other writings of his which are un­ doubtedly serious, almost forces one to the conclusion that he is on this occasion laughing in his sleeve at the British public, and enjoying the joke of being held up as Defender of the universal-scramble and Devil-take-the-hindmost Faith which not once only, but all his life, he has laboured to destroy. Probably no one—not even Dr. Marx, himself (his works being inaccessible in English) has done so much to promote the spread of socialistic ideas in England as Mr. Spencer, and to those who have for years felt that in the principles he has laid down they had a sure and solid founda­ tion on which to stand, and a clue to guide them in coming to a right conclusion on many vexed questions of political and social importance, it will be an immense relief to find that their great teacher has not really turned his back upon himself, but that like Rabelais and others, he is only con­ cealing his real purpose under a cloak—not of nastiness— which neither his own taste, nor the manners of the age would permit — but of apparent hard-heartedness and economic superficiality, both of which are alike repugnant to his real nature. What better evidence can we have that a writer is masquerading than to find— being a philanthropist, whose sympathies arq pot �4 limited by country, colour, or creed, he insults the unfor­ tunate and apparently depreciates all attempts to help them. 2. —That being an exact and profound thinker, he over­ states and mis-states his (nominal) opponent’s case in order to prejudice it, and trots out from the economic stable vener­ able old screws like “ wages-fund,” which though they made good running in their day, are now only fit for a fair-trade procession. 3. —That being probably the leading philosopher of the age, he condemns, because it bears an unpopular name, the very thing which he has himself held up as the grand desideratum. 4. —That being a master of the English language, he uses terms so exactly and admirably adapted to describe the effects of the present system of production that when applied to its rival they can only be taken ironically, and— Lastly, when there is an intelligible object for the grim joke, viz., that of sending those who are so delighted with this last essay, to study the other writings of their supposed champion, where, if they are at all amenable to reason, his inexorable logic can hardly fail to convince them of the necessity of at least as radical a reconstruction of society as even the Democratic Federation can desire. Furthermore, the dis­ covery that there is this vein of humour in Mr. Spencer’s composition will assist one to read between the lines of those portions of Social Statics in which he has denounced Socialism—in name—and even combatted, though, but im­ perfectly, some of its claims, though at the same time admitting that they spring naturally from the principles he has formulated. Let us take these various propositions in order and see whether or not they are justified. 1.—It is hardly necessary to prove that Mr. Spencer is a genuine philanthropist, but the following sentences show what was once the real attitude of his mind towards the poorer classes, and the hard conditions of their lot:— “ It is a pity that those who speak disparagingly of the masses have not wisdom enough, to make due allowance for the unfavourable circumstances in which the masses are placed. Suppose that after weighing the evidence it should turn out that the working men do exhibit greater vices than those more comfortably off; does it therefore follow that they are morally worse ? . . . Shall as much be expected at their hands as from those born �5 into a more fortunate position ? . . . Surely the lot of the hard-handed labourer is pitiable enough without having harsh judgments passed upon him. To be wholly sacrificed to other men’s happiness; to be made a mere human tool; to have every faculty subordinated to the sole function of work—this, one would say, is alone a misfortune, needing all sympathy for its mitigation. . . It is very easy for you, oh respectable citizen, seated in your easy chair, with your feet on the fender, to hold forth on the mis­ conduct of the people, very easy for you to censure their extravagant and vicious habits, very easy for you to be a pattern of frugality, of rectitude, of sobriety. What else should you be ? Here are you surrounded by comforts, possessing multiplied sources of lawful happiness, with a reputation to maintain, an ambition to fulfil, and prospects of a competency for old age. . . If you do not contract dissipated habits where is the merit ? How would these virtues of yours stand the wear and tear of poverty ? Where would your prudence and self-denial be if you were deprived of all the hopes that now stimulate you; if you had no better prospect than that of the Dorsetshire farm-servant with his 7s. a-week, or that of the perpetually straitened stocking weaver, or that of the mill-hand with his periodical suspensions of work ? Let us see you tied to an irksome employment from dawn till dusk; fed on meagre food, and scarcely enough of that; married to a factory girl ignorant of domestic management; deprived of the enjoyments which education opens up; with no place of recreation but the pot­ house, and then let us see whether you would be as steady as you are. Suppose your savings had to be made, not, as now, out of surplus ’income, but out of wages already insufficient for necessaries; and then consider whether to be provident would be as easy as you at present find it. . . “ How offensive it is to hear some pert, self-approving personage, who thanks God that he is not as other men are, passing harsh sentence on his poor, hardworked, heavily burdened fellow-countrymen; including them all in one sweeping condemnation, because in their struggles for existence they do not maintain the same prim respectability as himself. Of all stupidities there are few greater, and yet few in which we more doggedly persist, than this of estimating other men’s conduct by the standard of our own feelings. . . We cannot understand another’s character except by abandoning our own identity, and realising to ourselves his frame of mind, his want of knowledge, his hardships, temptations and discouragements. And if the wealthier classes would do this before framing their opinions of the working man, their verdict would savour somewhat more of that charity which covereth a multitude of sins." — Social Statics, part 3, chapter 20. What a striking contrast do those sentiments present to the opening of the article on the Coming Slavery, where the author speaks of “the miseries of the poor being thought of as the miseries of the deserving poor, instead of being thought of as in large measure they should be, as the miseries of the undeserving poor”; goes on to describe the idlers about tavern doors, the men who appropriate the wages of their wives, the fellows who share the gains of prostitutes, &c., �6 and then says—“ Is it not manifest that there must exist in our midst an enormous amount of misery which is a normal result of misconduct, and ought not to be dissociated from it ? ” Can any one doubt that Mr. Spencer is as perfectly well aware as any one who reads these lines, that it is the misery of the deserving poor, not that of the undeserving, which has excited so much sympathy :—and that if by toiling twelve or fourteen hours a day men and women could have secured as good accommodation as well kept pigs, and as good and sufficient food as cart-horses, we should have heard no “ bitter cry,” and had no Royal Commission ? The loungers who rush to open a cab-door are not to be lost sight of, but it is a mere gratuitous assumption that all or most of them could find better work to do. An equally patent fact is the immense rush for any opportunity of earning an honest living at even the lowest remuneration, as witness the crowds who besiege the London Docks at 6 o’clock every morning, 40 per cent, at least being stated by eye-witnesses to go away disappointed. Mr, Spencer has taken great pains to collect information regarding the aborigines of all parts of the globe, and can hardly have passed over his own countrymen ; if he has ever made a personal tour of our great metropolitan markets and leading thoroughfares, early in the morning or late at night, he must be convinced from witnessing the innumerable shifts and devices resorted to, the hard work undergone, and the discomfort endured, to gain a few miserable pence and so escape the workhouse, that taking the poorer classes as a whole, laziness is the last vice which can be laid to their charge. Thriftless they un­ doubtedly are, but what inducement have they to be other­ wise, when the most strenuous efforts would be so hopelessly futile of obtaining anything like a tangible result. In­ temperate, on occasion they are also, but there is much excuse, if no justification, for their indulging when they have the means in the only form of pleasurable excitement known or open to them. Unoerlying these opening sentences, is the common assumption that an honest, sober, and in­ dustrious workman can always find employment. It must be acknowledged that there is some slight colour for the assumption,but what doesit come to when analysed ? Simply that the best men get employed first. But if all were equally sober, industrious, and skilful, their good qualities would �7 bear no premium in the labour market, and what little foundation there is now for this assumption would vanish ; so that, in fact, it rather is to the bad qualities of their fellows than to their own virtues—to the existence in short, of the tavern and street corner loungers—that the elite of the working classes owe such advantages as they possess. Once more, can any one suppose that Mr. Spencer, of all men, needs to have this pointed out ? It is impossible. 2.—“ There is a notion,” says Mr. Spencer, “ always more or less prevalent, and just now vociferously expressed, that all social suffering is removable, and that it is the duty of somebody or other to remove it. Both these beliefs are false.” A great portion of social suffering arises from the death of relatives and friends, but no instructed Socialist has as yet proposed to remove it; on the contrary, unhappily, some ^instructed ones seem rather in favour of increasing it. Speaking seriously, however, what Socialists maintain is—not any such absurdity as the above, but that a great deal of suffering is removable, and in particular that an im­ mense deal of it results directly from defective social arrange­ ments ; and that this portion at least, can be, and ought to be, removed. They are firmly convinced that material im­ provement without moral and intellectual elevation is a chimera, but they are equally convinced that the moral eleva­ tion of the lowest class without material improvement is im­ possible. They agree with Mr. Spencer in accepting the scientific accuracy of the maxim, “ If any will not work neither shall he eat; ” but they also believe that “ if any do not eat neither can he work; ” and they object to the pre­ sent system of distribution because on the one hand it gives plenty to eat to those who do not work at all,. and on the other, leaves those who work the hardest the smallest possible means and opportunity of eating anything. The next suggestion is that the working classes are being supplied with dwelling accommodation at less than its com­ mercial value, because in Liverpool the municipality has spent ^200,000 in pulling down and reconstructing, and “ the implication is that in some way the ratepayers supply the poor with more accommodation than the rents they pay would otherwise have brought.” An equally logical implica­ tion would be, that in some way some of the non-working classes have obtained £200,000 of the ratepayer’s money be- �8x yond the commercial value of their property. Mr. Spencer also . says that the advantages derived from free libraries, public baths, Board schools, etc., are only a rate in aid of wages, and that these seeming boons are really illusory. It might be said that these things being necessaries, if they were not supplied by the public, the working classes would insist on such wages as would enable them to provide them for themselves ; and such an argument would be not only plausible, but sound, assuming the premises to be correct, which evidently they are not. But the line of reasoning adopted seems to be that capitalists give as high wages as ever they can afford, many of them even coming to grief from their liberality in this respect, and that any inroads by taxation on either profits or “wages fund” necessitate, much against their will, an equivalent reduction in wages. Whether either the premises or the argument in this case be sounder than m the previous one, those who understand anything of economics must judge. It may be pointed out, however, that this view accords very ill with the conclusions of Mr. Giffen, and similar optimists, who prove very much to their own satisfaction that the wages of the working classes have con­ siderably improved during the very period that the public have been providing these illusory benefits. Besides, supposing Mr. Spencer’s criticism on this point well founded, it is obviously only an argument against half and half measures, and in favour of real Socialism, (did he mean it as such ?) which would abolish this cut-throat competition between employers, by which both their own profits and the remuneration of labour are reduced to a minimum. 3-—The condemnation of Socialism by name is too obvious to need more than a general reference. To show that the thing itself is _ the only legitimate outcome of Mr. Spencer’s teaching, it is necessary to refer in some detail to Social Statics, especially as this book is not now readily accessible. It is understood that Mr. Spencer objects to its being re­ printed until he has time to revise and modify some portions, but judging by the preface to the last edition, such modifica­ tions will be confined to the practical applications of the prin­ ciples laid down, and will not interfere with the principles themselves. So firmly, indeed, has the author established these, that it would be difficult even for him to upset them. It is to these that attention will be chiefly directed, rather �9 than to special deductions which the writer draws from them ; and, be it said with all deference, it is not for a philosopher who succeeds in establishing a principle to dictate what con­ clusions may or may not be drawn from it; that must depend on the acknowledged rules of logic. Without unduly lengthening these pages by citations, it may fairly be said that the one great principle which Mr. Spencer establishes as the fundamental law of morality for human beings, is what he terms “the law of equal freedom ; ” that is, that every individual should enjoy perfect liberty to exer­ cise all his faculties, the only limitation being that he shall not in so doing infringe in any manner on the like freedom of others. As he puts it, “ man must have liberty to go and to come ; to see, to feel, to speak, to work, to get food, raiment, and shelter, and to provide for each and all the needs of his nature.” (p. 93.) Again, “If this law of equal freedom is the primary law of right relationship between man and man, then no desire to get fulfilled a secondary law can warrant us in breaking it.” It is here contended that the acceptance of this primary law inevitably leads to Socialism, and can lead to nothing else. Mr. Spencer has himself done the greater part of the work required to show that it does so, by himself drawing from it the deduction that it includes the right to the use of the earth. “ Each is free to use the earth for the satisfaction of his wants provided he allows all others the same liberty. And conversely it is manifest that no one may use the earth in such a way as to prevent the rest from similarly using it. Equity, therefore does not permit pro­ perty in land.” (p. 131). Again, “ It is impossible to dis­ cover any mode in which land can become private property.” And at p. 143 “ Bye and bye men may learn that to deprive others of their rights to the use of the earth is to commit a crime inferior only in wickedness to the crime of taking away their lives or personal liberties.” So far so good; but the author goes a step, and a very im­ portant step further, and when dealing with the rights of pro­ perty points out that all wealth being derived from the earth, the only legitimate basis qf property is the exercise of man’s labour upon land for which he has paid to society, the rightful owner thereof, a fair rent, and this never having been done, all personal as well as real property, is tainted and illegitimate in its origin. This important deduction of his own drawing �Mr. Spencer seems afterwards to have somewhat lost sight of. Well may he say, with reference to another matter, but it is equally applicable to this : “ Due warning was given that our first principle carried in it the germs of sundry unlooked for conclusions. We have just found ourselves committed to a proposition at war with the convictions of almost all. Truth, however, must of necessity be consistent; we have, there­ fore, no alternative but to re-examine our pre-conceived notions in the expectation of finding them erroneous.” (p. 195.) This is exactly what Socialists desire mankind to do with regard to their pre-conceived notions about the produc­ tion and distribution of wealth, bearing in mind that “ as liberty to exercise the faculties is the first condition of in­ dividual life, the liberty of each limited only bv the like liberty of all, must be the first condition of social life, the law of equal freedom is of higher authority than all other laws.” (p. 217.) Remembering also that “ before establishing a code for the right exercise of faculties there must be established the condition which makes the exercise of faculties possible. It is the function of this chief institution which we call a government, to uphold the law of equal freedom.” (p. 278.) Is not this precisely the contention of Socialists, that the first duty of the State is to see that each individual has a chance of exercising his faculties, the digestive ones included ? It is quite true that Mr. Spencer apparently shrinks from this “unlooked for conclusion,” and declines to recognise either a right to maintenance, or the right to labour; but, as observed at the outset, a suspicion not unnaturally arises that in so doing he was possibly actuated rather by policy than conviction, especially when we examine the mode in which he deals with these two claims. He disposes of the first by asserting that it cannot be entertained until an exact defini­ tion is arrived at of what a maintenance means, whether a bare subsistence, or a certain amount, and if so how much, of comforts or luxuries. It may be replied in the first place that though this task may be difficult, it does not follow that it is impossible ; and if confined, as is evidently contemplated, to those who cannot get their own living, those entrusted by society with the charge ofmaintaing them would easily estab­ lish a working scale, as is in fact done. Besides, as Mr. Spencer repeatedly points out in other cases, it by no means follows that the law of perfect morality is discredited because �ri it is difficult or even impossible of application in an imper­ fect state of society. Once more, Socialists do not contend that every one is entitled to a maintenance without earning it; quite the reverse. The real gist of the argument there­ fore, turns on the next point, the right to labour, which is dealt with still less satisfactorily. Mr. Spencer says, “ First, let us make sure of the meaning wrapped up in this expres­ sion—right to labour. Evidently, if we would avoid mistakes we must render it literally—right to the labour; ” (which does not seem to make it any plainer) “ for the thing deman­ ded is not the liberty of labouring ; this no one disputes ; ” (on the contrary it is the very thing which is disputed, unless swinging one’s arms and legs aimlessly is to be called labour­ ing) “ but it is the opportunity of labouring, the having re­ munerative employment provided, which is contended for.” Now, to take Mr. Spencer literally, one wants to know whether it is the liberty combined with the opportunity which he concedes (if he does he concedes the whole point), or the liberty without the opportunity, which he seems to mean ; if so, he may as well concede the liberty to fly. It is something like the liberty which calvinistic theologians accord to those predestined to damnation; just enough to save the credit of the deity, but not enough, without the effectual grace which they never get, to save their own souls. Again, “the word right, as here used, bears a signification quite different from its legitimate one, for it does not here imply something inherent in man, but something dependent upon external circumstances, not something pos­ sessed in virtue of his faculties, but something springing out of his relationship to others, not something true of him as a solitary individual, but something which can be true of him only as one of a community, not something antecedent to society, but something necessarily subsequent to it, not some­ thing expressive of a claim to do, but of a claim to be done unto.” With the exception of the last member of the sen­ tence, which might be disputed, this is an accurate criticism, but does it not strengthen the claim rather than weaken it ? The right, in its strict sense, on which the claim is founded, is the right to use the faculties, and the fact that everything on which that right can be exercised, every inch of ground, and every particle of wood, stone, iron, etc., has been previously appropriated by society seems a very insufficient reason for �1-3 rejecting the claim. To so reject it, is in fact to contravene one of the fundamental rules of equity, that no one may take advantage of his own wrong doing. Going on further, Mr. Spencer by that clear method of analysis of which he is a master, points out that when the proposition is reduced to its lowest terms, it only means that society is the employer, and therefore in efiect the labourer says that ABC and D are bound to employ him ; that he, with B C and D are bound to employ A; and so on with each individual of the twenty millions’of whom the society may be composed ; and then, with a fine touch of humour, he adds: “ Thus do we see how readily imaginary rights are distinguishable from real ones. They need no disproof, they disprove themselves. The ordeal of definition breaks the illusion at once.” It certainly does not break this illusion, if it be one ; on the contrary, this admirable mode of stating the case only confirms the justice of the claim, when the real facts are considered. It is in truth the veritable A B C of Socialism. All the letters of the social alphabet, large and small, furnish employment; even the veriest waif and outcast provides employment for others, be it only the policeman and gaoler ; and this claim of the right to labour is nothing more nor less than a protest on the part of the small letters, who each help to swell the demand, against the supply being mon­ opolized by the capitals for their own profit. As Mr. Spencer himself puts it at p. 345: “We must not overlook the fact that erroneous as are these poor law and communist theories, these assertions of a man’s right to maintenance and of his right to have work provided for him, they are nevertheless nearly related to a truth. They are unsuccessful efforts to express the fact that whoso is born on this planet of ours thereby obtains some interest in it—may not be summarily dismissed again—may not have his existence ignored by those in possession. In other words, they are attempts to embody that thought which finds its legitimate utterance in the law, all men have equal rights to the use of the earth. . . . After getting from under the grosser injustice of slavery men could not help beginning in course of time to feel what a monstrous thing it was that nine people out of ten should live in the world on suffrance, not having even standing room save by allowance of those who claim the earth’s surface. Could it be right that all these human beings should not only be with- �'r3 out claim to the necessaries of life, should not only be denied the use of those elements from which such necessaries are obtainable—but should further be unable to exchange their labour for such necessaries except by leave of their more for­ tunate fellows ? . . . . To all which questions now forced upon men’s minds in more or less definite shapes, there come amongst other answers these theories of a right to a mainten­ ance and a right of labour. Whilst, therefore, they must be rejected as untenable we may still ” [not give any definite answer which is more tenable, but] “ recognise in them the imperfect utterances of the moral sense in its efforts to express equity.” 4.—At p. 474 of the Contemporary Review Mr. Spencer says : “Why is this change described as the Coming Slavery? The reply is simple. All Socialism involves slavery,” and then, in an eloquent passage he asks and answers the question, “ what is essential to the idea of a slave ? ” The result being thus expressed. “ The essential question is, how much is he compelled to labour for other benefit than his own, and how much he can labour for his own benefit ? The degree of his slavery varies according to the ratio between that which he is forced to yield up and that which he is allowed to retain ; and it matters not whether his master is a single person or a society. If, without option he has to labour for the society and receives from the general stock such portion as the society awards him, he becomes a slave to the society.” Could there be a more exact description of the condition of the modern wage labourer under the capitalist system ? Yet Mr. Spencer adds, “ Socialistic arrangements necessitate an enslavement of this kind.” If they did, they would be no worse than present arrangements, but they do not. Socialistic arrange­ ments literally, etymologically, and reasonably, only mean such arrangements as will admit of the great primary law of equal freedom being carried out. As the whole work of Mr. Spencer’s life shows, Sociology as a science is still in its in­ fancy ; it is no wonder therefore that though many good men in former times have indistinctly seen the promised land afar off, or in visions, no Moses has yet arisen with sufficient knowledge, wisdom, and divine enthusiasm to lead the people out of their worse than Egyptian bondage, and guide them safely through the dreary wilderness of economic truisms and fallacies which have to be traversed ere that holy land is �T4 reached. Happily, a very good sketch map of the route has recently been laid down by Mr. Carruthers, some of whose observations on this particular point seem to have been written specially in anticipation of “ The Coming Slavery.” He says:— “ Without formally asserting that men under Communal Government could not be allowed every possible freedom, except that of compelling others to serve them, they (capitalists) assert that such freedom would not be granted if any but capitalists governed the world. Acting under these opinions, or rather prejudices, they devise an ideal commune, in which every public and private action would be guided by idiotic folly and per­ versity, and then triumphantly ask whether even the working classes are not better off under commercialism than they would be under so absurd a system. If we are to believe what they tell us, communal government would be entrusted to a huge bureaucracy, sitting at the capital town, like a spider in the middle of its web, and sending its commands over the country as to what every one should eat and drink, what clothes he should wear, what religion he should profess, at what sports he should play, what trade he should follow, when and whom he should marry, and finally, the shape and material of his coffin........................ Imperfect as the workmen’s freedom actually is, we are quite prepared to admit that mere material well-being would not compensate them for its loss, and that they would do better for themselves by upholding commercialism than by adopting such a scheme of communism as is sketched out for them by the capitalists. They are not, however, tied to this system, which is indeed such as no sane man would ever dream of establishing, nor need they fear that under the commune, anyone would lose any freedom he now enjoys.................... Instead of comparing commercialism with the form of communism that would be set up by men as foolish and meddling as the capitalists assume every one but themselves to be, we must compare it with a system in which no one desires, or would be permitted to interfere unnecessarily with his fellows, and in which the sphere of State control would be made as re­ stricted as was compatible with securing the end for which all government is established, namely, the well-being of the people.”—"Communal and Commercial Economy ” p. 321 et seq. Very much to the same practical effect are Mr. Spencer’s own words : “ Civilization is evolving a state of things and a kind of character in which two apparently conflicting require­ ments are reconciled. To achieve the creative purpose— the greatest sum of happiness—there must on the one hand exist an amount of population maintainable only by the best possible system of production ; that is, by the most elaborate subdivision of labour ; that is, by the extremest mutual de­ pendence, whilst on the other hand each individual must have the right to do whatever his desires prompt. Clearly these two conditions can be harmonized only by that adap­ tation humanity is undergoing, that process during which all �i5 desires inconsistent with the most perfect social organization are dying out, and other desires corresponding to such or­ ganizations are being developed.” (Social Statics, p. 482.) A better definition of the real aims of Socialism than the first portion of the above extract could hardly be given, and the conclusion seems inevitable, either that Mr. Spencer is having his little joke in denouncing the Coming Slavery; or, which seems still more difficult of belief, he has fallen into the vulgar error of condemning Socialism because he does not agree with what all who call themselves Socialists may say. He might as well deride all law, religion, medicine, and charity, because unscrupulous advocates, corrupt judges, self-seeking hypocrites, ignorant quacks, and misguided enthusiasts have sheltered themselves under these sacred names. In any case, genuine Socialists will be none the less grateful to him for affording this opportunity of supporting the cause which he and they alike have at heart, from the rich storehouse which he has provided. If, as may perhaps be inferred from the last sentence quoted, his objection is merely to the method, and he only fears that the desired re­ forms may be attempted too soon, or by wrong means, he may be reassured by a consideration of the fact, which he has over and over again insisted upon, that “ the sense of rights, by whose sympathetic excitement men are led to behave justly to each other, is the same sense of rights by which they are prompted to assert their own claims.” And conversely those who are most forward to assert their own claims are as a rule the most ready to respect the rights of others. Mr. Spencer has a well-founded dread of paternal legislation, and unlimited faith in the power of voluntary co-operation, but seems hardly to realize how far the government of the future will necessarily partake of the character of co-operation, for­ cible interference being limited almost entirely to his own minimum, that necessary to secure equal justice. In conclusion it may with all respect be submitted that his great powers would be more usefully employed in assisting the efforts of those who share his own aspirations, and found themselves upon his own principles, than in even appearing to lend the weight of his authority to the already overwhelm­ ing mass of stolid Conservatism. Intelligent criticism is always useful, and to none more so than to those who are en­ deavouring to devise a better mode of life ; but Mr; Spencer �i6 Claims to be a synthetical philosopher, and from him, there­ fore, something beyond mere criticism is expected. It is no use to tell us that “ the welfare of a society and the justice of its arrangements are at bottom dependent on the character of its members,” nor can Mr. Spencer claim any exclusive ownership in this idea. What is wanted before all things at the present day is some method of improving individual character, and especially that side of it which modern com­ mercialism does everything to foster, that grasping, selfish, greed of gain, which is at once corrupting the upper and degrading the lower sections of society. In an early essay Mr. Spencer depicted the vices of modern trade in a manner it would be difficult to rival; it is these very vices, springing from unchecked, almost inevitable selfishness, that Socialism seeks to uproot, and nothing in his last paper goes one inch towards showing that it would be ineffectual for the purpose, still less does he offer any alternative. Such may yet be forthcoming, and even if not complete, an instalment will be heartily wel­ comed by those earnest men who are less affected by specu­ lative and imaginary fears of the coming slavery, than by a deep and ever growing sense of the enormity of that present slavery which they see around them. Literature on Land, Labour and Capital, &c., Published by W. Reeves, 185, Fleet Street, London. THE CHRISTIAN SOCIALIST. Monthly, id.; is. 6d. a year 6 2 post free. The First Volume neatly bound in Cloth ART AND SOCIALISM, by William Morris. Large paper, is. Ordinary o 3 (postage id.), Cloth I o THE LAND QUESTION, by Henry George .. (postage id.) o 3 ,, ,, Popular Edition, PROGRESS AND POVERTY, by Henry George. 8-vo. Library size, Paper, is.; Limp Cloth, is. 6d.; Cloth, 2S. 6d. (postage 3d.) I o o I PORTRAIT OF HENRY GEORGE (Cabinet 2s. 6d.) LAND NATIONALISATION ; Its Necessity and its Aims, by A. Russell Wallace. Paper, 8d. (postage 3d.); Cloth I 6 ENGLAND FOR ALL, The Text Book of Democracy, by H. M. Hyndman ................................................. (postage 2d.) o 6 THE LAND LAWS, as they are and as they should be, by Hine i 0 Solon .. .. .. .. •• •• � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Herbert Spencer on socialism. A reply to the article entitled "The coming slavery" Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Fairman, Frank Description An account of the resource Place of Publication: London Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Annotated in pencil "i.e., Theodore R. Wright" under author's name on title page. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. The Spencer article appeared in Contemporary Review 45 (April 1884). 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 1884 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT86 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 (Herbert Spencer on socialism: A reply to the article "The coming slavery")  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 Conway Tracts Herbert Spencer Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/53b25632583f1763222bc31436bcddcb.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=pTA7Pmcb1tIQaZ6kV9ZlMu7uHLICScRT9M9BwcsLW2Bp3uj-J6WRB%7Eg-jhshSEX7qzL9vApUN0KaxCU-m7SvrKGLDhCQVRCOan1Ho%7Ewh5ULhm7JjcEywuTaCB3BFQoie3dJkPEsrUGmxwNdOQxdqFM7xsoVjWKT1ikpxerRcGZjEhbzQqsSKP83Gvb8YyNcZZQbPKTDrLq89ChRTzLnZ3EgFqVYOWw3teDDx7gOcEn9UN3HJ9KpFpuwoSDES-kDpJfN3pKiIPrnGg9wivjh4XZApQWxNPyNhQ5huc7TOTaPbk73%7EKbUtHChqFeGyB8cspVLE-CtDZPjtJ5lSoyEMgg__&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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 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/a48a8dd3e169f3da1d36a4aa0deed419.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=WTid9%7EAX3mxQ09fVAJiCGCF2TsvesCrBpcS5ZcRSV1iIQRitX8hh-2m5rZn%7EchmBkK4dbY14VuuF-ATXFVwEoPcF3RXR0cH0LUKpkf-JwukQIhGyxSrdJzPuzzit1WHI8Wy3%7E-DAjH3-9RGHfGpu49ibQvSUPZWVclwsUrd1elJOI0nfdiJmJrCc3BAPcr9V68cVri7dSLvg91h6xe9cJ7JXtGoUtpkwcUgTlrFg9HzjSpfEE%7E6sNAM4on4xqZFXRSousMGAIh8OWRcKise5mNBiWrY-dD6qpldwkvw-uXLijzt-zgvM15GZkV3OmChF3aLK9tW%7EPizE5RRpqudBGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 3cd76236231ef58d6cf65c7c1e402695 PDF Text Text ONE PENNY. JOHN E. WILLIAMS, AND THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE Social - Democratic Federation ; With his own Account of the Month's Imprisonment he SUFFERED FOR SPEAKING IN DoD STREET, LlMEHOUSE. 1886. Published at the Modern Press, 13, Paternoster Row, London. ORN 27 years ago within a short distance of the spot where he has been so imprisoned and John BWilliams has unjustlyhis earliest years shamefully maltreated,the world from had to battle with as an unskilled labourer. Left as an orphan when a mere child, the education he possesses he owes almost entirely to his own industry and self-denial. Out of his slender wages, earned by work which has often lasted for sixteen and seventeen hours a day, he has always spent far more than he could really spare on books and journals. Returning to his ill-furnished single room �2 on Saturday night, weary and worn, he has devoted his leisure time either to earnestly putting forward his opinions in working­ men’s clubs, or to getting up the facts for his next day’s open-air addresses. This has gone on for nearly twelve years; and neither poverty nor sickness nor persecution has ever checked him in his persistent endeavours to improve the lot of his fellow men, to stir them from the apathy into which they have been sunk, and to lay before them those truths of Socialism which now, in great part owing to his courage and tenacity, are making way in every quarter of England. It is true that John Williams does not speak with mincing accent and delicate pronunciation ; true also that he does not always use his words in their right meaning, or stop to weigh the full force of his phrases. But his rough and homely diction, his vigorous illustrations drawn from facts which have been only too real for him, go right home to the hearts of his audience, and have roused feelings among the workers which may yet have their outcome in deeds. A man who has been driven to fight at the dock-gates for a job at starvation wages, who has known what it is to be homeless and workless for weeks together, and yet has never lost his independence or self-respect, is surely worthy of all the honour that can be paid to him, not only by his fellow-Socialists, but by every man and woman who can appreciate honesty and un­ swerving fidelity to the cause of the people. Since he became one of the founders of the Social-Democratic Federation in January, 1881, John Williams has seen an advance in the cause of Social Democracy, such as he could barely have hoped to witness in his life-time. As an active worker in the Anti-Coercion and Anti-Crimes Act movement, as a persistent organiser and agitator with every association that strove for the nationalisation of land and capital, as well as for the most advanced political measures, John Williams is known to every working-men’s club in London, and in many provincial towns. Even during the four weeks during which he has been in gaol, he has the satisfaction of knowing that he has done more than all his comrades to bring our great cause before the workers of England and Europe. Though for many years John Williams had been working both independently and with the most thorough-going political bodies then in existence, his first connection with an avowedly Socialist organisation was in 1879, when a few London working men, with the aid of some of those who had been forced to take refuge in England from the tyranny of their own governments, had established the International Club in Rose Street, Soho. In 1880 the outlook was dark and dreary for all who had the welfare of the workers at heart. A Liberal Government had been returned to power with an overwhelming majority, which was to be the “great instrument” for fulfilling the high-sounding promises of the Midlothian speeches. Those who took the name while abandoning the ideas of Cobbett and Lovatt, so far forgot the old meaning of the word Radical as to pledge themselves to the infallibility of a party leader who had only a few months before himself denounced the claim of any human being to infallibility. In London there were a small body of working­ men who were not tied to party but devoted to principle, not blinded by the adoration of any man, but earnest in forcing on their fellows the discussion of genuine measures for the real of material and moral improvement of the people. Few in numbers, and scantily provided with money, they were unable to effect much by themselves, and appealed in vain to the Radical Workmen’s Clubs, who had completely forgotten �3 |he teachings of the noble men of the last generation who had gone down to unremembered graves, broken and disheartened by the failure of the great revolutionary movement of 1848. The few who were mindful of the lessons of the past, and determined to be no longer the tools of the tricksters of the two political factions of the great party of Privilege, which was still the only one represented even in the new House of Commons—these few hailed with surprise and joy the offer of aid from a few middle-class men for the formation of a new organisation and the commencement of a vigorous campaign in favour of genuine Demo­ cratic principles. A memorable meeting indeed was the first at which were met men who had battled with enthusiasm for the victory of the Liberal party in the delusive hope that thus would the workers come by their own again; others who with truer instinct had seen the wolf through his sheep’s clothing, amongst them some older men who had worked and fought side by side with Ernest Jones and Frost, William Lovett and Bronterre O’Brien and once again dared to hope that the workers might achieve their own emancipation. At the first meeting at the Westminster Palace Hotel, Joseph Cowen was in the chair and there Professor E. S. Beesly in vain poured cold water on the movement, by urging that the time had not come for starting a working class move­ ment independent of the Liberal Party. In spite of this the Democratic Federation was founded on the most advanced grounds on which common agreement could be obtained. Work began in earnest, and the whole world soon knew that after a generation of apathy the workers of Great Britain were earnest in the determination to obtain control of their country, in the interest of the labouring classes alone. That the ruling classes appreciated the full significance of the fact was shown by the persistent vilification heaped on the movement, and its originators, by the Liberal press. The kindest word said for it was that a knot of mad men had joined together to be scattered again in a week. If the wishes of the prophets could have secured the fulfilment of their pro­ phecies the Democratic Federation would not have flurished as it has done. In spite of the detraction of the press of all shades of opinion the, work continued, and a representative conference was called to discuss the programme, H. M Hyndman being in the chair. The more ad­ vanced clauses were enthusiastically greeted by the many working men present but proved too much for some of the middle-class men. No sooner had a majority of the delegates present voted in favour of in­ cluding “ Legislative Independence for Ireland ” than Professor Beesly, the ardent supporter of the workers in the evil days of Trade Unions, moved a resolution declaring the time not ripe for an independent working-class party. He failed, and the meeting carried the programme which was unanimously adopted at crowded meetings in nearly every large town in England, and, dissolved, pledged to earnest endeavour to overthrow middle-class rule in these islands. There was hard work before them. When Mr. Gladstone came into power in May, 1880, famine was abroad in Ireland and had it not been for the relief afforded by the Mansion House Committee supplemented by the Land League of which Michael Davitt was the founder, the trap coffin of 1847 would have been at work again. Mr. Gladstone’s govern­ ment made provision for famine according to the well established pre­ cedent of English political parties. The leaders of the Irish people were to be prosecuted for daring to assert that the Land was the People’s; Mr. Parnell and others to be tried for sedition, and a Govern­ ment prosecution to fail for the first time in Irish history.1 On January 6th, 1881, Parliament opened an Irish session—Coercion first and Land �4 Reform afterwards. The Democratic Federation strove hard against the suppression of constitutional government in the sister isle. Night after night meetings were held and John Williams with the rest returned to his work in the morning, only to come out again in the evening at the street corner or in a public hall to protest against Coercion for the unhappy country that had struggled in vain against tyranny for centuries. The London Workmen’s Club (with the exception of the Patriotic Club) were silent, and the Coercion Bill of 1881 was passed after such a dogged struggle as Parliament had never before witnessed without a word of protest from the English Radicals, the very men who are still posturing as the friends of freedom. Besides their struggle against Whig tyranny in Ireland, the members of the Democratic Federation were not behind in advocating the interests of the working classes of England and all other countries. A large and enthusiastic meeting was held in London in favour of the Abolition of the House of Lords soon after the formation of the organisa­ tion. In 1882 H. M. Hyndman reprinted the lecture delivered in 1797 by Thomas Spence, of Newcastle, entitled “ A plea for the Nationalisa­ tion of the Land,” and in 1882, after the meeting of the Trade Union Congress in London, a large audience thronged St. Andrew’s Hall in Newman-street to hear (for the first time since the days ofthe Chartists) the right of the people to collective ownership of the soil of their country, championed by the same men who were constantly being held up to execration as Tories in disguise by the Liberal and Radical press. When the Russian despot met a richly merited fate at the hands of the noble band of men and women who only asked for freedom of speech and press, the Liberal Government, conscious that Alexander’s crimes against his subjects were not blacker than their own against the liberties of the Irish nation, seized the German revolutionary paper Freiheit, and arrested its editor, Johann Most, on account of the publication of an article applauding the Nihilists for the execution of the Czar. Some of the Englishmen at the Rose-street Club, headed by Frank Kitz, brought out several issues of an English Freiheit. The first contained a transla­ tion of the article which was made the pretext of Most’s imprisonment. It was, of course, “boycotted” by the newsagents, but John Williams stood outside the Old Bailey and sold large numbers of the paper while Most was being tried within the Court for the same offence. No notice was taken of this daring challenge to the Liberal Government, which was evidently afraid to deal out the same injustice to an Englishman as to a foreign refugee. Public meetings in defence of Most were also organised by the same men. At one of these, on Peckham Rye, the Radicals combined with Tories, opposed the speakers, and were only prevented by force from seizing the platform and thus aiding thenmasters to suppress freedom of speech. In the autumn of 1881 a bye election took place at Tyrone, and the Rev. Harold Rylett, a Nonconformist minister, who strongly sympathised with the Irish people, was put forward as a candidate against a Liberal hack. The handbill issued by the Democratic Federation or this occasion denounced the tyranny and treachery of the Liberal Government in so uncomprosing a fashion that many of the so-called Radicals who had hitherto accorded the Federation a half-hearted sup­ port now withdrew, and have never since ceased to protest that a body of men who could speak so plainly of despotism when adopted by Mr. Gladstone must be working in the Conservative interest. In 1881, also a deputation from the Democratic Federation crossed St. George's‘Channel with the object of letting their countrymen at �5 home know the true state of affairs in Ireland—among them H. M. Hyndman and many others. After three weeks’ stay they returned and addressed enormous audiences throughout London and the provinces, besides issuing thousands of pamphlets descriptive of their experiences and horrible sufferings of the Irish peasantry. Lectures were being given throughout these months at the workingmen’s clubs in the Metropolis by H. M. Hyndman, Herbert Burrows, John Williams, James F. Murray, and many others, and the truths of Socialism being expounded, and the frauds and fallacies of the different political reformers vigorously exposed. Indeed, the meat offered was too strong for the weak stomach of certain Radical clubs from which the lecturers were religiously excluded. Newcastle, Liverpool, and other provincial towns were visited and branches formed. The energies of the Federation were, however, destined to be turned for a time into another channel. The failure of the Liberal policy in Ireland was too obvious for concealment. The Land League had become all-powerful. No rent could be obtained by the landlords, and the land which was cleared by wholesale evictions was left on their hands owing to the strength of the popular organisation. Mr. Forster’s “ village ruffians and midnight marauders ” increased in numbersand determination in spite of the fact that in every week of his administra­ tion scores of men of upright character and stainless lives were thrown into gaol on mere suspicion, without accusation, investigation, evidence or proof. The unheeded warnings of the men and women of the Federation were amply fulfilled. The Coercion policy was an absolute failure. Suddenly a change was announced. The prison doors were to be unbarred, the Land Act was to be completed, and “ Buckshot ” Forster recalled in disgrace. But one Sunday morning London awoke to learn that on the previous evening (6th May, 1882) the new Chief Secretary for Ireland, Lord Frederick Cavendish, with Mr. F. H. Burke, had been stabbed on the high road through Phoenix Park. The horror of the public knew no bounds. Everywhere employers of labour began to discharge their Irish hands. Almost every Englishman denounced the whole Irish nation, forgetting that the responsibility for this, as for every one of the grossly exaggerated outrages which were reported in the English press, lay with the Government, which had wrested from Ireland all hope of redress for the wrongs of her people by peaceful means. The popular revulsion against the Irish enabled the Government to introduce into Parliament a measure of Coercion frankly declared to be unparallelled even in the long and bloody annals of the despotic repression exercised for generations by the English garrison in Ireland. Nor were the liberties of the Irish alone suppressed, but the extension of the Alien Act for England and Scotland placed the freedom of Britons as well as foreigners at the mercy of policemen and magis­ trates, and abolished the right of asylum, which had placed our country in the proud position of being the refuge sought by Mazzini, Kossuth, and the hosts of indomitable rebels who had sought on our shores security from the brutal tyranny of continental despotisms. Such was the rancour expressed against the Irish by all sections of English opinion that it required immense courage and devotion for a handtul of enthu­ siasts to stand by the principles of freedom after the Phoenix Park tragedy. But the men of the Democratic Federation had not lightly pledged themselves to work for the emancipation of the workers of the world. Nothing daunted, they threw themselves with determination into the tremendous task of rousing London to a sense of the enormities about to be perpetrated by the Liberal Government, which had already I ’■■ ■ % 'A-.,.- -• -TAkC* �6 shown that it was ready, when in office, to betray every principle on which they had traded for popularity two short years before. It was determined to call a monster meeting in Hyde Park on Sunday, nth J une, 1882. The offices of the Federation were thronged from morning till night with the members, preparing banners, making up rosettes drawing up handbills. The following was issued in thousands :_ Fellow. Citizens, Once more the Liberal Government, backed up by Tory reactionists has been tike to every principle of freedom. Another Coercion Bill is being forced through Parliament SLX7inytoenpChmn anihevT T Uttedy failed- The Public horror at the £ tn h £h rXi P^rk haS been used to establish a despotism worse than any­ thing known m these Islands since the days of the infamous Star Chamber. * Freedom Every Freedom of the Press is at an End of the Person is at the Mercy of the Paid Informer The Right of Public Meeting is Suppressed, Trial by Jury is Replaced ‘by a Nominee Court, Honest Man who is Out after Dusk may be Thrown into Prison by the Police. These powers, given for three whole years, may, within that period be in the hands of the present Opposition. As it is, they are to be used by a nobleman, best known to Ito own countrymen by his crafty seizure of the common land of the people. All this is done, we are told, to put down secret societies and to check outrage. > Fellow Citizens, tyranny as surely breeds secret societies as unjust evictions and class greed engender outrage. Suppress open agitation, and desperate secret conspiracies always follow. Not one of the great military powers of Europe, Germany, Russia, Austria, trance, but has tried stringent measures without success. The cordial aid of the mass of the people can alone help to restore peace and prosperity in Ireland. Do you think the suppression of all freedom will bind the two peoples together now or will stren then your own liberties in the future ? In view, therefore, of the shameful con­ tinued action of the governing classes, we call upon the workers of London to show bv meeting in thousands in Hyde Park, on Sunday, the nth June, that they have neither part nor lot in this tyranny, and that they are now, as in the past, opposed to the injustice which is being done in their name, In addition to this it now also became necessary to reach the people by open-air meetings at the corners of the street, a method of propaganda which has since been utilised by the Federation with a persistence and success that has extorted the admiration of its bitterest opponents. It was arranged that the procession should assemble at Trafalgar Square, at 3.30 p.m. Long before that hour crowds had assembled, in spite of the heavy rain, and it was estimated by the hostile papers that not less than 80,000 persons were present when the pro­ cession moved off, headed by bands and interspersed with banners inscribed with such mottoes as “ Force is no Remedy,” “Labour makes Capital, Capital robs it, and others showing the number of evictions that had taken place during the year. The fact that comparatively few Irishmen were present showed that the Federation had roused the mass of the working men of London in spite of the apathy of the Liberal clubs. The vast concourse streamed into Hyde Park where it was addressed from six platforms, every speaker being greeted with enthusi­ astic applause. Before the resolution, denouncing the action of the Government, was put, amendments were asked for but in no instance wrete the supporters of Coercion daring enough to proclaim themselves, and the resolutions were carried by acclamation. Thus ended one of the largest demonstrations held in our generation m London and one that was thoroughly genuine in its character, very little money being expended. Shortly after another meeting was held in Trafalgar-square to protest against the abolition of the Right of Asylum. Both these protests were unheeded by a Cabinet which trusted to the forgetfulness of the nation to save it from the obloquy with which it will be regarded by future generations. �Comparatively few of the original founders of the Democratic Federa­ tion had' remained faithful to the only organisation in Great Britain which had through good and evil repute steadfastly held by the principles which alone can destroy the system of wage-labour and class robbery which causes our social ills. But if their numbers were reduced, the faithful few now knew each other and started the work of education and organisation with a will* Their rapid success fairly frightened the up­ holders of class domination who have constantly striven to distract the attention of the toiling millions from Socialist theories by advertising various nostrums as a panacea for poverty. It has been the proud boast of the Democratic Federation that they have met and defeated every such attempt. The first was made by Samuel Morley, M.P., who fathered a scheme invented by the Rev. W. L. Blackley, for preventing pauperism by fining the workers in early youth. In anticipation of one of their meet­ ings the following handbill was issued by the Federation :— Fellow Citizens, A PUBLIC MEETING will be held in the HOLBORN TOWN HALL, on Tues­ Next, December 19th, at Eight p.m., in favour of the Prevention of Pauperism by Compulsory Insurance out of the insufficient wages of the Working Classes. We ask you to be present on that occasion, and show the wealthy gentlemen who want to shift on to your shoulders the cost of your maintenance when you have worked yourselves into sickness and disease for their profit, what you think of this new scheme of parsons and employers for the benefit of the rich. “ The Prevention of Pauperism,” Fellow Citizens, which they now urge you to under­ take, means the protection of their own pockets. If they really want to prevent Pauperism, let these self-seekers give up trading upon your bitter competition for star­ vation wages. There are hundreds of thousands in this rich England of ours living in Squalor and misery to-day in order that landowners and capitalists may flourish in In luxury and ease. All men and women who work for a master give back to their em­ ployers the value of their wages in the first two or three hours of the day’s work. All the rest of the production is taken for nothing by the classes who live in idleness on the fruits of your toil. These classes now call upon you who labour to nullify the ancient laws of this kingdom, which force the rich to provide a scanty pittance for the poor, and to save their vast riches untouched while forcing from the poor a bit of their daily bread. Look, Fellow Citizens, how the produce of your toil is divided :— Total annual production of United Kingdom . . . ^1,200,000,000 Taken by Landlords, Capitalists, and Middle Class . 900,000,000 Left for the Producers ....... 300,000,000 Study these figures, and then adopt, if you can, proposals for further robbery. Prevention of Pauperism ! Tell these wealthy hypocrites to give up their profitable monopolies; tell those who spend on cigars more than you get in wages—tell them that Compulsory Insurance must be carried out at their expense. Fellow Citizens, there would be no pauperism, there would be no unemployed, if the means of production were used for the benefit of all instead of being handled for the the enrichment of a class. day Speakers from the Federation attended, and urged on a crowded meeting an amendment declaring that the resumption by the workers of the control of the means of production was the only preventive of pauperism. This was carried by a large majority, and so hostile was the temper of the meeting to the conveners, that these reverend and worthy gentlemen have never since dared to call a public meeting in London. Early in the year 1883 a series of conferences were arranged at the offices of the Federation, in which the various points of a thorough Socialist programme were discussed and agreed on. After the annual conference and the strengthening of the Executive by the election of IT. H. Champion, J. L. Joynes, James Macdonald and William Morris, a manifesto entitled “ Socialism made plain ” was issued, and over 50,000 copies circulated in a very short time. A recent re-issue of this �8' trenchant pamphlet shows that it has lost none of its power, and it will become a historical document as the first declaration by a body of working men in England—the very lair of capitalism—of their determina­ tion to form an international combination for the overthrow of the system •of class robbery. It called forth the invectives of the press as usual, and was discussed at great length in the Quarterly Review. Meanwhile throughout the summer months a band of trained speakers had taken up positions in the parks and open spaces round London every Sunday, and carried on the work of education by explaining the truths of Socialism on an open platform. Thus occurred the first con­ flict with the authorities, who endeavoured to suppress the right of public meeting on Peckham Rye and Southwark Park. In spite of threats and summonses H. M. Hyndman, John Williams, H. H. Champion, H. Quelch, and others spoke Sunday after Sunday on the debate­ able ground, and forced the Metropolitan Board of Works to give way by sheer persistence. During the autumn, open-air meetings were held regularly in the miserable streets of East London, and the enthusiastic reception Socialism everywhere received roused the middle classes to the fact that the apathy of the starving millions was due not to content, but to despair, was but the heavy silence which might be followed by the roaring hurricane. They resorted to the tactics which had served them so well in the past. Peers and philanthropists hastened with suspicious zeal to advocate state-aided emigration, as men wish to remove barrels of gunpowder from a magazine in which sparks of fire were blowing about. The following resolution was passed by the Execu­ tive Council on August 7th, 1883 :— RESOLVED.— That this Meeting of the Executive Council of the Democratic Federation is strongly opposed to State-Aided Emigration as unnecessary and harmful, and pledges the Federation to agitate against the measure for the following reasons:— 1 — That the vast extent of uncultivated and waste Land in Great Britain and Ireland should first be colonised and developed with the funds that would be spent on emigration. 2.—That Nationalisation of the Land should precede State-Aided Emigration, seeing that in the opinion of the highest Agricultural authorities, Sir John Lawes, Sir James Caird, and Lord Leicester, at least twice the amount of labour might be employed pro­ fitably, even upon the Land now in cultivation, and twice the present quantity of Food raised from it but for the restrictions imposed by landlord-made law. 3-—That the present production of wealth in Great Britain and Ireland is quite enough to enable all to live in comfort or moderate luxury, though little more than onefourth of the people are actually engaged in useful work, if the fruits of labour were justly divided and exchanged among the inhabitants. 4. —That State-aided Emigration would lead to the removal from our country of the strongest and most vigorous of our people, leaving behind the weakly, the sickly, and the very poor, whom the United States and our own Colonies have already refused to receive. 5. —That State-aided Emigration, if tried at all, should begin with the useless class of landlords, capitalists, and their hangers-on, who produce nothing whatever; but devour the fruits of the labour of their industrious countrymen. At a meeting held at the Mansion House to advocate this new method ■of punishing poverty by transportation for life, John Williams obtained entrance, and plainly telling the assembled bishops and capitalists that their scheme was abhorred by the workers, challenged them to argue the matter before a working-class audience. For very shame the chal­ lenge was accepted. The following handbill was issued :— This Emigration of the poor is the old cry of the classes who get rich ont of other men’s labour, and turn the workers adrift to starve or go to the workhouse when no further profit can be made by employing them. Millions of Englishmen and Irishmen have emigrated during the last five-and-thirty years. Still we are told that there are too many workers; though three-fourths of the population live upon the labour of the one- �fourth who are engaged in useful work. Even as it is, if none toiled more than eight hours a day, there would not be a single unemployed man or woman in the country. Fellow Citizens, there are too many idlers, not too many workers in this England of ours. Whilst your comrades stand idle, because the landlords and capitalists will not give employment save at a profit to themselves, thousands of acres of good land lie un­ tilled around us, and hundreds of thousands of people want the bread, the clothes, the houseroom which their labour properly organised would readily supply. Such is the social anarchy which our “ governing classes ” call order. Worse than this : while men and women eager to work are starving, a mere handful of lazy people, or 220,000 families who never work at all, own SIX THOUSAND MILLIONS STERLING on which they take their yearly profit out of labour. Each of these families of wealthy idlers own no less than twenty-six thousand pounds sterling—think of that ye who toil and suffer—whilst men fight daily at the dock-gates, like wolves, for the privilege of earning a few pence. There is land enough, machinery enough, capital enough, in these islands to give plenty to all. But greedy land-grabbers and greedier capitalists monopolise our whole country for their own gain. There is no need for emigration, Fellow-Citizens. These hypocrites themselves do not propose that any of you should leave until the Spring. How then will the workless and the poor pass through the winter ? Never since 1834 were the Poor Laws—that miserable pittance of justice forced from the rich by fear—never were the Poor Laws so stupidly, brutally, and cruelly administered as they are to-day. The unemployed are treated as if wilfully idle : the homeless are criminals in the eyes of the luxurious and the overfed. Demand then justice, not charity, here and at once, from those who never cease to rob you when you labour, and are eager to transport you when you are out of work. Tell the Sham-Republican Baronet who promises you a “ Commission of Enquiry,” whilst the wives and children of your brethren are crying for bread, that you will no longer be put off with fine phrases or be deluded by courtly tricks. If none were overworked, even in the State Service, there would not be enough idle “ hands ” in East London to fill the places. Claim then Home Colonisation and State Employment and Short Hours of Labour in England. Demand that the wealth which you alone produce shall be used to employ your brethren before you and they are crushed down into hopeless misery. They lie to you who tell you there is work for all in the Colonies and America. Depression reigns there as well as here. There as well as here landlords and capitalists are robbing and enslaving and starving their fellow-men. Even now State-Aided labourers are forced to return home hopeless. Better then, surely, demand and obtain your rights before you start. Show in force 1 Act together ! Let employed and un ­ employed ask plainly for the fruits of their own labour, and proclaim the right of all to work for a. fair return, at home. At Stepney Hall and the Haggerston Workmens’ Club, Williams, Macdonald, Hyndman and James Murray, by the force of their eloquence and logic, carried amendments against emigration by such majorities that the “ National Association for the State-aided Emigration of Labour ” has never since dared to hold an open meeting in any quarter of London. Wdth the commencement of the year 1884, the weekly journal Justin was established. A reference to its pages shows the immense progress which has been made since the early spring of that year, when Charles Bradlaugh came out in debate against the delegate of the Federation. The importance the movement has assumed has also forced the daily press to bring before the notice of all the more stirring incidents of the struggle which has now resulted in the formation of an active and enthusiastic Social-Democratic party in this country. JOHN WILLIAMS IN HOLLOWAY GAOL. (Reprinted with additions from the Pall Mall Gazette.) He arrives at Holloway, is stripped and weighed. I think it was about four o’clock in the afternoon that I arrived at the gates of Holloway Gaol in “ Black Maria ” with some others. We were taken into the Receiv- �IO ing Department, fifteen of us, and set in single file with our faces towards the wall and our hands crossed, the right over the left. Here any money or “ valuables ” which we ' might happen to have on us were taken away and put into little bags. I was then taken into a room in which was a warder. He bade me strip, and he examined me all over, looking closely for any marks on my body. He then weighed me. From the warder I was taken to the prison bath. There are seven iron baths in the room, each seven feet long, with dirty sides, stained with marks of soapsuds. The baths are in a , row, and divided from one another by a wooden partition. I shivered, and my teeth chattered as my feet felt the touch of the stone flooring; but there was the bath and the nine inches of water, and there was the warder, and stripping myself of my clothe®, which I put outside the door, I got into the bitter cold water and took my first bath, and my only one during my sojourn at Holloway. There was soap and a moist, dirtylooking towel, with which I dried myself as well as I could. Looking up I heard the ’ noise as of something thrown down at the bath-room door. The Blue Shirt and the Bellying Moleskins. It was my prison clothes, a shirt and a pair of moleskin trousers. The shirt was like ** a dishcloth which had been washed in greasy slop water, the blue pattern having almost faded by much usage. The moleskin trousers were twice too big, bellying out before and behind, and one had constantly to hold them up, for no braces or belt is allowed, only a strap. In my dirty blue shirt and my bellying moleskins, with teeth chattering with the cold, and fingers numbed, I was taken to the prison doctor. (My own clothes were bundled up and shoved into a net, from which a ticket hung, with “ Williams—one month,” on it.) “Let down your trousers till they fall on your feet, pull your; shirt over your head, and stand still, man,” said the doctor. And I did as I was told. Then , he sounded me and looked for marks, asked me questions, -and then told me had done ■? with me. And I pulled up my trousers, tucked in my shirt, and was taken out of his ■»» sight. I was then told to take a pair of socks from a bundle. I could find no pairs, all were odd ones, and most of those full of holes. And if they aren’t full of holes they are darned, but with the bad darning you might as well walk with peas in your j shoes. What happened to me happened to the rest of us. We were attended i by prisoners who had earned a stripe, and were told off for such duties. Then I got a coat and waistcoat given me, and my hair was cut (though it was only four days before that I had been to the barber); and I’ll warrant you something more than hair was cut, for the prison barber has not a professional touch. C I 38 is introduced to the Cook and the Cell. There we stood with right hand on left, and listened to the prison regulations being read to us. “ If you have any complaints to make about your meals or your treatment, make them to the warder. Frequent complaints are punished as an offence.” Ah ! thought I, that is a hint that you must not complain at all. The names were then called over, and we filed past the warder; our identity henceforth sunk in numbers. I was C I 38. We marched along, our footsteps echoing along the cold corridors, until we came to the prison cook, who was waiting To each of us he said, “What have you got ? ” If you answered, “A month,” you got served out to you an eight­ ounceloaf. If you said, “Two months,” you got a six-ounce loaf and a pint of gruel. The longer you are in for the more you get. Then we marched on to the chief warder’s office and were made to halt with our faces to the wall—seventeen of us. Here two sheets apiece were served, soap, a Bible, and a prayer-book. Then further, and into a narrow passage running past the cells. I walked on not noticing the numbers, but a gruff voice cried, “Now then you, where are you a-goin’to ? Don’t you see your number ? You didn’t know ! I’ll soon let you know. Why, you’ve been here afore, ain’t you ? Not bin in afore? Well, now, you turn round.and look at that. What’s that ? Your number—C I 38, and don’t forget it! ” And in a minute the iron door had closed in on me, and I saw a prison cell for the first time. Seventy-six ^Screws and Thirty-six Rivets, a Plank, and a Three Legged Stool. I shan’t forget the inside view of that door. It was held together by seventy-six screws and thirty-six rivets. My cell was about twelve foot long by seven wide, and thirty-six whitewashed bricks high. The furniture was a three-legged stool, a plank in a corner, a tin dustpan and washing bowl, a pannikin for the water, and a table let in the wall. It must have been six or seven o’clock by this time, anyhow it was dark enough, but a jet of gas burned outside in the passage, and threw a dim light into th© cell through a thick piece of rough glass. There was another window above the table, with twenty-seven panes of glass, four-inch ones, but thick too like the other, and not letting too much daylight in. I had forgotten there was a mattress too. But presentlj came a knock at the door, and some one shouted, “ How long ? ’ “A month. Then bring out that mattress.” And I had to give up the mattress. X �Musings on the Three-legged Stool. I sighed, sat down again on my three-legged stool, and wondered what was the !next move would be, and I thought of my luckless lot. Here was I, a poor labouring man, shut up in this cold cell like a common felon, like a burglar or garroter, for what seemed to me no offence. I thought of the stripping, and of the search for marks, and the icy water, the stone floors, and then looked round on the cold, whitewashed walls and the plank reared up in the corner, and I though how the rich made the poor build them prisons to live in. I thought of the powers of an organized officialdom instanced by what I had just seen—the grim warder, the obedience to orders, the rigid system, and thought what a lesson it should convey to my own class. How could they hipe to wrestle with such an organisation until they organized themselves ? Mere preaching and talk can do nothing of themselves. Here were men many of whom, one could see, has had a hard struggle for existence. Their ages varied from fourteen to old men of seventyfive, and in the face of the latter, were unmistakeable traces of starvation. Next door to me was an old man. who, when j was called in to show him how to scrub out his cell, told me that he had failed to get employment, in search of which he was walking from Birmingham to London. In want of food he picked up some old iron lying beside a ditch, and before he had an opportunity of offering it for sale, was taken before a magis­ trate and sentenced to one month’s hard labour. Society looks upon such a man as a felon. Broken down by years of hard toil, too old for the capitalist class to make a profit out of him, his choice lay between stealing or begging—and being imprisoned as a rogue and vagabond. The cell on the other side of mine was occupied by a lad of fifteen, who had been sentenced to three months for “loitering.” His father had for months been out of work ; he could get none himself. Society refused him shelter and food, denied him access to the means of useful work, and made a felon of him for stand­ ing about the street and having no visible means of subsistence. As I looked at him I thought of others, riding in Rotten Row, or idling the live-long day in mansions in Belgravia, or the clubs in Pall Mall, and trusted the day might soon come when such persons who have “ no visible means of existence,” except the labour of others, shall come under the Rogue and Vagabond Act, instead of such lads as this. The Bed and the BeddingI was soon disturbed by some one at the door. The iron disc which covers the small circular glass window let into the door was lifted up and the warder (you can’t hear them come along, for they wear slippers) cried, “Now then, don’t you know it’s bed­ time? Be quick, I want to turn out the light.” I said, “All right, but where’s the bed ?” “There up in the corner, don’t you see? You’re trying it on.’- And I looked up in the corner at the plank ! And now I will tell you what the bed is like, and how comfortable it was likely to be, even to a poor chap like me who had never slept on feathers. There were three pieces of board about a quarter of an inch apart, and the three together about 20 inches wide by 6 feet. It might have been a good “plank” when it was new, but now the two outside ones are higher than the middle So that it just caught one in the small of the back. For a pillow another piece of wood was nailed on at the head. However, I took the bed down, and being green, I goes to work and strips off my clothes, laid a sheet on the plank, and then Jrolled myself up in the blanket and quilt. It was bitter cold, and I got no sleep that night, and when the first bell rang in the morning I was right joyful, though my bones were that sore I could scarcely walk, and I am not telling a word of a lie when I say [that I never got more than two or three hours sleep on one night during the time I was in prison, except once, and I often used to get up in the middle of the night to walk about and stamp my feet and shake myself, but it was no go. It was not until another prisoner had put me up to the wrinkle in chapel that I could get even two or three hours’ sleep. “ Fold your coat up, put it under your hips, fold your trousers under your shoulder blades, and make your waiscoat and cap into a pillow.” The Three Rags, the Bag, and the Whitening. Well. The first bell sounded at a quarter to six, and the warder came past to see if I had turned out. I had a wash in my tin basin and putting my slops outside waited forevents. The door unlocked and the warder looked in and said : “ Now then, why ain’t them bedclothes rolled up ? And d’you see them three rags in that bag and that whitening? well, just you scour yer pannikin and yer basin.” Then he turned to the bedclothes again and said, “ Get them things rolled up—d’you mean to say you don’t know how to do it ? ” I began to roll them up awkwardly enough perhaps, but he stopped me: “ Now you do that properly.” I said I didn’t know how to do it. “You don’t know what? We’ll soon show you how.” Then he called a prisoner in to show me how to do the job in a regulation manner. Ycu take your sheets, quilt, and blanket and roll ’em up roly-poly fashion, that’s how I call it. They left me then, and I swept out my cell and inspected the three rags and the bag and the whitening. It wasn’t a nice idea to brighten the pannikin I drank from, the bowl I washed in, and a urinal tin �12 with the rags from the same bag, But I had to do it. The time passed on, and two more bells sounded, and at a quarter to eight the warder came round with the breakfast. Bread and Water for Breakfast. I didn’t know it was breakfast, and took no notice, but the door opened and an 8 oz. loaf was slung in on to the floor. I picked it up and put it on the cupboard by the side of the one I had given to me for supper, for I had not yet got my appetite; indeed, I may say, from Monday night till Thursday only a few morsels passed my lips. I hadn't the heart to eat. At a quarter to ten the bell rang for exercise, and every door was again unlocked, and every prisoner stood outside his cell. When we were all out the warder cried, “ Left turn! ” and we marched into the yard for the hour’s exercise which one has every day, sometimes in the morning, sometimes in the afternoon. This was recreation. And now I will tell you what it was like. The Four Circles and the Oakum. There are four large rings in the yard at some distance from each other, bricked inside and outside, I should think some ninety men were there—boys and men from fifteen to eighty. These were divided into four gangs, each one to a ring ; and we marched slowly round the circles at a distance of about three or four feet from each other; for I needn’t tell you that this is one of the principles of the silent system. But the silence is broken, nevertheless, and notwithstanding the band of warders who take their stand on a rise in the ground and keep their eyes and ears open for wagging tongues. I had walked round once or twice when the man in front of me (a regular old gaol bird) put his hand to his mouth as if to pull his heard or moustache, and in something between a half whisper and a half mutter I heard him say, “ You’re a green ’un. I can see that. How long have you got, matey ? A month ? Why didn’t ye get six months, you fool ? they'll starve yer.” Even out of the hour the warders contrive to steal a few minutes. The men know this well enough, and when the time was up, and the warder gave the signal for return they used to take a sweep round to catch a glimpse of the clock if they could to see how many minutes of fresh air they had been deprived of. Then they gave me 2^ lb. of oakum to pick. (You know oakum is old ropes.) Now it was rather strange that I should have had to do this kind of labour considering that when my friends of the Social-Democratic Federation issued a hancbbill, stating that I was being treated as a felon, Mr. Saunders, the magistrate who sentenced me at Thames Police-court, declared my friends ought to be ashamed of themselves for making such a statement. Surely to have less food than the garrotter or burglar, and have to perform the same kind of work, was being treated as a felon. I leave it to the public to judge. Well, they had to show me how to pick this oakum, and on I went till twelve o’clock. Stirabout and no Bread for Dinner. Then the warder came round again, and I opened the door. He carried a tray, and I was glad to see potatoes and rice on it. I thought these were for me, but I was mis­ taken. My dinner was a pint and a half of stirabout. What’s stirabout ? Three ounces of Indian meal and three ounces of oatmeal, and that was my dinner; but I sickened at the sight of it. Then I put the stirabout with the two loaves on the cup­ board. The old birds know well enough that the “ last joined ” don't often have sharp appetites, and try every wrinkle to get hold of the rejected food. You’ll hear one say at exercise with his hand to his mouth, “ I say, old ’un, have you ate your bread ? Put it in your trousers and bring it into chapel.’’ You talk about food ? Now if I had had two months I should have had for breakfast one pint of oatmeal gruel and 6 oz. of bread ; for dinner I should have had 8 oz. of bread and half a pint of peasoup, and for supper a pint of gruel and 6 oz. of bread. Had it been four months’ imprisonment, I should have had 8 oz. of bread and one pint of gruel for breakfast, 8 oz. of bread, 8 oz. of potatoes, and 3 oz. of meat for dinner, and a pint of gruel and 8 oz. of bread for supper. Then I can tell you the tin dishes and pannikins in which the rations were served are filthy, with the greasy finger marks of their last users. The Records of a Tin Platter. They had, however, one consolation, for they afforded me some very pleasant reading, fit seems to be the habit of every prisoner, for prisoners are all alike, be they Baron Trenck or Monte Cristo, to leave some record of their names, their expectations, and their aspirations, even if it is only on a tin platter or a battered pannikin.) If I did not eat my bread or drink my gruel, I examined with much curiosity these interesting memoirs of prison life. I can remember a few if you like to hear them : “ Arry Bennett in for 6 moons.” ’Arry had calculated how many chapels he would have to attend in that time, at the rate of four times a week, and calculated the hours of exercise. “ Bill Ford, 2 months for nicking a drop of soup out of old Tollemache’s at Stratford; ” “ George Smith, from Shadwell, nine moons, out February, 1885.” “ Lord Mansfield, from Holloway, six moons, Oh, what a glorious feed of beefsteak and onions I will �Ste when I get out! ” This was scratched under a drawing of two cross pipes and a pot of beer. “ Cheer up, the time will come for all.” “ Abandon not hope, all ye who enter here.” Some draughtsman had drawn a likeness of one of the warders, and had written under it, “ Now, move on there,” and added, ‘-Pity the poor prisoner.” “ One month up for George Talbot, I wish it was two, for I m starving. The Chaplain preaches on Social Democracy. I need not go over all the days I spent at Holloway, for one day was much like another. On the morning of the second day I should tell you that I was detained fronj exercise to see the chaplain, who called upon me. “ What are you . ” said he, “ and what’s your name ? ” I told him. He said, “ Oh, you’re Williams, are you ? I ve been reading about you, and wishing you’d be sent here,” " Oh,” I replied, “ it s very kind o you as a Christian minister.” “ You’re in for obstructing the street—what are you . “ A labourer,” I replied, “ and a speaker for the Social-Democratic Federation. “ Why don’t you attend to your business instead of meddling with such a society ? You must be mad or a lunatic or out of your senses.” “ I am perfectly sane,” I replied. “ Social Democracy,” he said; “ well, you’re going headlong to perdition. How long are you here for ?' ’ "A month.” “ Well, I wish it had been two.” “ You’re very kind, sir “ Well, now, what is Democracy ? ” “lam not here to debate the question, sir, and I decline to answer.” However, he repeated the question, and as he seemed so curious I determined to give him the root of the matter, and to satisfy him. “ One thing it teaches, sir, is the right of people to govern themselves.” “Theright of people to govern them­ selves,” he replied, “ there are far too many voices already in the government of the land;’their power should be taken away, not increased. Can you read?” _ “Yes. “Then take that tract off there and read a sentence.’.’ “ I don’t wish to read, sir “1 want to see if you can read. ’ I read him a paragraph to please him. He then said “Do. vou ever go to a place of worship ? ” “I sometimes go and hear them preach. “ Whom have you heard ? ” “Stopford Brooke, Dr. Parker, and Stewart Headlam, and any who are worth listening to." “Do you ever read your Bible?” "Yes, I do.”' “Do you believe in the soul ? ” “ It dosen’t trouble me just now, sir.” He then called the warder in and said, “ Warder, I am going to visit this prisoner three times a week. I see I can learn something from him.” “ Oh, you’re past learning, sir, I can see.” “ Warder put him down for me to visit.” “ Oh you need not trouble yourself, ’ replied I. He took the hint, for he never called upon me till the day I left. Sunday Chapel-—One Good from an Established Chnrch. On Sunday I went to chapel with the rest of the Church of England prisoners. We sat on forms and were some distance from each other, for we were silent even m chapel though the old birds used to get a word in edgeways, with their hands up to their mouths. It fairly made me laugh to hear them give the answers to the Litany . “ Spare us, good Lord,” “ Good Lord, deliver us—out of here.” I am not a member of the Church of England, or of any other Church, holding the belief that neither Atheists nor Churchman do any good by talking. They should spend their strength on social questions. I say this to explain why I said I was Church of England when they asked me “ You’ll get out of your cell four times a week and once of a Sunday it you say you’re Church of Englaud.” One Sunday it was very cold and I had gone to chapel, my hands numb, and shivering all over; and we were all shivering, and tried to keep ourselves warm by rubbing of our hands and moving our feet for the day was bitter I suppose the extra noise attracted the chaplain’s sharp ear, for he singled out a few of us, add spoke from the pulpit about us, and prayed that when we went back to our cells God would soften our hearts and drive the sin of obstruction from us, tor “never in all my experience have I heard such unseemly noise in chapel.’ I was no worse than the others, but a warder came into my cell afterwards and said, “ Now, then what do you mean by making a row like that?” and the next day I was taken before the governor. “Were you not making signs to another pnsouer ? asked the governor. “No.” “Now, tell the truth. Were you not talking?” “No. I was doing nothing, only rubbing my hands, it was that cold,” and after more questioning was let off. The Sermons. The Chaplain seemed to take a delight in telling the prisoners time after time in chapel what wicked people they were, how every man of them had had a splendid chance in life, how they had missed grand opportunities; how, through not obeying their superiors, they found themselves in this miserable condition, impressing upon them to take no notice of the vanities of this world or of riches, that it was better to be poor than rich—though by the look of him, he evidently did not practice what he preached. He generally preached a sermon that he thought would strike terra into the hearts of his brethren. In ending his sermon on the first Sunday after I arrived there he impressed upon the prisoners to take. no notice ot the ques­ tions of this world ; as sure as they bothered about Social questions they would �come to grief. On the second he dwelt upon that passage in the Bible that relates to the handwriting on the wall. He implored of the prisoners to remember the handwriting on the wall, and told them it meant their time was come. Ah, thought I, as I looked at him, there is a hand-writing on the wall to-day, and day by day gets plainer and plainer. The interpretation of the writing means the utter downfall of the system you uphold, and ere long the class that I belong to shall speak with no unmistakeable voice. It would be well for you and the class you represent, if you will try to interpret the hand-writing on the wall, which is as plain as plain can be and really means that the robbery of labour shall no longer go on ; that such men as the prisoners, who are now befcre you, shall for the first time have a fair chance of obtaining a honest livelihood ; and that the prisons, built by their hands, shall be no longer used to imprison those who are willing to labour, but shall be used for those only who rob and plunder the labour of others. C I 38 becomes Mr. Williams. The day before my time was up I was shifted to another cell, with a stone floor. This was a change for the better. My gas was inside instead of out, and I boiled my bread over the flame. Then they gave me an extra blanket, and I had my only good night’s rest in the month. I had then got to be that hungry that I pounced upon even a crumb. The next day the parson came and told me to “turn over a new leaf’’ and give up Social Democracy. I got my net full of clothes, damp and wrinkled ; they asked me if I didn’t want some money to pay my railway fare to Bayswater, and packed me off three-quarters of an hour before my time, as they thought there would be a demonstra­ tion. And it was “ Good-bye, Mr. Williams,’’ from the warder. Some other poor devil is C I 38 now; I am Mr, Williams ;• and as I stepped ovsr the threshold of the Prison Gates I turned my head and muttered my last words there, “ Don’t forget the Hand writing on the Wall.” THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRAIIC-FEDERATION. OBJECT. The Establishment of a Free Condition of Society based on the prin­ ciple of Political Equality, with Equal Social Rights for all and the complete Emancipation of Labour. PROGRAMME. 1. All Officers or Administrators to be elected by Equal Direct Adult Suffrage, and to be paid by the Community. 2. Legislation by the People, in such wise that no project of Law shall become legally binding till accepted by the Majority of the People. 3. The Abolition of a Standing Army, and the Establishment of a National Citizen Force ; the People to decide on Peace or War. 4. All Education, higher no less than elementary, to be Free, Com­ pulsory, Secular, and Industrial for all alike. 5. The Administration of Justice to be Free and Gratuitous for all Members of Society. 6. The Land with all the Mines, Railways and other Means of Tran­ sit, to be declared and treated as Collective or Common Property. 7. Ireland and all other parts of the Empire to have Legislative Independence. 8. The Production of Wealth to be regulated by Society in the com­ mon interest of all its Members. 9. The Means of Production, Distribution and Exchange to be declared and treated as Collective or Common Property. As measures called for to palliate the evils of our existing society the Social-Democratic Federation urges for immediate adoption :— The Compulsory Construction of healthy artizan’s and agricultural labourers’ dwellings in proportion to the population, such dwellings �be let at rents to cover the cost of construction and maintenance alone. P Free Compulsory Education for all classes, together with the provision of at least one wholesome meal a day in each school. Eight Hours or less to be the normal working day in all trades. Cumulative Taxation upon all incomes above a fixed minimum not Exceeding ^300 a year. State Appropriation of Railways, with or without compensation. The establishment of National Banks, which shall absorb all private institutions that derive a profit from operations in money or credit. Rapid Extinction of the National Debt. Nationalisation of the Land, and organisation of agricultural and industrial armies under State control on Co-operative principles. fl 1 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 read)' to form Branches should communicate with the Hon. Sec. All who are interested, in these sub­ jects should, read. The Historical Basis of Socialism in England. By H. M. Hyndman. Paul, Trench, & Co. Crown 8-vo., price 8s. 6d London: Kegan This is the only Book in the English Language which gives the Historical and Economical Theories of Organised Socialism. It should be carefully studied by all who desire to understand why Socialists are enthusiastic for their cause, and confident of success in the near future. 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. 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., cloth, price 3s. 6d. 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. 7 �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. u JUSTICE,” the Organ of the Social Democracy. Every Saturday, one penny. Summary cf 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. The Socialist Catechism. By J. L. Joynes. Reprinted with additions from Justice. Demy 8-vo., price id. Tenth thousand. Socialist Rhymes from Justice. By J. L. Joynes. Demy 8-vo., price id. Reprinted chiefly Wage-Labour and Capital. By Karl Marx. lated by J. L. Joynes and reprinted from Justice. w Trans Price 2d. This is the only work of the great Socialist thinker which has been translated into English Socialism and the Worker. By F. Price id. A. Sorge. An explanation in the simplest language of tne main idea of Socialism. St .1 Socialism and Slavery. By H. M. Hyndman, (in reply Mr. Herbert Spencer’s article on the “ The Coming Slavery ”) Crown 8-vo., in wrapper, price 6d. 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 is. The Future of Marriage. By a Respectable Woman. Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price 4d. Socialism versus Smithism: An open letter from H. M. Hyndman to Samuel Smith, M.P. for Liverpool. 8-vo. paper cover, price 2d. The Appeal to the Young. Crown By Prince Peter Kropotkin. Translated frcm 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 is now suffering five years imprisonment at the hands of the French Republic for advocating the cause of the workers 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. J , � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource John E. Williams and the early history of the Social-Democratic Federation: with his own account of the month's imprisonment he suffered for speaking in Dod Street, Limehouse Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Williams, John E. Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 14, [2] p. : ill. (front. port.) ; 23 cm. Notes: The Social Democratic Federation (SDF) was established as Britain's first organised socialist political party by H. M. Hyndman, and had its first meeting on 7 June 1881. Information on the Social Democratic Federation and publisher's list on unnumbered pages at the end. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available 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 G4983 Subject The topic of the resource Socialism Freedom of speech 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 (John E. Williams and the early history of the Social-Democratic Federation: with his own account of the month's imprisonment he suffered for speaking in Dod Street, Limehouse), 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 Freedom of Speech Imprisonment Social Democratic Federation Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/50c6ef603e0ad3b03e764eccae0d1ff5.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=IZ4jqB2wMrohyxoadggAgMIvRN5BiSJ0WVP1g%7E4%7ELOv9-WgjR1goGiYJao2FDv-rT6b6KXy0SUdH4BQ6iWo3Lws34YVdeJ9F4K-trgNSlmeQSWiMvN%7E2ffANa-NiTXbKS2SqIMreM6bru-eMFPz6O750kEftlTumV6CuxfiLbGucxx6ttuEDfhMABJ8C2jNiJPuG9d71Ft2mx17cIAszbCq1o9heoBew5lzGrEOpdjvHZFR%7EDFg7K80SRiTnaGjHoI2Ph4B02WqIqpGNMbatVhyqqjVZRH23Cky34H32OBhzBoY0Yxv%7ERS3sNh9ZgF2blXNybREDm7zs12GsrMof0A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 386564a31d1543b9aab57a6c5666fd40 PDF Text Text ���������������� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Land lessons for town folk Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Jameson, William Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 12 p. ; 22 cm. Series title: Clarion Pamphlet Series number: No. 9 Notes: The cover states "Clarion" Pamphlet - No, 9; half title page reads "Pioneer" Pamphlets - No, 1. (1) "Why should London grow?" (2) "Guardian angels." (3) "Cockneyfied socialism." Date of publication from KVK (OCLC, WorldCat). Publisher's series list inside back cover. William Jameson was Hon. Sec. of the Land Nationalisation Society. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available "Clarion" Newspaper Company, Limited Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1896] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5776 Subject The topic of the resource London Land reform 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 (Land lessons for town folk), 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 Land Reform-Great Britain London Population Increase Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/abaa3b968d2b605afef2a38d68db5f33.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=XLHT0QrD6-QVU9pZO8gsltO-8sWTpqHAiDhzRDQ5TqK2fu3RHzu2h7YCceV%7ENvOQx8IM6ypekD%7E95QkHTbFqdpXB9ImTm3dAMgiXgzGJe5GED67LBx5PJyK2jYOPs%7EVTC77NqHNFuz--Nm-Q0heuq5o9OpnK4fGkDWsjOW9MRjQ2ucM9jvr32UEWbaDeHDKJuK5NCCODaa8W6XNI7AaHGXp%7EFXnpbL%7EBx%7Ent5UoGITOqytfSXa1VPC5gRncbPITQPba4hb9eD1CBB6pOb9Yn9a4xMU2cFdgdmdwKK3pb9SLwLM0-MjIAKx7De4PpaSUw8yquXGq-cQzWWXSVUH2yqA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM d50665091f5b7b4de90cf53fb8d649b7 PDF Text Text Price One Penny. T4O/ POLITICS for the PEOPLE.—No. I. MINING RENTS — AND — ROYALTIES. By J. MORRISON DAVIDSON, BARRISTER-AT-LAW. Author of “Eminent Radicals,” “The New Book of Kings," “Book of Lords,” “ Useless, Dangerous, and Ought to be I I For Special Prices for quantities to distribute in to the Publishers. I Abolished,” &c., &c. Mining Districts apply LONDON : I THE MODERN PRESS, 13, Paternoster Row, E.C. agAgent for U.S.A, W. L. Rosenberg, 261, East Tenth Street, New \ ork City. �The Co-operative Commonwealth: Exposition of Modern Socialism. Gronlund, of Philadelphia. paper, price is. an By Laurence Demy 8-vo., cheaper edition, “ 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.”—New 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. The Emigration Fraud Exposed. By H. M. Hyndman. With a portrait of the Author. Reprinted by permission from the Nineteenth Century for February, 1885. Crown 8-vo., price id. The Socialist Catechism. By J. L. Joynes. Reprinted with additions from Justice. price id. Fifteenth thousand. Socialism and the Worker. Sorge. Price id. Royal 8-vo., By F. A. An explanation in the simplest language of the main idea of Socialism. 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 has just suffered five years imprison­ ment at the hands of the French Republic for advocating the cause of the workers. Are You a Social-Democrat ? tinted paper. "Why 4-pp., on fine Price 5s. per 1,000, post free. am a Social-Democrat. I 4-pp., on fine tinted paper. Price 5s. per 1,000, post free. The above with announcement of Lectures, meetings, &c., printed on last page, 8s. per 1,000, 28s. for 5,000. The Modern Press, 13, Paternoster Row, E.C. And YNL L. ROSENBERG, 261, East Tenth Street, New York City. �MINING RENTS AND ROYALTIES. F there be one thing in this world more astonishing than that individuals should claim private property in the surface of this planet, and have their claims allowed by the Legislature of a free country, it assuredly is that they should pretend to have a right to the contents of its interior. A coal-hewer descends into the bowels of the cold earth, and with infinite toil and danger raises a ton of fuel for tenpence or even eightpence. Another man, calling himself a landlord, who is meanwhile, perchance, gambling at Monaco or bear-hunting in the Rocky Mountains, successfully exacts a toll of thirteen or fourteen pence per ton on the entire output of a mine, or, it may be, a score of mines ! Could there be a more startlinganomaly ? “ O Lord what fools these mortals be ! ” is all the comment that any rational being can, in the circumstances, make. I �4 Yet this was the kernel of the case which the influential deputation of Members of Parliament, who, in April, 1886, brought the question of mining royal­ ties before the Liberal Home Secretary, had to sub­ mit. True, Mr. Childers’ mind was a taint la 1 asa as regards mining royalties, and not one of the deputation ventured to suggest their nationalisation —the only true remedy for the serious evils com­ plained of. Still much good was effected by the bare recital of the atrocious exactions which the land­ lords habitually make both on mine lessees and miners. Mr. Stephen Mason, representing one of the divisions of Lanarkshire, where trade depression is peculiarly severe, instanced the case of a ducal high­ wayman who preys on the mining industry of the district to the extent of ^114,000 per annum. His method of blackmail is this :—He benignly grants leases for twenty-one years at fixed “ rents,” varying from Z500 to ,£5,000. These are payable whether the mine is worked or not. If worked, the moment a certain output is attained “ royalties ” come into play. These vary from çd. to is. 6d. per ton. No mediaeval Rhine robber ever devised a more effectual system of brigandage. Indeed, the landlord is the undisputed master of the situation, and it is a marvel that he has not succeeded long ere now in completely �5 destroying the industrial supremacy of the country. Mr. Mason told of an instance where a company spent ^50,000 to get at a seam of coal. They reached it, but found that rent and royalty would together absorb every penny of profit. The land­ lord would, nevertheless, have his entire pound of flesh. Consequently the machinery has been stand­ ing idle for four years ! But it is when leases come to be renewed that the landlords’ harvest is really ripe. Mr. Conybeare, who represents a mining division of Cornwall, revealed a state of things in his neighbourhood of a singularly aggravated kind. When the lease of the Dolcoath mine was renewed a fine of ,£2 5,000 was exacted, The Duke of Bedford, in the case of the Devon Great Consols Mine, levied a £20,000 fine. As for the unfortunate lessees they might like it or lump it. If they lumped it their engine-houses and all their improvements went to the landlord without compensation. The landlord, moreover, on the ground-rent monopoly principle, charged from five to ten times agricultural value for the surface. As to the amount ofannual tribute paid by the nation on its mineral wealth to the landlords, no exact figures can be given. But it is has been estimated that in the year 1883 they pocketed on coal and iron ore alone the vast sum of eight millions sterling. This enor­ �mous drain in the face of falling and stagnant mar­ kets, it is not too much to say accounts for half the privations which working men are now suffering from low wages and no wages. Our two staple industries are admittedly iron and coal. They are controlling elements in rails, ships, and manufactures of every description. Every private toll levied on them is a blight on every related form of employment. Mr. Mason gave an instructive example of the effect of a comparatively low royalty. In Scotland the minimum royalty on pig-iron is 6s. Some of the Cleveland royalties on the other hand do not exceed 3s. 3d. per ton. What is the con­ sequence ? Scotland, where all the other conditions of production are rather more than equal, is invaded weekly by Cleveland iron to the extent of from 6,000 to 7,000 tons. Nor is this the worst. Differential home dues might be endured, but to handicap the British iron trade in its strenuous grapple with foreign competition is a much more serious affair. In most parts of Germany the royalty on pig iron is 6d. per ton ; in France it is 8d., and in both these countries royalties are national dues, and not, as with us, private black­ mail. In Belgium the ordinary State royalty is is. 3d. per ton, and even that handicap not improbably accounts in no small degree for the pre­ valent turbulence in that country of miners. �7 I quote the following weighty sentences from an admirable address by Mr. William Forsyth, the eloquent President of the Scottish Land Restoration League:—“Out of the eighty blast furnaces in Cumberland forty are at this moment standing idle, and the others are but partially employed. There are many causes which might have the effect of keeping these forty blast furnaces idle. They might be idle for want of capital; they might be idle for want of men willing to work. Well, gentlemen, the Cumberland furnaces are put out not because of any lack of capital, for only within the last week or two a company of employers there were willing to sink £20,000 in raising iron-ore, and were only prevented from doing so by the landlord’s ultimatum that he would not reduce his royalty of 2s. 6d. per ton on the ore which might be raised. The company found thatwith this charge they could not raise ore as cheaply as it could be imported from Spain, and they, therefore, abandoned their project. Neither can it be that there are not men able and willing to work, for an ironmaster in Cumberland writes saying that there are thousands of men unemployed who would be glad to find work of any kind in order to save their wives and children from starvation.” “ I am informed that the girders of the St. Enoch Railway Station, in our city, were imported from j �8 Belgium, and we know that the Barnsley Railway Station was built of imported iron. ’ The Midland Railway Company is at present importing large quantities of iron and steel sleepers from Belgium. The streets of London, Liverpool, Dublin, and Belfast are being laid with tramway rails of foreign manufacture. Our Glasgow Municipal Buildings are at this moment being built with iron girders brought from Belgium, and paid for from the taxes collected from the people of Glasgow. On looking up at these girders we see in prominent letters the name “ Maclellan,” and in our innocence we think that if the cost of these buildings is great at any rate the work is done by our own people. But this is not so. The ironmaster to whom I have referred is himself the owner of eight furnaces specially adapted to the manufacture of pig-iron and steel rails. Four of these furnaces are idle, and yet he is actually importing thousands of tons of iron and steel from Belgium and Germany.” Talk of high wages and short hours of labour “ driving trade out of the country ! ” Why, if these royalty footpads are not speedily got rid of there will soon be neither trade nor wages left in it. One blast furnace produces in a week six hundred tons of pig-iron. On that quantity the landlord’s royalties amount to ^202 ; while the wages of the employes �9 —managers, engineers, chemists, workmen all told— average less than one half, or ^95. The royalties on British steel rails paid to the landlords amount to 9s. 6d. per ton ; in Belgium they average is. 9d. Is it any wonder that the Indian Department of Government is monthly sending out to India thou­ sands of tons of imported iron and steel rails and sleepers ? Is it any wonder if in most cases it costs about three times as much to construct a mile of British railway as any other ? A Cunard liner making the double or return jour­ ney across the Atlantic consumes four thousand one hundred and twenty-five tons of coal. This means a royalty to the landlord of ^206 5s., or more than the wages of the entire crew from captain to cabin boy. Ina word, the owners of steamers pay to the lords of land a tribute of ,£274,100 per annum. Of course passengers and the producers of exports and the consumers of imports are the ultimate victims. What, then, is the remedy for this ruinous system of exploitation ? Is it to be cured, as the deputation suggested, and as Mr. Conybeare’s Mining Rates Bill weakly proposes, by establishing a sliding scale as between landlords and mine-lessees ? Certainly not, unless the State is to step into the landlord’s shoes. Every scheme to enable landlords to rob in moderation is bad. �IO We are not without examples of the true solution of the royalty problem in other lands. In Germany, speaking generally, the Prussian law of 1865 prevails. It vests all mineral royalties in the State. No freeholder can raise minerals on his freehold without a concession from the Government. He dare not even, after due notice, prevent private persons irom entering on his land to bore for the discovery of minerals. The concessionaire of a mine is entirely independent of the lord of the surface. Concessions are made to any qualified person or persons by a district oberbergamt, or office, on certain conditions. Concessionaires must (1) pay to the State in royalty and inspection dues 2 per cent, per annum on net produce ; and (2) form a- Benefit Society, or Knappschajt Verein, for their workmen, they contributing one-half the funds, the “ hands ” the other. The Knappschaft Verein supports and doctors invalid and injured miners, pensions widows, and educates children free of expense. In France private royalties were abolished at the Revolution and made national property. The pre­ sent law bears date 1810. It is the same in principle as the German law. The concessionaire pays 5 per cent, net produce to the State plus 10 centimes per franc additional to form an Accidents Relief Fund. A strictly limited rent is also payable to the lords of the surface. �11 The Belgian law (1810) is in the main similar to the French law', but concessions made under the law of 1837 are of a less favourable character, and in some cases the dues mount up to 4s. in the pound. But we need not go beyond the limits of our own Islands for a sound model of mining legislation. An admirable Act of the Scottish Parliament (1592) still in force, but audaciously set at defiance by the land­ lords of Scotland since the union with England, appoints a “ Master of the Metals,” with full State control of all mines and minerals in the realm. He is to secure 10 per cent, to the State, and is allowed 5 per cent, for inspection dues, &c. “ And by reason that the said miners are in daily hazard of their lives by the bad air of the mines and the danger of falling in the same, and other infinite miseries which daily occur in the said work, therefore our Sovereign Lord (James VI.) exempts said miners from all taxa­ tion whatever, both in peace and war, and takes them all, their families and goods, in his special protection,” &c. This is the sort of thing that is wanted, and not sliding scales to. give perpetuity to a system of pal pable robbery, by which the State is defrauded of some ten millions sterling per annum. And the robbers ! �12 What are they ? The drones of the community ! They feed on the mechanic’s labour ; The starved hind for them compels the stubborn glebe To yield its unshared harvest. And yon squalid form, leaner than fleshless misery, Drags out his life in darkness in the unwholesome mine To glad their grandeur. Many faint with toil That few may know the cares and woes of sloth. r � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Mining rents and royalties Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Davidson, John Morrison [1843-1916] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 12, [4] p. ; 19 cm. Series title: Politics for the People Series number: No. 1 Notes: Publisher's advertisement p. 2. List of reviews of 'The New Book of Kings', by the author, on four unnumbered pages at the end. Tentative date of publication from KVK. 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 [1885?] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context T401 Subject The topic of the resource Working conditions 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 (Mining rents and royalties), 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 Mining Royalties Social conditions Socialism Working Classes https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b301a68be1f55e804215950bbe9f119e.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=lEgH4SsnaIzhTI4iZWYIHQPW%7EYPyhdENl1VFkehyliZCQw8TBcWHq9gLPVQ0YzLWdEn1qtL0nFKLjn8TyMbMxcuQrGmwxIa3G3BNyu7%7EO-YzqqBHNr4wSJUXXTvjV17YiJpFZg2ELWHQMrIdYJED7JVwMllYXk5bchARe2dH2Iwt4enbCX4yKZpQv3phZz8MknkzHRR22w-q2N7DaIOqRwiJN2bUNzvFxGzwWshuQKUJxwEppXVdEs6HPO54UGeP9euYHEqBo1jYwegAFhELqpAodSZZ5EFhLZ2KnepCos9TvnLKEwXaSzVRCUhE%7EhRwGcDZqnmrxFLyzx7goJ3qVA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 3ac5e4aba3cf4cadcbe3461f71e8d658 PDF Text Text 403 MODERN SOCIALISM. BY ANNIE BESANT. LONDON FKEETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, 63, FLEET STREET, E.C. 1 8 8 6. �LONDON PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH, G3, ELEET STREET, E.C. �* MODERN SOCIALISM. Great changes are long in the preparing, and every thought that meets ultimately with wide acceptance is lying inarticulate in many minds ere it is syllabled out by some articulate one, and stands forth a spoken Word. The Zeitgeist has its mouth in those of its children who have brain to understand, voice to proclaim, courage to stand alone. Some new Truth then peals out, sonorous and farsounding as the roll of the thunder, melodious to the ears attuned to the deep grand harmonies of Nature, but terrible to those accustomed only to the subdued lispings of artificial triflers, and the murmurs which float amid the hangings of courtly halls. When such an event occurs a few hearken, study, and then rejoicingly accept the new Truth; these are its pioneers, its apostles, who go out to proclaim it to the as yet unbelieving world. They meet with ridicule, then with persecution; for ever the new Truth undermines some hoary Lie, which has its band of devoted adherents living on the spoils of its reign. Slowly,- against custom and tradition, against selfishness and violence, even against indifference, deadliest foe of all, this band of devoted teachers makes its onward way. And the band grows and grows, and each convert becomes in his turn a pioneer; until at last the victory is won, and the minority has become the majority; and then the time comes for some new Truth once more, and the old struggle is gone over afresh, and so again and again ; and thus the race makes progress, and humanity climbs ever upward towards the perfect life. During the last century and a quarter the social problem has been pressing for solution on all who have brains to �4 MODERN SOCIALISM. think and hearts to feel. The coexistence of wealth and penury, of idle prodigality and laborious stint; the terrible fact that “ progress and poverty ” seem to march hand-inhand ; the growing slums in large towns; the huge for­ tunes and the starving poor; these things make content impossible, and force into prominence the question: “Must this state of things continue ? Is there no possible change which will cure, not only palliate, the present evils ? Great hopes have sprung into being from time to time, each in turn to be blighted. Machinery was to double production and diminish toil, to spread comfort and suffi­ ciency everywhere. It made cotton-lords and merchant­ princes with one hand, and with the other created a prole­ tariat unlike aught the world had seen, poor in the midst of the wealth it created, miserable in the midst of luxury, ignorant in the midst of knowledge, savage in the midst of civilisation. When the repeal of the Corn Laws was striven for and accomplished, once more hope rose high. Cheap food was to put an end to starvation. Alas! in the streets of the wealthiest city in Christendom, men and women perish for lack of a loaf of bread. Nor is this persistence of misery and of squalor the only sign which troubles the brain and the heart of the student of the social problem. He notes the recurring crises in industry, the inflations and depressions of trade. At one time all is prosperous; demand is brisk, and supply can scarce keep pace with it; wages rise, full time is worked, production is enormously increased. Then a change creeps over all; supply has overtaken, has surpassed demand; the market is glutted; the warehouses are filled with unsaleable goods; short time begins; wages fall; mills are closed; furnaces are damped out; many workers are dis­ charged. Then the unemployed in the large towns increase in number ; the poor-rate rises ; distress spreads upwards. After a while the depression passes ; trade improves ; and the whole weary circle is trodden once more. Nor is this all; although there has been “ over-production ” there is want of the necessaries of life; there are unsaleable clothing goods in the warehouses, and half-naked people shivering outside; too many blankets, and children crying them­ selves to sleep for cold. This monstrous absurdity, of com­ modities a drug in the market, and human beings perishing for want of those very commodities, stares us ever in the �MODERN SOCIALISM. 5 face. Cannot human brain discover some means to put an end to this state of things, a state which would be ludicrous were it not for the horrible suffering involved in it ? Some say, this must always be so; that the poor shall be for ever with us; that commercial crises are inevitable; that these evils' are not susceptible of complete cure. If tffis indeed be true, then I know not that any better advice can be given to humanity than that given to Job by his wife, to “ curse God and die ”. But I think not so meanly of human intelligence ; I believe not that our present indus­ trial system, little more than a century old, must needs be eternal; I believe that the present system, devised by man and founded in greed of gain, may by man be changed; and that man’s growing power over external nature may be used to bring comfort and wealth to each, and not, as now, to enrich the few at the cost of the enslavement of the many. Various attempts to bring about a better social state have been made by earnest and noble-hearted men during the last hundred years. I leave aside such systems as those of the Moravians, because they cannot be regarded as in any sense schemes for the reconstruction of society. They, like the monastic communities, were merely attempts to create oases, fenced in from the world’s evils, where men might prepare for a future life. The efforts I allude to are those classed as “Socialistic”; they were really ■crude forms of Communism. With these the name of Robert Owen will be for ever associated. Owen’s first experiment was made at New Lanark, in connexion with the cotton-mills established there by Mr. Dale, his father-in-law. He became the manager of these in 1797, and set himself to work to improve the condition •of the operatives and their families. The success which attended his efforts, the changes wrought by education and by fair dealings, encouraged him to plan out a wider scheme of social amelioration. In 1817 he was asked to report on the causes of poverty to the Committee on the Poor Laws, and in this report he dwelt on the serious in•crease of pauperism which had followed the introduction of machinery, and urged that employment ought to be found for those who were in need of it. He “ recommended that every union or county should provide a farm for the employment of their poor; when circumstances admitted �6 MODERN SOCIALISM. of it, there should be a manufactory in connexion with it” (“Robert Owen,” by A. J. Booth, p. 70). On the farm, buildings were to be built for housing the laborers, con­ sisting of “a square, divided into two parallelograms by tl^e erection of public buildings in the centre ” ; these would consist of “a kitchen, mess-room, school-rooms, library and lecture-hall. The poor would enjoy every advantage that economy could suggest: the same roof would cover many dwellings : the same stove might warm every room : the food would be cooked at the same time, and on the same fire : the meals would be eaten from the same table, in the society of friends and fellow-workers. Sympathies now restricted to the family would be thus extended to a community: the union would be still further cemented by an equal participation in the profits, an equal share in the toil............ Competition is the cause of many vices; association will be their corrective” {Ibid, pp. 70-72). Soon after this report, Mr. Owen published a letter, urging the reconstitution of “the whole of society on a similar basis”; the lowest class was to consist of paupers, to be drafted into the proposed establishments; the second of the “working-class”; the third of laborers, artisans, and tradesmen, with property-of from £100 to £2,000; the fourth of persons unable or unwilling to work, owning from £1,000 to £20,000; these were to employ the second class. The workman was to be supported by this class in comfort for seven years in exchange for his labor, and then was to be presented by it with £100, so that he might enter class three; if he remained as a worker for five years more he was to have £200. A community of workers, as recommended by Owen, was started in 1825, under the management of Abraham Combe, at Orbiston, nine miles east of Glasgow, and it began well; but Combe died in 1827, and with his death the whole thing went to pieces. A few months before the settlement at Orbiston, Robert Owen sailed for America, and he purchased a property named Harmony, consisting of 30,000 acres in Indiana, from the Rappites, a religious communistic body. He advertised for inhabitants, and gathered together a mixed crowd; “there were some enthusiasts who had come, at great personal sacrifice, to face a rude life and to mix among rude men, who had no object but to work out the great problem of a New Society; �MODERN SOCIALISM. 7 there were others who fancied they could secure abundance with little labor, prepared to shirk their share in the toil, but not to forego their share in the reward ” {Ibid, p. 106). In the following year, 1826, “New Harmony ” inaugurated a system of complete Communism, much against OwSn’s^ judgment; a number of small independent communities'^ were soon formed, eight of these having already broken off from New Harmony early in 1827, the difficulties attendant on widely extended common life being found insuperable. In 1828, Robert Owen was forced to confess that his effortshad failed, and that “families trained in the individual system ” could not suddenly be plunged into pure Communism with success. It boots not to dwell here on his further efforts in England. Robert Owen’s experi­ ments failed, but out of his teaching arose the co-operative movement, and the impulse to seek some rational system of society has, since his time, never quite died out in England. In America, a large number of communities have been established, mostly religious in character. Erom the careful account given of them by Charles Nordhoff, the following brief details are taken (all numbers relate to 1874). The Amana community consists of 1,450 members ; they have a property of 25,000 acres, and live in seven small towns; they are Germans, very pious and very prosperous ; their head is a woman, who is directly inspired by God. The Harmony Society, Economy, near Pittsburg, consists of followers of Rapp, who founded the society in 1805. They are all Germans and number 110, in addition to about 100 hired laborers and some sixty children. They live in comfort, and have clearly done well unto themunto themselves, owning now a very large amount of pro­ perty. The Separatists of Zoar, Ohio, are, once more, Germans: they started in 1817, have now about 300 members, own 7,000 acres of land, and are prosperous exceedingly. The Shakers, established in 1792, are scat­ tered over several States,-number about 2,415, own about 100.000 acres of land, are divided into fifty-eight commu­ nities, and are wealthy and prosperous ; the members are American and English. The Perfectionists of Oneida and Wallingford are American, and the first attempt by them at communal living took place in 1846. They number 521, and own 894 acres of land. They also are prosperous. �8 MODERN SOCIALISM. The Aurora and Bethel Communes, in Oregon, are German, or 11 Pennsylvania Dutch ”; they started in 1844, and now number some 600 persons: their property extends to 23,000 acres, and they live in much comfort. The Icarians, founded by Etienne Cabet in 1848, are nearly all French; ch^have hitherto been less fortunate than the preceding societies, in consequence of mismanagement at the start; a heavy debt was incurred early in the movement, and members fell off; but a few resolute men and women settled down steadily in Iowa, with 4,000 acres of land, and 20,000 dollars of debt; they had to give up the land to their creditors, but managed to redeem nearly half of it, and they are now 65 in number, own 1,936 acres, have no debts, and have acquired a large live stock. They still live very plainly, but are on their way to prosperity, having conquered all the difficulties amid which they started; their constitution is perfectly democratic and they are without religion. A Swedish community at Bishop Hill, Illinois, was formed by a pietist sect which emi­ grated to America to escape persecution in 1846-1848. They were terribly poor at first and lived in holes in the ground, with a tent for a church, but gradually acquired property; until in 1859 they owned 10,000 acres of land, worth 300,000 dollars, and some magnificent live stock. Unfortunately their piety led to such extreme dullness that the younger members of the society revolted: debt was incurred, individuality was advocated, the property was divided, and the community ceased to exist. Lastly, there are two small communities, founded in 1871 and 1874 ; the former, the Progressive Community, at Cedar Vale, consists partly of Russians; it possesses 320 acres of good land, and has only eight members, of whom one is a child. The second, the Social Freedom Community, consists of three adults and three lads, Americans, and has a farm of 333 acres. The whole of these societies can only be regarded as in the nature of experiments, and as such they are extremely interesting; each community has succeeded in gaining comfort and independence, but these small bodies, living chiefly by agriculture in a thinly-populated country on virgin soil, while they show the advantages of associated labor, really offer no data for the solution of the problems which beset a complex society. They are a return to more �MODERN SOCIALISM. 9 primitive forms of living, not an onward social evolution, and they are only possible in a “ new country ”. Further, while they are communistic so far as their own members are concerned, they are individualistic and competitive in their aspect to the outer world; each small group holds.Wrs own property, and transacts all its business on the old lines in its dealings with the rest of the nation. This is, of course, inevitable, since each is encircled by competition; but it must not be overlooked that all these organisations, like co-operative societies at home, are nothing more than enlarged families, and are essentially individualistic ; win­ ning sufficiency for their own narrow, isolated circles, but leaving untouched the question of national poverty. They are arks, rescuing their inmates from the deluge, but they do nothing to drain away the seething ocean of misery. We turn next to Socialism, as distinct from Communism. The distinction between these, though recognised by so orthodox an economist as John Stuart Mill, is generally ignored by those who oppose any radical reconstruction of Society. Mr. Mill divides into two classes the assailants of the present system of purely individualistic property : “ those whose scheme implies absolute equality in the distribution of the physical means of life and enjoyment, and those who admit inequality, but grounded on some principle or supposed principle, of justice or general expediency, and not, like so many of the existing social inequalities, dependent on accident alone. At the head of the first class, as the earliest of those belonging to the present generation, must be placed Mr. Owen and his fol­ lowers. M. Louis Blanc and M. Cabet have more recently become conspicuous as apostles of similar doctrines (though the former advocates equality of distribution only as a transition to a still higher standard of justice, that all should work according to their capacity, and receive according to their wants). The characteristic name for this economical system is Communism, a word of conti­ nental origin, only of late introduced into this country. The word Socialism, which originated among the English Communists, and was assumed by them as a name to designate their own doctrine, is now, on the Continent, employed in a larger sense; not necessarily implying Communism, or the entire abolition of private property, but applied to any system which requires that the land and �10 MODERN SOCIALISM. the instruments of production should be the property, not of individuals, but of communities or associations, or of the government” (“Principles of Political Economy”, Book II., chap, i., sec. 2). Communism implies the complete abolition of private property, and the supply of the wants of each individual from a common store, without regard to the contributions to that common store which may, or may not, have been made by the individual. Socialism merely implies that the raw material of the soil and the means of production shall not be the private pro­ perty of individuals, but shall be under the control of the community; it leaves intact a man’s control over himself and over the value of his work—subj ect to such general laws as are necessary in any community—but by socialising land and capital it deprives each of the power of enslaving his fellows, and of living in idleness on the results of their labor instead of on the results of his own. It may be that at some future time humanity shall have evolved to a point which shall render Communism the only rational system; when every man is eager to do his share of work ; anxious not to make too much for his own enjoyment: holding the scales of justice with a perfectly even hand; his one aim the general good, and his one effort the service of his brethren; when each individual is thus developed, law will have become unnecessary, and Communism will be thenatural expression of social life; perfect freedom will be the lot of each, because each will have become a law unto himself. But to 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, the rebirth, under a new name, of our present system. Modern Socialism is an attempt to get at the root of the poverty which now prevails ; to find out how fortunes are made; why commercial crises occur; what are the real relations of capital and labor at the present time. In speaking of “fortunes”, I do not here include for­ tunes made by gambling, as on the Stock Exchange. They fall under another category, for in gambling, whether on the Stock Exchange or on the card table, wealth is not really made; it only passes from one pocket to another. The gambler, or the burglar, may “ make a fortune ” sofar as he is himself concerned; but it is not done by the creation of wealth, but only by transferring wealth already �MODERN SOCIALISM. II existing from, the pocket of its temporary possessor into his own ; in both businesses the profits are large because the risks are great, and the penalty for failure heavy for the moment. Socialism, as an industrial system, is chiefly concerned with fortunes in the making, with the way in which the wealth created by associated labor passes into the handsof individuals who do little or nothing in exchange for it. These fortunes arise from the ownership of the instrumentsof production, or of the raw material out of which wealth isto be manufactured; from the ownership, that is, of capital, or of land. Production. Let us take the case of the possessor of capital employed in manufacture. This man desires to obtain more wealth than he can produce alone, more than he can individually produce even with the help of machinery. He must con­ sequently hire others, who, in exchange for a certain fixed sum to be paid to them by him, shall allow him to take­ over the whole results of their labor, and to pocket the difference between those results and the fixed sum paid by him. This fixed sum is known as wage, and is “the market price of labor”. We have therefore here twoclasses face to face with each other: one is a class which is the owner of capital, that is, which possesses the instru­ ments of production; the other is a class which possessesthe labor-force, without which the instruments of produc­ tion are useless, but which must perish if it cannot get hold of some of those instruments. (Behind the capitalists is a third class, the land-owning, with which the capitalist has to come to terms ; that will be dealt with afterwards.) This second class stands therefore at this disadvantage; that while the capitalist can, if he pleases, utilise his own labor­ force for his own subsistence, it cannot subsist at all except with his consent and aid, being shut out from the raw material by the landowner, and from the instruments of production by himself. Put a naked man on fertile soil in a decent climate and he will subsist; he will live on fruit and berries while with his hands he fashions some rough tool, and with the help thereof makes him a better one out of the. raw material he will form an instrument of pro­ duction with those original instruments of production given. �12 MODERN SOCIALISM. him bv nature, his fingers and the muscles of his body; then with his instrument and the raw material at his feet he will labor and win his livelihood. But in our complex society this opening is not before him; the raw material is enclosed and trespassers are prosecuted; if he picks fruit for food, he is a thief; if he breaks off a bough to make a rough tool, he is arrested ; he cannot get an instrument of production, and if he could he would have nothing to use it on; he has nothing but his labor-force, and he must either sell that to someone who wants it, or he must die. And the sale must be complete. His labor-force is bought for so much down per week or per month ; it no longer belongs to himself, it is owned by his master, and he has not any right over that which it produces; he has sold it, and if he wants to resume possession he must give notice of his wish to the owner thereof; having resumed possession it is of no use to him; he can only live by selling it to somebody else. He is “free”, in so far that he is able to change his master; he is a slave in that he must sell the labor force in his body for food. The man whose labor-force has been sold to another for life is regarded by all as a slave; the man whose labor-force is sold for stated terms is regarded by most as free; yet in comparing the conditions of the two, it is well to bear in mind that the slave, in becoming a chattel, becomes of value to his master, and it is the interest of the latter to feed him well and to keep up his physical strength as long as is possible; also in old age he is fed and housed, and can die in peace amid his fellows. Whereas the wage-earner has no such value, but it is his master’s interest to get as much work out of him as is possible, without regard for his health, there being plenty to take his place when he is worn out; and when he is old, he is separated from wife and child and is left to die in the prison we call a workhouse. The slave is valuable, as the horse and the ox are valuable, to his owner; the wage-earner is valuable only as a garment, which is cast into the dusthole when it is worn out. It may be answered that the wage-earner by good for­ tune, industry, and thrift, may be able so to save of his -earnings that he may escape the workhouse, and may even himself become independent and an “ employer of labor ”. True. So might a lucky slave become free. But the truth that some may rise out of their class does not render �MODERN SOCIALISM. 13 satisfactory the state of the class, and the very fact that such rising is held out as a reward and a stimulus is an admission that an escape from the proletariat must be the natural longing of every proletarian. The rising of a few does not benefit the proletariat as a whole, and it is the existence of this unpropertied proletariat which is the evil thing. To this proletariat, waiting to sell its labor-force, the capitalist goes, for it is here that he will be able to obtain the wealth-making strength which he requires. The next question is: What determines the wage which he is to pay ? That is: what fixes the market price of labor­ force ? Putting on one side temporary and comparatively trivial causes, which may slightly affect it one way or the other, there are two constant determinants : population, and standard of living. The market-price of labor-force will largely depend on the quantity of labor-force in the market; if the supply exceed the demand, the price will be low; if the demand exceed the supply, the price will go up. If an employer requires fifty laborers, and two hundred laborers compete with each other for the employ­ ment he offers, and if the employment stands between them and starvation, he will be able to beat down their price until it touches the lowest point at which they can subsist. The more rapid the multiplication of the prole­ tariat, the better for the capitalist class. The other determinant is the “standard of living” or “standard of comfort”. Wage can never sink beyond the point at which a man and his family can exist thereon; this is the extreme limit of its fall, inasmuch as a man will not work unless he can exist on the results of his work. As a matter of fact, it does not often sink so low; the wage of an ordinary operative is more than barely suffices to keep him and his family alive, but large num­ bers of the laboring poor are habitually underfed, and are liable to the diseases brought on by low living, as well as to premature aging and death arising from the same cause. It is a significant fact that the deathrate of the poor is much higher than the deathrate of the rich. Wage is lower in countries in which the standard of living is low, than in those in which it is, by comparison, higher. Thus in parts of Scotland, where oatmeal is much used for food, and children run much barefoot, wage is normally lower �14 MODERN SOCIALISM. ih.an in. England, where wheaten flour and shoes and -stockings are expected. Any general lowering of the standard of living is therefore to be deprecated—as the wide substitution of cheap vegetable food-stuffs for more ■expensive articles of diet. The standard of living also (and chiefly, in any given country) affects wages through its effect on population. Mill points out (“ Principles of Political Economy,” Book II., chap, xi., sec. 2) that “wages do adapt themselves to the price of food ”, either («) from children dying prematurely when food rises, and wages were before barely sufficient to maintain them, or (J) from voluntary restriction of the growth of population when the laborers refuse to sink below a certain standard of living. In each case the diminution of labor supply ■causes a rise of wage. “Mr. Ricardo”, says Mill, “con­ siders these two cases to comprehend all cases. He as­ sumes, that there is everywhere a minimum rate of wages: -either the lowest with which it is physically possible to keep up the population, or the lowest with which the people will choose to do so. To this minimum he assumes that the general rate of wages always tends; that they ■can never be lower, beyond the length of time required for a diminished rate of increase to make itself felt, and can never long continue higher.” This is the “iron law of wages ”, and it is the recognition of its truth which, among other reasons, sets Socialists against the wage-system of industry. [It must not be forgotten that the phrase “ordinary operative” does not include all the workers. There is a large class which obtains barely subsistence wage, and those who are not regularly employed are on the very verge of starvation. The hard lot of these must not be left out of sight in impeaching the present social state.] The capitalist, then, buys as much labor-force as he desires, or as his means allow, at the market price, deter­ mined in the way we have seen. This labor-force he pro­ poses to utilise for his own advantage; with some of his capital he buys it; some of his capital consists in machinery, and the labor-force set at work on this machinery is to produce wealth. The labor-force and the instruments of production are now brought together ; they will now pro­ duce wealth, and both they and the wealth they produce are the property of the capitalist. �MODERN SOCIALISM. 15 Our next inquiry is : Where does the capitalist look for his profit ? He has bought machinery; he has bought labor-force ; whence comes the gain he is seeking ? The profit of the capitalist must arise from the difference be­ tween the price he pays for labor-force and the wealth produced by it; out of this difference must be paid his rent, the loss incurred by wear-and-tear, and the price of the raw material on which his machinery works; these provided for, the remainder of the difference is his “profit”. The analysis of the way in which this profit arises is, then, the task that comes next. In Karl Marx’s “Das Capital” may be found a carefully •elaborated exposition of “ surplus-value ”. The term is a con­ venient one, and the student will do well to read his 7th chap­ ter, on the “production of use-value and surplus-value”; in reading, he must remember Marx’s definitions of value and use-value, which of course govern the whole. Value is human labor incorporated in a commodity; use-value is that which in a commodity satisfies some human want. The “ use-value ” of Marx is identical with the “ intrinsic natural worth” of Locke. Locke says: “The intrinsic, natural worth of any thing, consists in its fitness to supply the necessities, or serve the conveniences of human life ” (“Considerations of the Lowering of Interest,” etc., Locke’s Works, vol. ii., p. 28, ed. 1777). As an instance of the production of surplus-value—that is of the difference be­ tween the capital which the capitalist expends in produc­ tion and that which he possesses when the production is complete—Marx takes the case of the manufacture of ten pounds of thread. The capitalist buys ten pounds of cotton at 10s.; wear-and-tear of machinery in the spinning of the cotton into thread raises his expenditure to 12s.; further, six hours of work are necessary to turn the ten pounds of cotton into ten pounds of thread. Now suppose that a man in six hours is able to produce sufficient to maintain himself for a day;—that is that he produces as much as might be exchanged for a day’s con­ sumption of the necessaries of life. Let us value this at 3s. in money. That 3s. which is the monetary equivalent of his six hours’ labor must be added to the cost of pro­ duction of the thread ; its value has therefore risen finally to 15 s. If the capitalist now sells his ten pounds of thread for 15s., he will only receive back as much as he has �16 MODERN SOCIALISM. expended ; he will have made no profit. But suppose the working day be of twelve hours instead of six, the wages paid will none the less be fixed at 3s. by the standard of living; but in that second six hours the operative can transform another ten pounds of cotton into another ten pounds of thread; as before, cotton and wear-and-tear will -amount to 12s.; but these ten pounds of thread have a value of 15s. as had the previous ten pounds, although they have only cost the capitalist 12s. Hence the final product of the day’s labor has a value of 30s., but has cost the capitalist only 27s. The value added by the operative in the second six hours has brought him no equivalent; it is “ surplus-value”, value added by him over the value whose equivalent he receives in wage; this creation of surplus­ value is the aim of the capitalist. Now without tying ourselves down to the exact figures, given by Marx, we may yet see by a little thought that his position as to “ surplus-value ” is essentially correct. If a capitalist buys £1 worth of raw material; if his machinery is depreciated say by the value of one shilling in workingup the raw material; if he pays in wage 5s. for the labor­ force expended on it; he will most certainly not be content with selling the finished product for 26s. He demands a “profit” on the transaction, and this profit can only be the difference between that which is paid to labor, and the value, in the ordinary sense of the word, which labor creates. It is sometimes objected that nothing is gained by Marx’s divisions of “value”, “ surplus value ”, and “ex­ change value”, but that, on the contrary, they transport economics into a metaphysical region away from the solid ground of facts. It is urged that it is better to represent the conditions thus: that the worker produces a mass of com­ modities ; that the capitalist sells these commodities for what they will fetch in the market, the price being fixed, not by the duration of the labor embodied in them, but by the relative utilities of money and commodity to buyer and seller; that the capitalist gives over to the producer suffi­ cient of the results of the sale to enable the producer to exist, and pockets the remainder. This presentment is a statement of the facts as they are; Marx’s “value” is a metaphysical abstraction, corresponding to nothing exist­ ing at the present time, however true it would be under �MODERN SOCIALISM. 17 ideal conditions. The main point to grasp, however, is obvious, whichever of these presentments is thought pre­ ferable. Capital, under our present industrial system, is the result of unpaid labor—a matter to be further con­ sidered later in this essay. But it must be remembered that, as a matter of fact, the profit made by the capitalist is not a fixed quantity, as is the “ surplus value ” of Marx; z but that the capitalist not only preys on the worker, but also on the necessities of the consumer, his profit rising and falling with the changes of demand and supply. The phrase “ surplus value ” is, as I have said, a convenient one, but it might well be extended to cover the whole difference between the price paid to labor for the com­ modities it produces, and the price obtained for those com­ modities by the capitalist employer of labor. It is in this wide sense that the phrase is used in the following pages, not in the metaphysical sense of Marx. We are now in a position to understand how large for­ tunes are made, and why Capital and Labor are ever at war. Before the commencement of the Industrial Period— which may be fairly dated from the invention of the Spin­ ning Jenny in 1764—it was not possible to accumulate great wealth by the employment of hired labor. By hand­ work, or by the use of the very simple machines available prior to that date, a single operative was not able to pro­ duce sufficient to at once support himself and to largely enrich others. “Masters and men” consequently formed a community of workers, without the sharp divisions that now exist between capitalist and “hands”; and the em­ ployer would have been as much ashamed of not working deftly at his trade, as the son of a Lancashire cotton-lord would be if he were suspected of throwing a shuttle in one of his father’s looms. Under these conditions there was very little surplus-value to be absorbed, and there were consequently no great aggregations of purely indus­ trial classes. The introduction of machinery multiplied enormously the productive power of the operative, while it did not increase the wage he received. A man receiving 3s. for a day of twelve hours, produced, we will say for the sake of illustration, surplus-value to the amount of Is.; after the introduction of machinery he received the same wage and produced an enormously increased surplus-value. c �18 MODERN SOCIALISM. Thus the fortunes of the lucky possessors of the new machinery rose by “ leaps and bounds ”; lads who began at the loom were owners of palaces by middle age; even later on, after the first rush had spent itself, I have myself met Lancashire cotton-lords who were mill-hands in their youth; but most certainly their wealth had only been made by the results of the toil of many becoming concentrated in the hands of one. Another step was taken to increase surplus-value. De­ pending, as it does, on the difference between the value produced by the worker and the amount paid to him as wage, it is obvious that if it be possible to obtain the same amount of produce from purchased labor-force while re­ ducing the purchase-money, the surplus-value will become larger. This step was soon taken, for it was found that many machines could be superintended by a woman quite as effectively as by a man, while female labor-force was purchasable in the market at a lower rate. Hence the large introduction of female “hands” into cotton mills, and as married women were found more “docile” than un­ married—docility increasing with the number of mouths crying for bread at home—there came the double curse on the producers, of male labor being pushed aside by female labor at lower wage, and of untidy home and neglected children, bereft of mother’s care. Yet another step. Child­ labor was cheaper even than woman-labor, and by utilising children, with their pitiful wage, surplus-value might be swollen to yet larger proportions; and as wives had fought with husbands for wage, so children now fought with fathers and mothers, until verily a man’s foes in the labormarket were they of his own household. There was, however, a way of increasing surplus-value apart from the amount of daily wage. The lengthening of the hours of labor has obviously the same result in this respect as the lowering of wage. The very zenith of the production of surplus-value, the most complete exploitation of the producers, the perfect triumph of the capitalist ideal of free contract and of laissez-faire, were reached when little children, at nominal wage, were worked from fifteen to sixteen hours a day, and princely fortunes were built up by human sacrifice to the devil of greed, in fashion that shall never, so help us tongue, and pen, and arm, be again possible in this fair English land. �19 MODERN SOCIALISM. We have at the present time no exact figures available which can enable us to judge of the precise amount of sur­ plus value produced in the various departments of industry. In America, the Bureaus of Labor Statistics help us, and from these we learn some suggestive facts. Average wage paid to worker. 1850 1860 1870 1880 .. £49 12 58 8 62 0 69 4 Extra net value pro■ duced by worker. .. £41 16 65 10 69 0 64 14 (Taken from Laurence Gronlund’s quotation of these re­ turns in his 11 Co-operative Commonwealth”, chap. i. The same figures, as regards total net produce and wages paid, have appeared in a capitalist work.) I trust that we shall soon have in England Labor Bureaus similar to those now existing in the United States and in Canada. Charles Bradlaugh, M.P., has succeeded in passing a resolution in favor of the official publication of similar statistics through the House of Commons, and among the many priceless ser­ vices he has done to the workers, the obtaining of these is by no means the least. Exact knowledge of the present state of things is a necessary precedent of organic change, and the figures supplied by the Labor Bureaus will give us the very weapons that we need. The absolutely antithetical interests of Capital and Labor have necessitated—and must continue to necessitate while the present system lasts—a constant and embittered war. As Capital can only grow by surplus value, it strives to lengthen the working day and to decrease the daily wage. Labor struggles to shorten the hours of toil, and to wring from Capital a larger share of its own product in the form of higher wage. While Capital is the possession of one class, and Labor is the only property of the other, this strife must go on. There can never be industrial peace until this root of war be pulled up, and until Capital, under the control of the community, shall be used for the fertilisation, instead of for the oppression of Labor. Since large fortunes are made by manufacturers, and there is no source of wealth save labor applied to natural objects, it is clear that these fortunes are due to the fact that the manufacturers are able to become the owners of c2 �20 MODERN SOCIALISM. the means of production and of labor-force; even these very means of production, with which the present labor-force works, are but past labor-force crystallised. The wage­ earners must produce sufficient to maintain themselves from day to day and to increase the capital of the wage­ payers, else they will not be employed. Hence arises another evil, the waste of productive force. Men are not employed because their labor-force, embodied in the neces­ saries of life, will spread sufficiency and comfort throughout the community. They are only employed when the articles produced can be sold at a profit by a third party; their products, fairly exchanged for the products of their fellow­ laborers—woven cloth, say, for shoes—would clothe warmly the shivering population ; but above the cloth produced by the one, and the shoes produced by the other, stand the capitalists, who demand profit for themselves ere the cloth shall be allowed to shield the naked back, or the shoes keep off the pavement the toes blued by the frost. If the employment fails, the wage-earner is out of food; but the erstwhile wage-payer has the capital made by the former to live upon, while its maker starves. The capitalist, truly, cannot increase his capital, unless he can buy labor-force ; but he can live on his capital. On the other hand the labor-force must perish unless it can find a purchaser. Lotus put the position plainly, for as the great majority •of people think the arrangement a perfectly fair one, there is no need to cover it over with a veil of fine phrases and roundabout expressions. The owner of raw material and of the means of production faces the unpropertied pro­ letarian, and says to him : “I hold in my hands the means of existence; unless you can obtain the means of existence you will die; but I will only let you have them on one condition. And that is that you shall labor for me as well as for yourself. For each hour that you spend in winning bread, you shall spend another in enriching me. I will give you the right to win a hard existence by your labor, if you will give me the right to take whatever you produce beyond that bare existence. You are perfectly free to choose ; you can either accept my terms, and let me live on your work, or you can refuse my terms, and starve.” Put so baldly, the proposition has a certain brutality in it. Yet when we Socialists argue that a system is bad which concentrates the means of existence in the �MODERN SOCIALISM. 21 hands of a propertied class, and leaves an unpropertied class under the hard condition of winning only the right to exist on such terms as may be granted by the propertied ; when we urge this, we are told that we are incendiaries, thieves, idiots, or, at the mildest, that our hopes of freeing these enslaved ones are dreams, mere castles in the air. We have now reached the foundation of modern So­ cialism. We say: As long as the industrial classes are divided into capitalists and proletarians, so long must con­ tinue the present strife, and the present extremes of wealth and of poverty. It is not a mere modification, but a com­ plete revolution of the industrial system which is required. Capital must be controlled by labor, instead of controlling it. The producers must obtain possession of their own product, and must regulate their own labor. The present system has been weighed in the balances and found wanting, and on the wall of the capitalist banqueting-room is written by the finger of modern thought, dipped in the tears and in the bloody sweat of the over-tasked proletariat: “Man hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it. It is divided among the myriads thou hast wronged.” Competition. Strife is the normal condition of the whole industrial world; Capital strives against Labor, and Labor against Capital, lock-outs and strikes being the pitched battles of the struggle; capitalists strive against capitalists for profits, and the list of the vanquished may be read in the bank­ ruptcy court; workers strive against workers for wage, and injure their own order in the fratricidal combat. Every­ where the same struggle, causing distress, waste, hatred, in every direction ; brothers wronging brothers for a trifling gain ; the strong trampling down the weak in the frantic race for wealth. It is the struggle of the wild beasts of the forest transferred to the city; the horrible struggle for existence, only in its “civilised” form hearts are wrenched and torn instead of limbs. It is constantly urged that competition is advantageous because it develops capacity, and by the struggle it causes it brings about the survival of the fittest. The allegation may be traversed on two grounds : granting that capacity is developed by struggle, it is yet developed at great cost of suffering, and it would be more worthy of reasoning �22 MODERN SOCIALISM. beings to seek to bring about the capacity and to avoid the suffering; to borrow an illustration which suggests itself by the very word “ struggle ”, we know that actual fighting develops muscle, endurance, readiness of resource, quick­ ness of the senses ; none the less do we regard war as a disgrace to a civilised people, and we find that the useful capacities developed by it may be equally well developed in the gymnasium and the playing-field, without the evils accompanying war. So may education take the place of competition in developing useful qualities. Further we deny that “the fittest ” for social progress survive in the competitive struggle. The hardest, the keenest, the most unscrupulous, survive, because such are the fittest for the brutal strife; but the generous, the magnanimous, the just, the tender, the thoughtful, the sympathetic, the very types in whose survival lies the hope of the race, are crushed out. In fact, competition is war, and the very reasons which move us to endeavor to substitute arbitra­ tion for war, should move us to endeavor to substitute co-operation for competition. But it is urged, competition among capitalists is advan­ tageous to the public, and it is shown that where two or three railway lines compete for custom, the public is better served than where there is only one. Granted. There is an old adage which says that “when thieves fall out, honest men come by their own ” ; none the less is it better to stop thieving, than to encourage it under the hope that the thieves may fall out, and some of the stolen goods be recovered. So long as capitalists are permitted to exploit labor, so long is it well that they should compete with each other and so have their profits lessened; but it would be still better to stop the exploitation. Accepting the railway instance, it may be rejoined that the German State railways have comfortable carriages that can hold their own against all comers, and that whereas a railway company, eager for dividends, can only be forced into providing decent carri­ ages by fear of losing customers to a rival, a State railway is managed for the benefit of the public, and improvements are readily introduced. Our post-office system shows how improvements are made without any pressure of competi­ tion ; it has given us cheaper postage, cheaper telegraphing, and is giving us cheaper parcel-delivery ; so that we can send from London a letter to Wick for a penny, a telegram �MODERN SOCIALISM. 23 thither for sixpence, and a parcel for threepence; it is a matter of pride to the Postmaster-General of the day, as a public servant, to improve his department, although he is protected by law (save in the case of parcels, only just undertaken) from competition. Even some economists who approve of competition see the need of limiting its excesses. Mr. R. S. Moffat, for instance, approves of it and thinks that “competition is not only the best, but the only practical means of meet­ ing” “the conflicting natural conditions, between the exigencies of an unknown demand and the fluctuations of an uncertain supply”, “that ever has been, or is ever likely to be, discovered” (“The Economy of Consump­ tion,” p. 114, ed. 1878). Yet Mr. Moffat points out that “ the material cost of competition includes two items: first, superfluous production, or wasted labor; and secondly, illbalanced distribution, or misdirected labor ” (p. 115); and he declares: “Not content with promoting a healthful industry, it enforces tyrannous laws upon labor, and exacts from the free laborer an amount of toil which the hardest taskmaster never succeeded in wringing from the slave. It disturbs by its excesses the balance of industry which its moderation had established. In times of prosperous production it accumulates stocks till they become a nuisance and a source of the most serious embarrassment to pro­ ducers, who do not know where to turn for employment to their productive resources ; and in adverse times it gambles with them, and deprives consumption of their support at the very time for which they were provided” (pp. 116, 117). “ It is upon laborers”, he says, “ not only as individuals, but as a class, that the great burden of over-production falls” (p. 119). I propose to consider, I., the evils of competition; II., the remedy proposed by Socialism. I.—The Evils.—Many of these lie on the surface; others become palpable on very slight investigation. They affect the capitalist manufacturer; the distributor; the con­ sumer ; and the producing classes. An ingenious capitalist sees a want and devises an article to meet it; or he devises an article and sets to work to create the want. He places his article before the public, and a demand for it arises. The article either supplies a real want, or it becomes “the fashion”, and the demand �24 MODERN SOCIALISM. increases and outstrips the supply. Other capitalists rush in to compete for the profit which is to be made; capital flows rapidly into the particular industry concerned ; high wages are offered; operatives flock to it; the supply swellsuntil it overtops the demand. But when this point is touched, the supply is not at once lessened; so long as there is any hope of profit, the capitalists manufacture; wage is lessened to keep up the profit, but this expedient fails; short hours are worked ; at last the market becomes thoroughly overstocked. Then distress follows, and while capital seeks new outlets, the operatives fall into the great army of unemployed; and very often the small capitalists, who went into the rush just when profit was at its highest,, and who have not sufficient capital to hold out against the fall, and to await a rise, meet the fate of earthenware pots, carried down a torrent among iron ones. When this happens, the result of their speculative folly is held up as an example of the “risks run by capitalists ”. Nor is this the only way along which a small capitalist sometimestravels to the bankruptcy court. He often borrows money “to extend his business”, and if the business shrinks instead of expanding, he becomes bankrupt. In the uni­ versal war, the big capitalist fish devour the small fry. And, after all, even the “successful man” of our com­ petitive society is not one whose lot is to be envied by the healthy human being. Not for him the pure joy in natural beauty, in simple amusements, in intellectual triumph, which is the dower of those unstained by thefight for gold. For the successful competitor in com­ mercial war Nature has no laurel-crown. He has bartered himself for a mess of pottage, and his birthright of healthy ' humanity is gone from him for evermore. Well doesMoffat write his fate : “The man who strives to make a fortune contemplates his own ease and enjoyment, not the good of society. He flatters himself that through his superior skill, tact, wisdom, energy, or whatever quality it is he thinks himself twice as strong in as his neighbors, he will be able to do in half a lifetime what it takes them * their whole lives to do. For this he toils and sacrifices hishealth ; for this he rushes upon reckless speculations, and hazards his character and reputation; for this he makes himself indifferent to the rights and callous to the feelings of others; for this he is sordid, mean, and parsimonious. �MODERN SOCIALISM. 25' All these are the means by which, according to different temperaments, the same end is pursued. And what is the end? An illusion, nay, worse, a dishonesty. The man who pursues a fortune is not qualifying himself for any other course of life besides that which he at present lives. He is merely striving to escape from duty into enjoyment. And the fever of the strife frequently becomes his whole existence; so that when he has obtained his object, he finds himself unable to do without the excitement of the struggle ” (p. 220). Surely in judging the merits of a system it is fair to take into account the injuries it works to its most successful products. Its masterpieces are the withered and dehumanised; its victims are the paupers and the suicides. Nor can we leave out of account in studying competitive production the waste of material, and of the time spent in working it up, which result from over-production. The accumulation of stock while the demand is lessening means the making and storing of unneeded wares. Some of these are forced into the market, some lie idly in the great warehouses. The retail dealers find themselves over­ stocked, their shelves laden with unsaleable goods. These fade, and spoil, and rust away—so much good material wasted, so much human labor spent for nought, monu­ ments of a senseless system, of the barbarous, uncalcu­ lating blindness of our productive force. More heavily yet than on the capitalist does competition press on the distributor. A dozen traders compete for the custom which one could satisfactorily supply. The com­ petition for shops in a thickly populated neighborhood drives up the rent, and so adds to the retailer’s burden. He is compelled to spend large sums in advertising, striving by brilliancy of color or eccentricity of design to impress himself on the public mind. An army of commercial travellers sweeps over the country, each man with his hand against his neighbor in the same trade, pushing, haggling, puffing his own, depreciating his rival’s wares. These agents push their goods on the retailer, often when no real demand for them is coming from the public, and then the retailer puffs them, to create a demand on his supply. Nor must we omit from notice the enormous waste of productive energy in this army of canvassers, advertisers, bill-posters, multiplied middlemen of every kind. The distributive work done by these is absurdly out �:26 MODERN SOCIALISM. of proportion to their number. We see several carriers’ carts half-filled, instead of half the number filled; each carrier has to deliver goods over the whole of a wide area, so that a man may have to drive five miles to deliver a single parcel at a house a stone’s throw from a rival office. Yet each man must receive his full day’s wage, and must be paid for the hours he is compelled to waste, as well as for those he spends in useful work. It is the ■ same thing in every business. Three or four carts of each trade daily down each road, covering the same ground, supplying each one house here and one there, losing time, wearing out horses and traps, a foolish shameful waste. And all these unnecessary distributors are consumers when they might be producers, and are actually making unneces­ sary work for others as well as for themselves. Short-sighted people ask: Would you add all these to the crowds of half-starving unemployed now competing for work? No, we answer. We would not add them to the ^employed; it is only in a system of complete com­ petitive anarchy that there could be unemployed labor on the one hand, and people clamoring for the necessaries of life on the other. We have already seen that under the present system men are only employed where some profit can be made out of them by the person who hires them. Under a saner system there would be none unem­ ployed while the food and clothing supply was insufficient, and the turning of non-productive consumers into produc­ tive ones would only mean shorter hours of labor, since the labor necessary to supply the consumption of the population would be divided among a larger number than before. If wealth be the result of labor applied to raw material, poverty may come from the pressure of popula­ tion on the raw material which limits the means of sub­ sistence, but never from the greater part of the population working to produce wealth on raw material sufficient for their support. On the consumer falls much of the needless additional expense of advertisements, canvassers, and the rest. The flaming advertisements we see on the walls we pay for in the price of the puffed articles we buy. The trader feels their burden, and tries to recoup himself by adding u fraction of it to the price of the goods he sells. If he is forced to lower his nominal prices in consequence of the �MODERN SOCIADISM. 27 pressure of competition with his rivals, yet by adulteration he can really raise, while he seems to lower, them. The nominal width of fabrics does not correspond with the real; woollen goods are sold of which the warp is cotton ; tobacco is sold damped unfairly to increase its weight; sand is mixed with sugar; lard or dripping with butter ; chicory with coffee; sloe-leaves with tea; turnip with orange in marmalade ; foreign meat is offered as home­ grown ; damaged flesh is chopped up for sausages; until, at last, as Moffat caustically remarks: “It is not rogues and vagabonds alone who have recourse in trade to ex­ pedients which could not be justified by a strict theoretical morality. When this incline is entered upon, there is no resting upon it. Morality itself becomes subject to com­ petition ; and the conventional standard of trade morality gets lower and lower, until the things done by respectable people can hardly be distinguished from those done by people who are not respectable, except by the respectability of the people who do them” (p. 154). And in all this adulteration the consumer suffers in health, comfort, and temper. Not only does he pay more than he should for what he buys, but he buys a good deal more than he pays for. Heaviest of all is the burden on the operative classes, and they suffer in a double character, both as consumers and producers. As consumers, they share the general in­ jury ; as producers, their case is yet more serious. If they are in work, their wages are driven down by the competi­ tion for employment; they are the first to feel a lessening demand in lengthened hours, in lower wage; as the de­ pression goes on, they are thrown out of work; illness not ■only incapacitates them for the time, but their place is filled up, while they lie helpless, by the eager waiters for hire ; when they combine to strike for fairer treatment, the fringe of unemployed labor around is used against them by the employers ; the lowest depth is reached by the crowd who at the dockyard gates at the East of London literally fight for a place in which the foreman’s eye may fall on them, and out of the struggling hundreds units are taken on for the day at miserable wage for heavy exhausting work, to be turned out at night to undergo a similar struggle next morning. The only classes who gain by competition are the big �28 MODERN SOCIALISM. capitalists and the landlords. The big capitalists engaged in manufacture gain by the crushing out of their smaller rivals, and by their ability to hold over stocks produced when wages are low until prices are high. Capitalists who only lend out money on usury, and live on the interest thereby obtained, flourish when the demand for money is brisk. Most of all do landlords, who live on rent, profit by the struggle. In a growing neighborhood rents of commercial premises rise rapidly, and the shopkeeper finds himself heavily taxed by the landlord, who imposes on him practically a graduated income-tax for his own advantage. Thus the chief gainers by competition are the idlers who are permitted to hold the nation’s soil, and who live in luxury on the toilers, laughing to see how the fratricidal struggles of those who labor turn to the advantage of those who lounge. And so the strain of living constantly increases for the one class, while the luxury and ostenta­ tion of those who levy tax on toil become ever greater, and more aggressive by the contrast. II. The Remedy.—These evils can be radically cured only in one way; it is by the substitution of co-operation for competition, of organisation for anarchy in industry. The relation of employer and employed must disappear, and a brotherhood of workers, associated for facilitation of production for use, must replace the band of servants toiling for the enrichment of a master by profit. The full details of socialised industry cannot be drawn at length ; but it is not difficult to see that the already existent co­ operative societies offer a suggestive model, and the trades unions a sufficiently competent means for change. Pro­ bably each industry in each district will organise itself, and own, for use, all its means of production; thus the miners of Durham, for instance, organised in their lodges, with their central executive, would form the mining trade society of that district; all the mines of that district would be under their control, and they would elect their officers of all grades. So with all mining districts through­ out the land. These separate trade societies would be federated, and a General Board elected by all. The elements of such a self-organised industry exist at the present time, and the more closely the miners can band themselves into district unions, and the unions into a national federation, the more prepared will they be to play �.MODERN SOCIALISM. 29 their part in the great industrial revolution. It is probable that something of the nature of the royalties now paid to the individual mine-owners will be paid into the National Exchequer, in exchange for the right to work the national soil. A similar organisation would be needed for each productive industry, and probably representatives of each separate industry would form a central Industrial Board. But, I repeat, these details cannot now be laid down autho­ ritatively, any more than the details of the present in­ dustrial competitive system could have been laid down before the Industrial Period. On these details Socialists would inevitably differ considerably at the present time, and no special scheme can be fairly stamped as “ Socialist ” to the exclusion of the rest. But on this main principle all Socialists are agreed; that the only rightful holders of capital are industrial groups, or one great industrial group —the State, i.e., the organised community; that while individuals may hold private property for use, none should hold capital—that is wealth employed in production—for individual profit; that while each may have property to consume and to enjoy, none should be allowed to use property to enslave his neighbor, to force another to work for his advantage. The revolution in distribution will be as great as that in production, and here again co-operation must take the place of competition. We already see the beginnings of a distributive change in the establishment of huge stores for the supply of all the necessaries of life, and the way in which these are crushing out the smaller retail shops. Housewives find it more convenient to go to the single building, than to trudge wearily from shop to shop. Goods bought in very large quantities can be sold more cheaply than if bought in small, and economy, as well as con­ venience, attract the purchaser to the store. At present these stores are founded by capitalists and compete for custom, but they are forerunners of a rational distributive system. The very enmity they create in the minds of the small traders they ruin is paving the way for the com­ munity to take them over for the general advantage. Under Socialism all goods manufactured by the producers would be distributed to the central store of each district; from this central store they would be distributed to the retail stores. Anyone who thinks such distribution im- �30 MODERN SOCIALISM. possible had better study the postal system now existing ; we do not have post-offices jostling each other as dobaker’s and butcher’s shops: there are sufficient of them for the requirements of the district, and no more. The letters for a town are delivered at the General Post Office; they are sorted out and delivered at the subordinate offices ; the distribution of the correspondence of millions is carried on by a Government Department, quietly, effectively, without waste of labor, with celerity and economy. But then in -the Post Office co-operation has replaced com­ petition, organisation has replaced anarchy. Such a system, one hundred years ago, would have been pronounced impossible, as the Conservative minds of to-day pronounce impossible its extension to anything except letters and telegrams and parcels. I look for the time when the success of the Post Office will be repeated—and improved —in every department of distribution. Capital. We have already seen that Capital is accumulated by withholding from the producer a large part of the value he produces, and we have now to look more closely into the growth of Capital and the uses to which it is put. A glance over the historical Past, as well as the study of the Present, inform us that Capital has always been—as indeed it always must be—obtained from unpaid labor, or, if the phrase be preferred, by the partial confiscation of the results of labor. In communities the economic basis of which was slave-labor, this fact was obvious; the owner confiscated the whole products of his slaves’ toil, and he became a capitalist by this process of continued confiscation ; while the slave, fed, clothed, and housed out of the fruit of his own labor by his master, never owned anything as of right, nor had any property in that which he created. As civilisation advanced, serf-labor replaced slave-labor; here also the confiscation of the results of labor was obvious. The serf was bound to give so many days of work to his lord without payment; this service rendered, the remainder of his time was his own, to produce for his own subsist­ ence ; but the lord’s capital increased by the confiscation of the results of the serf’s labor during the days whereon he worked for his lord. In modern times “free labor” has replaced serf-labor, but in the present industrial system, �MODERN SOCIALISM. 31 as truly as in slave and in serf communities, Capital resultsfrom unpaid labor, though now from the unpaid labor of the wage-earner. We may search the whole world over, and we shall find no source of wealth save labor applied to natural agents. Wealth is never rained down from heaven, nor is it ever a spontaneous growth; unless indeed wild fruits taken for food be counted wealth, and even to these must human labor be applied in the form of picking ere they can be used. It is the result of huipan labor; and if one man has more than he has produced, it neces­ sarily follows that another man has less than he has pro­ duced. The gain of one must be the loss of another. There are but sixteen court cards in the fifty-two, and if by in­ genious shuffling, packing, and dealing, all the court cards fall to one player, only the lower cards can remain for the others. Separating “Capital” from “Wealth” we may conve­ niently define it as “wealth devoted to purposes of profit”, and as “wealth is the result of labor applied to raw ma­ terial”, Capital becomes the result of labor devoted to purposes of profit. John Stuart Mill says the “ accumu­ lated stock of the produce of labor is termed Capital ”. Macleod: “ Capital is any Economic Quantity used for the purpose of Profit ”. Senior: “Economists are agreed that whatever gives a profit is properly called Capital ”. Some­ thing more, however, than the activity of labor is implied in the existence of Capital. There must have been saving, as well as production. Hence Marshall speaks of Capital as “the result of labor and abstinence”; Mill of Capital as “ the result of saving ” ; and so on. It is obvious that if the products of labor were consumed as fast as they were made, Capital could not exist. We have, therefore, reached this certainty when we contemplate Capital; some­ one has worked, and has not consumed all that he has produced. Under these circumstances, we should expect to find Capital in the hands of industrious and abstinent pro­ ducers. But as Mill very justly points out: “In a rude and violent state of society it continually happens that the person who has Capital is not the very person who has saved it, but some one who, being stronger, or belonging to a more powerful community, has possessed himself of it by plunder. And even in a state of things in which �32 MODERN SOCIALISM. property was protected, the increase of Capital has usually been, for a long time, mainly derived from privations which, though essentially the same with saving, are not generally called by that name, because not voluntary. The actual producers have been slaves, compelled to produce as much as force could extort from them, and to consume as little as the self-interest or the usually very slender humanity of their task-masters would permit.” How many of our great capitalists have produced and saved until they accumulated the fortunes they possess ? These fortunes are greater than any human being could save out of his makings, even if he lived most abstemiously, instead of with the luxury and ostentation of a Rothschild or a Vanderbilt. But if they have not made and saved, how come they to possess ? Mill gives the answer, though he did not mean it to be applied to modern industrialism. “Ina rude and violent state of society ” Capital is not in the hands of the producer and saver, but in the hands of those who possess themselves “of it by plunder”—legal­ ised plunder, in our modern days. The “saving” is not voluntary; it is “derived from privations ” ; the “actual producers ” are wage-earners, who are “ compelled to pro­ duce as much as” pressure can extort from them, and to “consume as little” in the form of wage as they can be beaten down to by the competition of the labor-market. These men “ have labored, and” others “have entered into their labors ”. A very brief comparison of those who produce and save, and those who possess themselves of the results of labor and abstinence, will suffice to show the inequality which characterises the present system. The worker lives hardly and dies poor, bequeathing to his children the same neces­ sity of toil: I do not forget that the more fortunate workers have shares in Building Societies, a few pounds in the Savings Bank, and even an interest in a Burial Club, so that the parish may not have the expense of burying them ; but I say that these poor successes—vast indeed in the aggregate, but paltry when the share of the individual is looked at—bear no kind of reasonable proportion to the wealth created by the worker during his life-time. On the other hand the capitalist either starts with inherited wealth, grows richer, and bequeaths the increased wealth to his children; or he begins poor, saves a little, then �33 MODERN SOCIALISM. makes others work for him, grows rich, and bequeaths his wealth. In the second generation, the capitalist can simply invest his wealth and live on the interest; and since all in­ terest must be paid out of the results of labor, the workers not only lose a large proportion of their produce, but this very confiscated produce is made into a future burden for them, and while the fathers build up the capitalist, the children must toil to maintain his children in idleness. Capital may also be accumulated by the ownership of raw material, since no wealth can be produced until labor can get at this. The question of rent will be considered under the head of Land; here we are only concerned with the fact that wealth appropriated in this way is investible, and on this also interest can be obtained. Now the enormous burden placed on labor by the invest­ ment of money at interest, is not appreciated as it ought to be. The interest on the National Debt, including terminable annuities, amounted in 1884-5 to £28,883,672 12s.; how much is paid in dividends on railway, tram-car, and companies’ shares, it would be difficult to discover. Mr. Giffen, in his “ Progress of the Working Classes ”, esti­ mates that the capitalist classes receive from capital—ex­ cluding “wages of superintendence” and salaries—some £400,000,000 a year. In 1881, the income-tax returns quoted by Mr. Giffen show that the income from capital was no less than £407,000,000, and in estimating those in. Schedules B and D (Part I.) Mr. Giffen certainly takes care to make the gains on “idle capital” as small as he can. Mr. Giffen takes the aggregate income of the whole nation at about £1,200,000,000, so that according to his own figures Capital takes more than a third part of the national income. I should be prepared to contend that the burden on the producers is heavier than he makes out, but even taking his own calculations the result is bad enough. For all this money which goes to capitalists is money not earned by the receivers—mark that all which is in any sense earned, as wages of superintendence, etc., is excluded—and by . all this is lessened the share of the produce of labor which goes to labor. We have already dealt with the way in which the worker suffers injustice when capital is invested in machinery owned by private individuals; we have now to consider the portion of it used as loans, cases in which the capitalist D �34 MODERN SOCIALISM. takes no part in the management of any industrial con­ cern, but merely lends his money at usury, living on the interest he receives. There is so much confusion of thought on this subject, so much idea that a man has “a right” to invest money at interest, that it is necessary to try to get at the “bed-rock” of the question. Take the case of a man who earns 30s. in a week; suppose he spends 20s. and saves 10s. For the 20s. he spends he receives their equivalent in commodities, and these he consumes; he has had his “money’s worth”, and he is content, and if he requires more commodities he knows he must labor again to earn their equivalent in money. The 10s. he has saved, however, are to have a different fate; they represent, also, so much possibility of possession of their equivalent in commodities which he could consume; but he desires to defer this consumption to a future day, to defer it, perhaps, until he is too old to give labor in exchange for his needs. One might suppose that the equivalent of commodities for the 10s. would be as satisfactory as the equivalent of com­ modities for the 20s. But it is not so. He desires to in­ vest his 10s. at interest; let us suppose he invests it at 5 per cent.; at the end of twenty years he will have received back his 10s. by instalments of 6d. a year, and will have exchanged it for 10s. worth of commodities; yet at the end of the twenty years he expects to receive back in addition his full 10s.; to have spent it all, and yet to find it un­ diminished ; so that for his 10s. saved he expects to receive 20s. worth of commodities in twenty years, to have his labor paid for twice over. In the case of money only is it possible to eat your cake and have it, and after you have eaten it to pass it on as large as ever to your descendants, so that they may eat it and yet find it, like the widow’s cruse, ever miraculously renewed. Those who defend usury do so generally on its supposed collateral advantages, rather than on its central theory. It is argued that “ if a man gets no interest on his savings, he has no incitement to work ”. To this it may be answered: (a) That there is clearly no incitement to work on the part of those who live on interest, since their money comes tumbling in whether they work or idle ; it is the labor of others on which the interest-receiver lives. (J) That the incitement to work would be greater if the reward of work were not diminished by the imposition on it of a tax for the benefit �MODERN SOCIALISM. 35 of the idle ; surely the abstraction of £400,000,000 annually for interest can hardly act as an incitement to those whose Habor returns are diminished to that extent. (<?) That the real incitement to work is the desire to possess the result of labor, and that the more completely that desire is satis­ fied the greater will the incitement become. Would the incitement to tramcar employees be lessened, if the necessity of paying 10 per cent, on shareholders’ capital no longer kept down their wages ? But, in truth, this argument as to incitement to workers is either ignorant, or disingenuous. 'The mainspring of the worker’s toil is, as a matter of fact, •compulsion, not the incitement of hope of reward. Had he control over the product of his own labor, then thp desire to obtain more might incite him to work harder, as, indeed, has been found to be the case with piece-work, and in co-operative undertakings: with his fixed wage it is to him a matter of indifference how much or how little he produces. The desire for interest is an incitement to the capitalist to press his wage-toilers to work harder, so that ■after he has satisfied his own power of consumption he may lay by all the surplus value he can squeeze out of them, and increase the capital he has out at interest. The higher the interest obtainable, the greater the compulsion to work put upon the producers. But this compulsion is ■clearly an evil, not a good, and in the case of the tramcar employees just cited, it is compulsion which forces them to accept the long hours of labor, and the compulsion is exer­ cised in order to obtain interest for the shareholders. 11 The incitement to thrift will disappear.” But (a) the interest obtainable by “thrift” is too small to serve as an incitement, for the savings of the industrious poor are not sufficient to give interest enough to subsiston. The Savings Banks are resorted to as a convenient place wherein to put money saved for future use; it is the safe keeping of the money “for a rainy day ”, not the trifling interest, which is the attraction to the anxious poor. The small amount per­ mitted to an individual and the low interest are sufficient proofs of this assertion; no one must put in more than £30 in a year, the interest is only 2-| per cent., and this is not paid yearly, but is added to the principal. And this future necessity is the real incitement to thrift. A man earns, say, sufficient this week to support himself for a fortnight; having satisfied his needs, he does not want to satisfy them d 2 �36 MODERN SOCIALISM. twice over ; he knows that some years hence his power of work will have disappeared, while his necessity of consump­ tion will remain, and he defers his consumption of half theresults of his labor till that time. Why should he look for added power of consumption as a reward for deferring his consumption for his own convenience? Without in­ terest, thoughtful people would save, for the sake of com­ fort in their old age. It may however be conceded that the incitement to annex the results of the thrift of others—the only way in which big fortunes can be made—will disappear with the disappearance of interest, and the pos­ sibility of living idly by taxing the labor of others. • “ It will not be possible to get money for railroads, tramcars, etc., if interest on share capital disappearsi But the indes­ tructible reason for making railroads, tramways, etc., is theneed for the conveniences they afford. And Socialism would place the making and carrying on of all means of transit in the hands of local bodies, municipalities, and soforth, who would raise the requisite funds from the com­ munity which is to enjoy the increased facilities. Thesefunds would be used in remuneration of the labor expended on them, and none would have a right to levy a perpetual tax on the public on the pretence of having lent the money originally employed in the construction. Now a man claims the right to tax all future labors and all future consumers for the benefit of his posterity, as a reward for having worked and saved, or mostly as a reward for having transferred into his own pockets the results of his neighbor’s toil. It is time that the immorality of this claim should be pointed out, and that people should be told that while they may rightly save and live on their savings, they ought not to use their savings for the enslavement and the taxing of other people. An effective step towards the abolition of interest might be taken by the closing of the sources of idle investment, the taking over by local bodies of the local means of transit, the gas and water supply, etc., while the central authority takes over the railways. The question of compensation would be solved with the least amount of injustice to exploiters and ex­ ploited by paying over a yearly dividend to shareholders until the dividends amounted to a sum equal to the nominal value of the shares held; thus a £100 share would be extinguished by the payment of a sum of £ 10 annually for �MODERN SOCIALISM. 37 ten years, leaving the shareholder richer than he was originally by all the interest received during the past, but terminating his right to tax within a brief period. There is, however, one argument in favor of interest which brings conviction to many minds; an individual wants to perform a piece of productive work, but has no •capital and is unable to do it; he borrows the capital and performs the work; since the man who lent the capital has facilitated the doing of the work, ought he not to share in the product, which would have had no existence but for his capital ? Now it might be answered to this that if his capital is returned to him in full he has lost nothing by the transaction, but has, on the contrary, gained the ad­ vantage of having his money taken care of without trouble to himself, and returned to him uninjured at the time that he requires it. But the real answer is that interest is in­ evitable so long as Capital remains in private hands, so long as individuals are permitted to annex the results of the unpaid labor of others, and so manufacture a lien on all future industry. Interest will only be abolished when the results of the past unpaid labor of many are held by the many to facilitate the future labor of many. Now, industry can only be carried on with the permission and the assistance of those whose stores of wealth have been piled up for them by thousands of patient toilers; and that permission and assistance can only be gained by taxing labor for the enrichment of the lender. In the future those vast stores will be used to carry on production, and while labor will constantly replace the capital it uses in produc­ tion, it will not also be taxed for the benefit of individuals. Interest and private property in the means of production must stand and fall together. At the present time no law against usury could be passed, and even were the passing of such a law possible it would be a dead letter, so thoroughly is the present system built on the paying of interest. All Socialists can do for the moment is to expose the fundamental dishonesty and injustice of usury, and so pave the way for a better state of things. Apart from the abuse of Capital here indicated Capital has a function which, of course, no Socialist ignores. Capital is necessary for all forms of industry, and its function is: to save labor, as by machinery; to facilitate it, by the in­ troduction of improvements therein ; to support it while it �38 MODERN SOCIALISM. is employed in production, and until its products are ex­ changed. The true use of the savings of past labor is ta lighten future labor, to fertilise production. But in order that it may be thus used, it must be in the hands of the community instead of in the hands of individuals. Beingas it is, and must be, the result of unpaid labor, it should pass to the community to be used for the common good, instead of to individuals to enrich them to the common loss. Land. It is hardly necessary to argue, at this time of day, that Land, i.e., natural agents, ought not to be the private pro­ perty of individuals. No absolute property in land is in­ deed recognised by the laws of this realm, but the proposi­ tion that land ought not to be private property goes, of course, much further than this legal doctrine. It declares that the soil on whieh a nation lives ought to belong tothe nation; that those who cultivate it, or who mine in it, and who for practical purposes must have for the time the exclusive usufruct of portions of it, should pay into the national exchequer a duly-assessed sum, thus rendering an equivalent for the privilege they enjoy, and making the whole community sharers in the benefits derived from natural agents. The present system of permitting private ownership of land has led to three great and increasing evils ; the esta­ blishment of an idle class, which grows richer by increas­ ingly taxing the industrious; the divorce of the really agricultural class from the soil; the exodus from the country districts into the towns. Private ownership of natural agents must inevitably re­ sult in the first of these three evils. These natural agents are the basis of wealth; the very subsistence of the nation depends on their utilisation; yet a comparatively small class is permitted to claim them as private property, and to appro­ priate the rent to its private use. Hence, one of the first charges on the results of labor is rent, and rent, be it noted, not to the community, but to an individual who has acquired the legal right to stand between labor and land. Now just as wage is determined practically by the standard of living, so is rent determined by the same thing. The landlord exacts as rent the value of the produce minus the �MODERN SOCIALISM. 39 subsistence of the tenant, and in many cases, if the farmer’s receipts sink and there is no corresponding lowering of rent, the farmer cannot even subsist, and becomes bank­ rupt. Hence, if a farmer improves the land and so obtains from it larger returns, the landlord steps in and raises his rent, claiming ever as his, produce minus subsistence, and confiscating for his own advantage the results of the labor and invested capital of the farmer. Thus also with the spread of commercial prosperity comes a rise in the tax levied by the landlords; as towns grow larger the land around them becomes more valuable, and thus the Stanleys grow wealthy by the growth of Liverpool, and the Gros­ venors and Russells by that of London : competition drives up rents, and landlords may live in Italy or Turkey, and become ever wealthier by the growth of English trade, and the toil of English laborers. Moffat points out (“ Economy of Consumption,” p. 142) that part of the retailer’s profit, and possibly the larger part of it “ is purely local, and which he could not carry away with him. It distinguishes the site of his business, and resolves itself into rent. If the retailer owns his own premises, he may be content with this part of his profits, and handing the business to another become a landlord. If they are owned by another, the owner, unless the retailer is able to find other suitable premises within a moderate distance, will be able to levy all the extra profit from him in the shape of rent. Hence the rapid rise of rents in the central localities of large towns.” Socialists are accused of desiring to confiscate property but the regular and uncensured confiscation of the property of busy people by idlers, the bloodsucking of the landlord leeches, pass unnoticed year by year, and Society honors the confiscators. The expropriation of small cultivators has been going on for the last 400 years, partly by big landlords buying up small ones, and partly by their thefts of common land. The story of Naboth’s vineyard has been repeated in hundreds of country districts. The exorbitant rents demanded by landlords, with the pressure of Ameri­ can competition aided by capitalists on this side, have ruined the farming class, while the absorption of small holdings has turned into day-laborers at miserable wage the class that formerly were independent tillers of the soil. Attracted by the higher wage ruling in manufacturing towns this dislanded class has flocked into them, has �40 MODERN SOCIALISM. crowded into unsuitable houses, increased the slums of our great cities, and, under most unwholesome conditions has multiplied with terrible rapidity. This exodus has been further quickened by the letting of formerly arable land for sheep-pasture, and the consequent forced migration of the no longer needed tillers. And thus have come about the under-population of the agricultural districts, and the over-crowding of cities : too few engaged in agricultural, and too many competing for industrial, employment; until we find our own land undercultivated, and even in some districts going out of cultivation, while food is being im­ ported to an alarming extent, and the unemployed are becoming a menace to public tranquillity. The effect on England of revolution abroad is apt to be overlooked in studying our own labor difficulties. A considerable portion of our imports represents rent and interest from estates abroad and foreign investments. This portion would sud­ denly stop as regards any country in which a revolution occurred, and foreign workmen were, in consequence, no longer subjected to exploitation for the benefit of English capitalists. Now this likelihood of foreign revolution is yearly increasing, and Europe is becoming more and more like a boiler with armed forces sitting on the safety valve. The first attempt to move in the right direction is the Land Cultivation Bill introduced into the House of Com­ mons by Charles Bradlaugh. This proposes to expropriate landlords who hold cultivable land waste; to give them, as compensation, payment for twenty-five years equal in amount to the annual value of the produce obtained from the confiscated land—so that if there is no produce there will be no payment; to vest the land in the State, and to let it, not sell it, to cultivators. Thus, if the Bill passed, a large area of land would be nationalised early in next year. Such an Act, followed up by others taking over all land let on building leases as they run out—probably pay­ ing to the present landlords, for life, the original ground­ rents ; making the Land Tax an adequate rent paid to the State; taking back without compensation all common lands that have been stolen; breaking up the big estates by crush­ ing taxation; steps like these, if taken with sufficient rapidity, may effect a complete Land Revolution without violence, and establish Socialism so far as the ownership of natural agents is concerned. �MODERN SOCIALISM. 41 It is of vital importance to progress in a Socialist direc­ tion that an uncompromising resistance should be offered to all schemes for the creation of new proprietors of the soil. Peasant cultivators, paying rent to the State, are good. Peasant proprietors are a mere bulwark, raised by landlords to guard their own big estates, and will delay the realisation of the true theory that the State should be the only landowner. It is also important that Socialists should popularise the idea of communal, or co-operative, farming. There can be no doubt that cereal crops can be raised most economically on large holdings, and such holdings should be rented from the body or bodies representing the com­ munity by groups of cultivators, so that both large and small farms should be found in agricultural districts. But it must be distinctly stated that the Socialisation of Land without the Socialisation of Capital will not solve the social problem. No replanting of the people in the soil, no im­ proved balance of agricultural and industrial production, will by themselves free the wage-slaves of our towns. Means of production, as well as natural agents, must come under the control of the community, before the triumph of Socialism can be complete. The tendency of Radicals to aim only at the nationalisation of land has an effect, how­ ever, which will ultimately prove of service. It irritates the landlord class, and the landlords devote themselves to proving that there is no essential difference between pro­ perty in Land and property in Capital. Just as they helped to pass the Factory Acts to restrain capitalists as a retort for the capitalist agitation against the Corn Laws, so they will be likely to help in nationalising Capital in revenge for the nationalisation of Land. Education. For the successful maintenance of a Socialist State a wide and thorough system of national education is an absolute necessity. A governed people may afford to be ignorant; a self-ruling community must be instructed, or it must perish. And the education contemplated by Socialism is a very different thing from the paltry modicum of know­ ledge deemed sufficient for the “masses” to-day. Under our present system education is a matter of class, and it is a misnomer to call it “national” ; it is partly supported by the parents of the children who attend the Board �42 MODERN SOCIALISM. Schools, and partly by the rates and taxes; it is limited to the mere elements of learning; the one object of the teachers is to cram the children so that they may pass stated examinations, and thus obtain a Government grant per head. Under Socialism the whole system will be revolutionised, as the one aim then will be to educate in such a way as will ensure the greatest possible healthy development of the young, with a view to their future position as members of a free community. The foundations of complete social equality will be laid in the school. All the children will be educated in the communal schools, the only distinction being that of age. Boys and girls will not be separated as they are now, but a common education will prepare for common work. Every child will be led through a course, which will em­ brace a thorough training in the elements of the various sciences, so that in after life he may feel an intelligent interest in each, and if his taste so lead him acquire later a fuller knowledge of any special branches. He—and “ he ” here includes “ she ”—will be instructed also in the elements of art, so that the sense of beauty may be developed and educated, and the refining influence of instructed taste may enrich both mind and. manners. .A knowledge of history, of literature, and of languages will widen sympathy and destroy narrowness and national prejudices. Nor will physical training be forgotten; gymnastics, dancing, riding, athletic games, will educate the senses and the limbs, and give vigor, quickness, dexterity, and robustness to the frame. To this will be superadded technical training, for these educated, cultured, graceful lads and lasses are to be workers, every one of them. The foundations of this technical training will be the same for all; all will learn to cook and scrub, to dig and sew, and to render quick assistance in accidents; it is probable also that the light portions of household duties will form part of the training of every child. But as the child grows into the youth, natural capacities will suggest the special training which should be given, so. as to secure for the community the full advantages which might accrue from the varied abilities of its members. No genius then will be dwarfed by early neglect, no rare ability then perish for lack of culture. Individuality will then at last find full expression, and none will need to �MODERN SOCIALISM. 43- trample on his brother in order to secure full scope for his own development. It is probable that each will learn more than a single trade—an easy task when brain acute­ ness and manual dexterity have been cultured—so as topromote adaptability in the future industrial life. Now to many, I fear to most, of my readers, this sketch of what education will be in a Socialist community will appear a mere Utopian dream. Yet is it not worth while for such to ask themselves: Why should not such an education be the natural lot of every child in a wellordered community ? Is there anything in it superfluous for the thorough development of the faculties of a human being? And if it be admitted that boys and girls thuseducated would form nobler, completer, more many-sided human beings than are the men and women of to-day, is it not a rational thing to set up as an object to beworked for the realisation of an idea which would proveof incalculable benefit to the community ? It is hardly necessary to add that education, in a Socialist State, would be “free ”—i.e., supported at the public cost, and compulsory. Free, because the education of the young is of vital importance to the community; because classdistinctions can only be effaced by the training of children in common schools; because education is too important a matter to be left to the whims of individuals, and if it be removed from the parent’s direction and supervision it is not just to compel him to pay for it. Compulsory, because the State cannot afford to leave its future citizens ignorant and helpless, and it is bound to protect its weak members against injustice and neglect. Two objections are likely to be raised: the question of cost, and the question of unfitting persons for “the dirty work of the world, which someone must do ”. As to cost. It must not be forgotten that this education is proposed for a Socialist community. In such a Statethere would be no idle adult class to be supported, but all would be workers, so that the wealth, produced would be much greater than at the present time. Now according to the figures of anti-Socialist Mr. Giffen, the aggregate income of the people is at present about £1,200,000,000 ; of this the workers are assigned by him £620,000,000; deduct another £100,000,000 for return from investments abroad; this leaves £480,000,000 absorbed by the non­ �44 MODERN SOCIALISM. producing class. (It must be remembered, further, that a large number of the “workers” are unnecessary distribu­ tors, whose powers could be utilised to much better purpose than is done to-day.) The wealth producers have to bear the Church on their shoulders, and provide it with an income variously stated at from £6,000,000 to £10,000,000 a year. They have to bear the “landed interest”, with its appropriation in rents, royalties, etc., of something like £200,000,000. They have to bear the ultimate weight of im­ perial and local taxation, estimated at about £120,000,000 for the present year. All these charges, by whomsoever nominally paid, have to come out of the wealth produced by the workers. Is it then to be pretended that when the idle class has disappeared there will not be wealth enough produced for the education of the children, or that their ■education will be as heavy a burden as the drones are to­ day ? Nor must it be forgotten that there are millions of acres of land that would produce wealth if labor were sent to them, and that plenty of our idlers will there find produc­ tive work which will enormously increase the national wealth. Nor also that the waste which results from luxurious idle living will be of the past, and that a simpler, manlier rate of expenditure will have replaced the gluttony and intem­ perance now prevalent in the “ higher circles of society ”. But it will indeed be of vital importance that the propor­ tion of workers to non-workers shall be considered, and that there shall not be in a Socialist community the over­ large families which are a characteristic of the present system. Families of ten or a dozen children belong to the capitalist system, which requires for its success a numerous and struggling proletariat, propagating with extreme rapidity, so as to keep up a plentiful supply of men, women, and children for the labor-market, as well as a supply of men for the army to be food for cannon, and women for the streets to be food for lust. Under a Socialist regime, the community will have something to ■say as to the numbers of the new members that are to be introduced into it, and for many years supported by it; and it will prefer a reasonable number of healthy, welleducated children, to a yearly huge increase which would overburden its industry. As to unfitting persons for work. So long as manual work is regarded as degrading, education, by increasing sensi­ �MODERN SOCIALISM. 45 tiveness to public opinion, tends to make people shrink from it, at least if their sensitiveness is greater than their intelligence. But even now an educated person of strong will and clear judgment, who knows that all useful work is worthy of respect, finds that his education fits him to­ perform work more quickly and more intelligently than is possible to an ignorant person ; and respecting himself in its thorough accomplishment he is conscious of no degra­ dation. Weak persons, compelled to labor for their bread, and aware that manual work is considered to place the worker in a subordinate social class, feel ashamed of the inferior position assigned to them by public opinion; and knowing by experience that they will be snubbed if they treat their “ superiors” as equals, they live down to their social rank, and long to raise their children into a class above their own. One consequence of the absurd artificial disadvantage attached to manual work, is that the children of the more successful workers crowd the inferior profes­ sional occupations, and a man prefers to be a clerk or a curate on £90 a year to being an artisan on £150. But in the Socialist State only idleness will be despised, and all useful work will be honored. There is nothing more intrinsically degrading in driving a plough than in driving a pen, although the ploughman is now relegated to the kitchen while the clerk is received in the drawing-room. The distinction is primarily a purely artificial one, but it is made real by educating the one tvpe while the other is left ignorant, and by teaching the one to look on his work as work “fit for a gentleman”, while the other is taught that his work is held in low social esteem. Each reflects the surrounding public opinion, and accepts the position assigned by it. In Socialism, both will be educated together as children; both will be taught to look on. all work as equally honorable, if useful to the community; both will be cultured “ gentlemen ”, following each his natural bent; the ploughman will be as used to his pen as the clerk; the clerk as ready to do heavy work as the ploughman; and as public opinion will regard them as equals and will hold them in equal honor, neither will feel any sense of superiority or inferiority, but they will meet on common ground as men, as members of a social unity. As to the physically unpleasant work—such as dealing with sewers, dung-heaps, etc.—much of that will probably �46 MODERN SOCIALISM. be done by machinery, when there is no helpless class on whose shoulders it may be bound. Such as cannot be ■done by machinery, will probably be divided among a large number, each taking a small share thereof, and the amount done by each will thus become so insignificant, that it will be but slightly felt. In any case the profound ■selfishness, which would put all burden on a helot class, and rather see it brutalised by the crushing weight than bear a portion of the load on one of its fingers, must be taught that Socialism means equality, and that the divine right of idlers, to live at ease on the labor of others and to be shielded by the bodies of the poor from all the un­ pleasantnesses of the world, is one of the notions against which Socialism wars, and which must follow the corre­ lative superstition of the divine right of kings. Justice. The pretence that under the present system there is one law for rich and poor is so barefaced a piece of impudence, that it is hardly worth while to refute it. Everyone knows that a rich man is fined for an offence for which a poor man is sent to gaol; that no wise man goes to law unless he has plenty of money ; that in a litigation between a rich and a poor man, the poor man practically stands no chance, for even if he at first succeeds the rich man can appeal, and secure in the power of his money-bags wear out his poor antagonist by costly delays and by going from court to court. The poor man cannot fee first-class counsel, seek out and bring up his witnesses from various parts of the •country, and keep a stream of money continually running through his solicitor’s hands. There might be the same law for him as for the rich man, if he could get it; but it is far away behind a golden gate, and he lacks the key which alone will fit the wards of the lock. Yet surely one of the primary duties of a State is to do justice among its members, and to prevent the oppression of the weak by the strong. In a civilised State justice should be dealt out without fee or reward; if a man gives up his inherent right to defend himself and to judge in his own quarrel, he ought not to be placed in a worse position than he would be in if society did not exist. Lawyers, like judges, should be officials paid by the State, and should have no �MODERN SOCIALISM. 47 pecuniary interest in winning the case in which they are engaged. The administration of justice in a Socialist State will be a very much simpler matter than it is now. Most crimes arise from the desire to become rich, from poverty, and from ignorance. Under Socialism poverty and ignorance will have disappeared, and the desire to grow rich will have no raison d'etre when everyone has sufficient for com­ fort, is free from anxiety as to his future, and sees above him no wealthy idlers whose luxury he desires to ape, and whose idleness is held up to him as a matter of envy, as the ideal state for man. Amusement. There is a curious inconsistency in the way in which people deal with the question of amusement at the present time. We should have an outcry about “pauperisation” and “ interference with private enterprise ”, if anyone pro­ posed that the theatres should be open to the public without •charge. Yet Hyde Park is kept gorgeous with flowers, Eotten Eow is carefully attended to, a whole staff of workers is employed, in order that the wealthy may have a fashionable and pleasant lounge ; and all this is done at the national expense, without any expression of fear Jest the wealthy should be pauperised by this expenditure on their behalf. Nor is complaint made of the public money spent on the other parks in London; the most that is suggested is that the money wanted ought to be taken from the London rates and not from the national taxes. No one proposes that the parks should be sold to the highest bidder, and that private enterprise should be encouraged by permitting some capitalist to buy them, and to make a charge at the gate for admission. It is signi­ ficant that once anything gets under State control, the advantages are found to be so great that no one would ■dream of bringing it back under private exploitation. In some parks a band plays, and people are actually de­ moralised by listening to music for which they do not pay directly. Nay more ; the British Museum, the National Gallery, the South Kensington Museum, are all open free, and no one’s dignity is injured. But if the National Gallery be open free, why not the Eoyal Academy ? If a band may be listened to in the open air without pay­ �48 MODERN SOCIALISM. ment, why not in a concert room ? And if a concert may be free, why not a theatre ? Under the present system, the Royal Academy, the concert, the theatre, are all private speculations, and the public is exploited for the profit of the speculators. The National Gallery and the Museums are national property, and the nation enjoys the use of its own possessions. In a nation which has gone so far in the direction of providing intellectual amusement, it cannot be pretended that any principle is involved in the question whether or not it shall go further along the same road. A nation which collects the works of dead painters can hardly, on principle, refuse to show the works of living ones; and we Socialists may fairly urge the success of what has already been done in the way of catering for the public amusement as a reason for doing more. As it is, with the exception of a few places, the poor, whose lives most need the light of amusement and of beauty, are relegated to the very lowest and coarsest forms of recreation. Unreal and intensely vulgar pictures of life are offered them at the theatres which specially cater for them; they never have the delight of seeing really graceful dancing, or noble acting, or of hearing exquisite music. Verily, the amusements of the wealthier leave much to be desired, and theatre and music-hall alike pander to a low and vulgar taste instead of educating and refining it; but still these are better than their analogues at the East End. Under Socialism, the theatre will be­ come a great teacher instead of a catch-penny spectacle ; and dramatists and actors alike will work for the honor of a noble art, instead of degrading their talents to catch the applause of the most numerous class of an uneducated people. Then an educated public will demand a higher art, and artists will find it worth while to study when patient endeavor meets with public recognition, and crude impertinence suffers its due reproof. Theatres, concerts, parks, all places of public resort, will be communal pro­ perty, open alike to all, and controlled by elected officers. Conclusion. It remains, in conclusion, to note the chief objections raised to Socialism by its opponents. Of these the .most generally urged are three: that it will check individual �MODERN SOCIALISM. 49 initiative and energy; that it will destroy individuality; that it will unduly restrict personal liberty. That it will check individual initiative and energy. This objection is founded on the idea that the impulse to initia­ tive must always be desire for personal money gain. But this idea flies directly in the face of facts. Even under the individualistic system, no great discovery has ever been made and proclaimed merely from desire for personal money profit. The genius that invents is moved by an imperial necessity of its own nature, and wealth usually falls to the lot of the commonplace man who exploits the genius, and not to the genius itself. Even talent is moved more by joy in its own exercise, and in the public approval it wins, than by mere hope of money gain. Who would not rather be an Isaac Newton, a Shelley, or a Shakspere, than a mere Vanderbilt ? And most of all are those of strong individual initiative moved by desire to serve their “larger self”, which is Man. The majority of such choose the unpopular path, and by sheer strength and service gradually win over the majority. We see men and women who might have won wealth, position, power, by using their talents for personal gain in pursuits deemed honorable, cheerfully throw all aside to proclaim an un­ popular truth, and to serve a cause they believe to be good and useful. And these motives will become far more powerful under Socialism than they are now. For the possession of money looms unduly large to-day in conse­ quence of the horrible results of the want of it. The dread of hunger and of charity is the microscope which magnifies the value of wealth. But once let all men be secure of the necessaries and comforts of life, and all the finer motives of action will take their proper place. Energy will have its full scope under Socialism, and in­ deed when the value of a man’s work is secured to him instead of the half being appropriated by someone else, it will receive a new impulse. How great will be the in­ centive to exertion when the discovery of some new force, or new"application of a known force, means greater com­ fort for the discoverer and for all; none thrown out of work by it, none injured by it, but so much solid gain for each. And for the discoverer, as well as the material gain common to him and his comrades, the thanks and praise of the community in which he lives. And let not �50 MODERN SOCIALISM. the power of public opinion be undervalued as a stimulus to exertion. What Greek athlete would have sold his wreath of bay for its weight in gold ? Only one kind of energy will be annihilated by Socialism—the energy that enslaves others for its own gain, and exploits its weaker brethren for its own profit. For this kind of energy there will be no room. The coarse purse-proud mediocrity, who by sheer force of pushing brutality has trampled his way to the front, will have vanished. The man who grows rich by underpaying his employees, by being a “hard business man”, will have passed away. Energy will have to find for itself paths of service instead of paths of oppression, and will be honored or reprobated according to the way in which it is used. That it will destroy individuality. If this were true, the loss to progress would indeed be incalculable. But So­ cialism, instead of destroying individuality will cultivate and accentuate it, and indeed will make it possible for the first time in civilisation for the vast majority. For it needs, in order that individuality shall be developed, that the individual shall have his characteristics drawn out and trained by education; it needs that he shall work, in maturity, at the work for which his natural abilities fit him ; it needs that he shall not be exhausted by excessive toil, but shall go fresh and vigorous to his labor; it needs that he shall have leisure to continuously improve himself, to train his intellect and his taste. But such education, such choice of work, such short hours of labor, such leisure for self-culture, where are all these to-day for our laboring population ? A tremendous individuality, joined to robust health, may make its way upward out of the ranks of the handworkers to- day; but all normal individuality is crushed out between the grinding-stones of the industrial mill. See the faces of the lads and lasses as they troop out of the factory, out of the great mercantile establishments; how alike they all are ! They might almost have been turned out by the dozen. We Socialists demand that individuality shall be possible for all, and not only for the few who are too strong to crush. That it will unduly restrict personal liberty. Socialism, as conceived by the non-student of it, is an iron system, in which the “ State ”—which is apparently separate from the citizens—shall rigidly assign to each his task, and �MODERN SOCIALISM. 51 deal out to each his subsistence. Even if this caricature were accurate, Socialism would give the great majority far more freedom than they enjoy to-day ; for they would only be under the yoke for their brief hours of toil, and would have unfettered freedom for the greater portion of their time. Contrast this compulsion with the compulsion exercised on the workers to-day by the sweater, the manager of the works or business, and above all the compulsion of hunger, that makes them bend to the yoke for the long hours of the working day, and often far into the night: and then say whether the “freedom ” of Indus­ trialism is not a heavier chain than the “tyranny ” of the most bureaucratic Socialism imagined by our opponents. But the “tyranny of Socialism”, however, would consist only in ordering-—and enforcing the order if necessary— that every healthy adult should labor for his own subsist­ ence. That is, it would protect the liberty of each by not allowing anyone to compel another person to work for him, and by opening to all equal opportunities of working for themselves. The worker would choose his own work certainly as freely as he does now : at the present time, if one class of work has enough operatives employed at it, a man must take some other, and I do not see that Socialism could prevent this limitation of choice. At any rate, the limitation is not an argument against Socialism, since it exists at the present time. Imagine the glorious freedom which would be the lot of each when, the task of social work complete, and done under healthy and pleasant conditions, the worker turned to science, literature, art, gymnastics, to what he would, for the joyous hours of leisure. For him all the treasures of knowledge and of beauty; for him all the delights of scenery and of art; for him all that only the wealthy enjoy to-day; all that comes from work flowing back to enrich the worker’s life. I know that our hope is said to be the dream of the enthusiast; I know that our message is derided, and that the gospel of man’s redemption which we preach is scorned. Be it so. Our work shall answer the gibes of our oppo­ nents, and our faith in the future shall outlast their mockery. We know that however much man’s ignorance may hinder our advance ; however much his selfishness may block our path; that we shall yet win our way to the �52 MODERN SOCIALISM. land we have seen but in our visions, and rear the temple of human happiness on the solid foundation stones of science and of truth. Above all sneer and taunt, above all laughter and bitter cries of hatred, rings out steadily our prophecy of the coming time : ‘ ‘ O nations undivided, O single People, and free, We dreamers, we derided, We mad blind men that see, We bear you witness ere ye come that ye shall be.” � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Modern socialism Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Besant, Annie Wood [1847-1933] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 52 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. 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 1886 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context T403 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 (Modern socialism), 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 conditions Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/68c92b145412f9eaae148d059cdc9724.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=P3gIt59AGXry-HaBFc-UfYrq44ULazfA%7ET4ea7avQw5koZG4VIJ42c1vBzjluNhcRXJ0H0LGDjbfKZhcQ7vUiPq98ykS9gTWyo-clWpUsnGm5GDj3syaPUjqRkIyTXilKj%7Eqx%7EUNzsp1St9izfppo6FRGYNkoFQXortAql8FqKb%7Ek1xUvKOc8COUmhPPPnNZjEIu2-VexN4CjY9aqDieFiwwIyrwnvdKXmIq9u%7ESET9zhJZpV65%7El%7E%7ENO9wli99du9fwOGr2sR0qsbwiw2VaRLwokfoWLN%7El-X2AtzxkySWVYDqb7iuQ%7E8%7E1I4%7EPyUd-T%7Ehf%7EdcC4RPT4-UT6YcrYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 1fa422c40c119a0c6c3c1adf5f43c404 PDF Text Text Self-help by the People. HISTORY OF CO-OPERATION IN ROCHDALE. By George Jacob Holyoake. [third edition.] ��The chapters of this little ‘ History ’ were commenced to be in­ serted in the Daily News (in 1857), as the reader may infer from notes to Chapter I. The breaking out of the Mutinies in India absorbed all space in that quarter, and prevented the completion of the publication in those columns; otherwise, the subsequent chapters might have been enriched by notes of the Editor of the Daily News, whose great knowledge of, and interest in, Co-operative Associations, abroad and at home, are well known. �CHAPTER I. THE FIRST EFFORTS, AND THE KIND OF PEOPLE WHO MADE THEM... 1 CHAPTER II. APPOINTMENT OF A DEPUTATION TO THE MASTERS.--- GREAT DEBATE IN THE FLANNEL WEAVERS’ PARLIAMENT ........................................................ 6 CHAPTER III. THE DOFFERS APPEAR AT THE OPENING DAT.--- MORAL BUYING AS WELL AS MORAL SELLING ........................... 10 CHAPTER IV. THE SOCIETY TRIED BY TWO WELL-KNOWN DIFFICULTIES--- PREJUDICE AND SECTARIANISM .......................................................................... 15 CHAPTER V. ENEMIES WITHIN AND ENEMIES WITHOUT, AND HOW THEY AT.T, WERE CONQUERED...................................................... 20 CHAPTER VI. THE GREAT FLOUR MILL PANIC .. ........... . ................................................................. 27 CHAPTER vn. SUCCESSIVE STEPS OF SUCCESS.—THE ROCHDALE STORE ON A SATURDAY NIGHT ......................... „............................ 32 CHAPTER VIH. ANECDOTES OF THE MEMBERS.—THE WORKING-CLASS STAND BY THE STORE, AND THEY ‘KNOW THE REASON WHY’ ............................................. 41 CHAPTER IX. RULES AND AIMS OF TflE SOCIETY .......... 46 CHAPTER X. THE OLD CO-OPERATORS--- WHY THEY FAILED. THE NEW CO-OPE­ RATORS—WHY THEY SUCCEED .............................................. 54 CHAPTER XI. A SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER OF ILLUSTRATIVE PAPERS AND NOTES... 64 �HISTORY OF THE ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. * CHAPTER I. THE FIRST EFFORTS, AND THE KIND OF PEOPLE WHO MADE THEM. L L , / J i Human nature must be different in Rochdale from what it is elsewhere. There must have been a special creation of mechanics in this inexplicable district of Lancashire—in no other way can you Account for the fact that they have mastered the art of acting together, and holding together, as no other set of workmen in Great Britain have done. They have acted upon Sir Robert Peel’s memorable advice; they have ‘ taken their own affairs into their own hands and what is more to the purpose, they have kept them in their own hands. The working class are not considered to be very rich in the quality of self-trust, or mutual trust. The business habit is not thought to be their forte. The art of creating a large concern, and governing all its complications, is not usually supposed to belong to them. The problem of association has many times been tried among the people, and as many times it has virtually failed. Mr. Robert Owen has not accomplished half he intended. The ‘ Christian Socialists,’ inspired by eloquent rectors, and directed by transcendent professors, aided by the lawyer mind and the merchant mind, and what was of no small importance, the very purse of Fortunatus himself, have made but * poor work of association. They have hardly drawn a single tooth from the dragon of competition. So far from having scotched that ponderous snake, they appear to have added to its vitality, and to have convinced parliamentary political economists that competitive strife is the eternal and only self-acting principle of society. True, reports come to us ever and anon that in America something has been accomplished in the way of association. Far away in the backwoods a tribe of bipeds—some mysterious cross between the German and the Yankee—have been heard of, known to men as Shakers, who are sup­ posed to have killed the fatted calf of co-operation, and to be rich in corn, and oil, and wine, and—to their honour be it said—in foundlings and orphans, whom their sympathy collects, and their benevolence rears. But then the Shakers have a narrow creed and no wives. They abhor matrimony and free inquiry. But in the constituency till lately represented by Mr. Edward Miall, there is liberality of opinion —Susannahs who might tempt the elders again—and rosy-cheeked children, wild as heather and plentiful as buttercups. Under all the (agreeable) disadvantages of matrimony and independent thought, certain workingunen in Rochdale have practised the art of self-help, * Here we must express our dissent. They failed precisely because they were aided by the purse of Fortunatus. In France, we are assured all those ‘Associations Ouvribres’ which refused to accept money from government in 1848 are prospering; while those which accepted it have either ceased to exist, or are on the eve of ceasing to exist. Sacrifice and self-reliance are the secret of success in these as in all other enterprises.—Ed. Daily News. A �HISTORY OF THE Rochdale human nature—special and peculiar. and of keeping the ‘ wolf from the door.’ That animal, supposed to have been extirpated in the days of Ethelbert, is still found showing himself in our crowded towns, and may be see^ any day prowling on the outskirts of civilisation. At the close of the year 1843, on one of those damp, dark, dense, dismal, disagreeable days, which no Frenchman can be got to admire —such days as occur towards November, when the daylight is all used up, and the sun has given up all attempt at shining, either in disgust or despair—a few poor weavers out of employ, and nearly out of food, and quite out of heart with the social state, met together to discover what they could do to better their industrial condition. Manufacturers had capital, and shopkeepers the advantage of stock; how could they succeed without either? Should they avail them­ selves of the poor-law ? that were dependence; of emigration ? that seemed like transportation for the crime of having been born poor. What should they do? They would commence the battle of life on their own account. They would, as far as they were concerned, supersede tradesmen, millowners, and capitalists: without experience, or knowledge, or funds, they would turn merchants and manu­ facturers. The subscription list was handed round—the Stock Exchange would not think much of the result. A dozen of these Lilliputian capitalists put down a weekly subscription of twopence each—a sum which these Rochdale Rothschilds did not know how to pay. After fifty-two ‘ calls ’ had been made upon these magnificent shareholders, they would not have enough in their bank to buy a sack of oatmeal with; yet these poor men now own mills, and warehouses, and keep a grocer’s shop, where they take £76,000 a-year over the * * ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS’ SOCIETY, CASH ACCOUNT, Receipts. To Cash, balance September quarter „ Repaid by the Corn Mill Society ------„ Propositions ----„ Contributions ----------„ Received for Goods --------„ Discounts --------- DEC., 1857. £ s. d. 3311 14 1 1000 0 0 750 510 4 3.| 19389 0 0 225 8 2 £24,443 11 6J Disbursements. By Cash paid for Goods ---„ „ Wages ------„ „ Rents ---„ „ Carriage --» ,, General Expenses and Repairs „ ,,'S ^Treasurer’s salary --„ I Petty Cash --» Rates ---»» „ g I Insurance --„ „w '■Building Fund --- „ „ -343 6 8$ 34 10 3 152 78 62 16 8j 2 10 0 100 18 16 8 115 0 600 Withdrawn by Members ---Balance ----------- £ s. d. 19483 0 3 623 3 0 2027 13 7 2309 14 8J £24,443 11 6J �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 3 The origin of the Society of Equitable Pioneers. counter in ready money. Their ‘ cash sales ’ of £19,389, recorded in their last quarterly report, which we subjoin, show their ready money receipts to reach £l,4p0 a-week. The origin of the Rochdale Store, which has transcended all co­ operative stores ever established in Great Britain, is to be traced to the unsuccessful efforts of certain weavers to improve their wages. Near the close of the year 1843, the flannel trade—one of the principal manufactures of Rochdale—was brisk. At this auspicious juncture the weavers, who were, and are still, a badly paid class of labourers, took it into their heads to ask for an advance of wages. If their masters could afford it at all, they could probably afford it then. Their workpeople thought so, and the employers of Rochdale, who are certainly among the best of their class, seemed to be of the same opinion. Nearly each employer to whom the important question was put, at once expressed his willingness to concede an advance, pro­ vided his neighbouring employers did the same. But how was the con­ sent of the others to be induced—and the collective agreement of all to be guaranteed to each ? The thing seemed simple in theory, but was anything but simple in practice. Masters are not always courteous, and workpeople are not proverbially tacticians. Weavers do not negotiate with their superiors by letter; a personal interview is commonly the warlike expedient hit upon—an interview which the servant obtrudes and the master suffers. An employer has no a priori fondness for these kind of deputations, as a demand for an advance of wages he cannot afford, may ruin him as quickly and completely as a fall may distress the workmen. However, to set the thing going in a practical and a kind way, one or two firms, with a generosity the men still remember with gratitude, offered an advance of wages to their own workpeople, upon trial, to see whether example would induce the employers generally to imitate it. In case general compliance could not be obtained, this special and experimental advance was to be taken off again. Hereupon the Trades’ Union Committee, who had asked the advance on behalf of the flannel weavers, held, in their humble way, a grand consultation of ‘ ways and means.’ English mechanics are not conspirators, and the working class have never been dis- , tinguished for their diplomatic successes. The plan of action adopted by our committee in this case did not involve many subtleties. After speech-making enough to save the nation, it was agreed that one em­ ployer at a time should be asked for the advance of wages, and if he did not comply, the weavers in his employ were ‘ to strike ’ or ‘ turn out,’ and the said ‘ strikers ’ and ‘ turn outs ’ were to be supported by a subscription of twopence per week from each weaver who had the good fortune to remain at work. This plan, if it lacked grace, had the merit of being a neat and summary way of proceeding; and if it presented no great attraction to the masters, it certainly presented fewer to the men. At least Mrs. Jones with six children, and Mrs. Smith with ten, could not be much in love with the twopenny pros­ pect held out to them, especially as they had experienced something �4 HISTORY OS' THE The history of a Trades’ Deputation in the olden time. of the kind before, and had never been heard to very much commend it. The next thing was to carry out the plan. Qf course, a deputation of the masters waiting upon their colleagues would be the courteous and proper thing, but obviously quite out of the question. A deputation of employers could accomplish more in one day with em­ ployers than a deputation of all the men could accomplish.in a month. This, however, was not to be expected ; and a deputation of workmen on this embassy was a rather uninteresting affair. A trades’ deputation, in the old time, was a sort of forlorn hope of industry—worse than the forlorn hope of war; for if the volunteers of war succeed they commonly win renown, or save themselves; but the men who volunteered on trades’ deputations were often sacrificed in the act, or were marked men ever after. In war both armies respect the ‘forlorn hope,’ but in industrial conflicts the pioneer deputy was exposed to subsequent retaliation on the part of mill-owners, who did not admire him; and—let it be said in impar­ tiality, sad as the fact is—the said deputy was exposed often to the wanton distrust of those who employed him. A trades’ deputation was commonly composed of intelligent and active workmen; or, as employers naturally thought them, ‘ dissatisfied, troublesome fellows.’’ While on deputation duty, of course they must be absent from work. During this time they must be supported by their fellow-workmen. They were then open to the reproach of living on the wages of their fellows, of loving deputation employment better than their own pro­ per work, which indeed was sometimes the case. Alas ! poor trade deputy—he had a hard lot! He had for a time given up the service of one master for the service of a thousand. He was now in the employ of his fellows, half of whom criticised his conduct quite as severely as his employer, and begrudged him his wages more. And when he re­ turned to his work he often found there was no work for him. In his absence his overlooker had contrived (by orders) to supply his place, and betrayed no anxiety to accommodate him with a new one. He then tried other mills, but he found no one in want of his services. The poor devil set off to surrounding districts, but his character had gone before him. He might get an old fellow-workman (now an over­ looker) to set him on, at a distance from his residence, and he had perhaps to walk five or six miles home to his supper, and be back at his mill by six o’clock next morning. At last he removed his family near his new employ. By this time it had reached his new employer’s ears that he had a ‘ leader of the Trades’ Union ’ in his mill. His emJ ployer calculated that the new advance of wages had cost him altogether a thousand pounds last year. He considered the weaver, smuggled into his mill, the cause of that. He walked round and ‘ took stock ’ of him. The next week the man was on the move again. After a while he would fall into the state of being ‘ always out of work.’ No wonder if the wife, who generally has the worst of it, with her increasing family and decreasing means, began to reproach her husband with �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 5 The fate of Tom Spindle and his colleagues. having ruined himself and beggared his family by his ‘trade unioning.’ As he was daily out looking for work he would be sometimes ‘ treated’ by old comrades, and he naturally fell in with the only sympathy he got. A ‘ row ’ perhaps occurred at the public-house, and somehow or other he would be mixed up with it. In ordinary circumstances the case would be dismissed—but the bench was partly composed of em­ ployers. The unlucky prisoner at the bar had been known to at least one of the magistrates before as a ‘ troublesome ’ fellow, under other circumstances. It is not quite clear that he was the guilty person in this case; but as in the opinion of the master-magistrate he was quite likely to have been guilty, he gave him the benefit of the doubt, and the poor fellow stood ‘ remanded ’ or ‘ committed.’ The chief share­ holder of the Milldam Chronicle was commonly a mill-owner. The reporter had a cue in that direction, and next day a significant para­ graph, with a heading to this effect, ‘ The notorious Tom Spindle in trouble,’ carried consternation through the ranks of his old associates. The next week the editor had a short article upon the ‘kind of leader­ ship to which misguided working men submit themselves.’ The case was dead against poor Spindle. Tom’s character was gone. And if he were detained long in prison, his family was gone too. Mrs.'Spindle had been turned out of her house, no rent being forthcoming. She would apply to the parish for support for her children, where she soon found that the relieving officers had no very exalted opinion of the virtues of her husband. Tom at length returned, and now he would be looked upon by all who had the power to help him, as a ‘ worthless character,’ as well as a ‘ troublesome fellow.’ His fate was for the future precarious. By odd helps and occasional employment when hands were short, he eked out his existence. The present writer has shared the humble hospitality of many such, and has listened half the night away with them, as they have recounted the old story. Beaten, consumptive, and poor, they had lost none of their old courage, though all their strength was over, and a dull despair of better days drew them nearer and nearer to the grave. Some of these ruined deputationists have emigrated, and these lines will recall in distant lands, in the swamps of the Mississippi, in the huts of a Bendigo digging, and in the ‘ claims ’ of California, old times and fruitless struggles, which sent them penniless and heart-broken from the mills and mines of the old country. In the new land where they now dwell—a strange dream land to them—their thoughts turn from pine forests, night fires, and revolvers, to the old villages, the smokechoked towns, and soot-begrimed monotony in which their early life was spent. Others of the abolished deputationists of whom we speak turned news vendors or small shopkeepers. Assisted with a few shillings by their neighbours—in some cases self-helped by their own previous thrift—they have set up for themselves, have been fortunate, grown independent, and trace all their good fortune to that day which cost them their loss of employment. �6 HISTORY OF THE The Trades’ Unionists attempt to bell the cat. CHAPTER IL APPOINTMENT OF A DEPUTATION TO MASTERS.---- GREAT DEBATE IN THE FLANNEL WEAVERS’ PARLIAMENT. So much will enable the reader to understand the hopes and fears which agitated the Rochdale Flannel Weavers’ Committee, when they appointed their deputation to wait upon the masters. ‘Who shall go ? ’ Ho sooner was this question put than the loudest orators were hushed. Cries of ‘ We will never submit ’—‘ We will see whether the masters are to have it their own way for ever,’ etc., etc., etc.—were at once silenced. Five minutes ago everybody was forward—nobody was forward now. As in the old fable, all the mice agreed that the cat ought to be belled, but who was to bell the cat ? The collective wisdom of the Parliament of mice found that a perplexing question. Has the reader seen a popular political meeting when some grand question of party power had to be discussed ? How defiant ran the speechesI how militant was the enthusiasm ! Patriotism seemed to be turning up its sleeves, and the country about to be saved that night. Of a sudden some practical fellow, who has seen that kind of thing before, suggests that the deliverance of the country will involve some little affair of subscriptions—and proposes at once to circulate a list. The sudden descent of the police, nor a discharge of arms from the Chelsea Pensioners, would not produce so decorous a silence, nor so miraculous a satisfaction with things as they are, as this little step. An effect something like this is produced in a Trades’ Committee, when the test question is put, ‘ Who will go on the deputation ?’ The men knew that they should not be directly dismissed from their employ, but indirectly their fate would probably be sealed. The first fault—the first accidental neglect of duty—would be the pretext of dismissal. Like the archbishop in ‘ Gil Blas,’ who dismissed his critie —not on account of his candour; his grace esteemed him for that— but he preferred a young man with a little more judgment. So the employer has no abstract objection to the workman seeking to better his condition—he rather applauds that kind of thing—he merely dis­ putes the special method taken to accomplish it. The reader, * therefore, understands why our Committee suddenly paused when a mouse was wanted to bell the cat. Some masters—indeed many masters—are as considerate, as self-sacrificing, as any workmen are, and they often incur risks and losses to keep their people in employ, which their people never know, and, in many cases, would not appreciate if they did. Many Trades’ Unionists are ignorant, incon­ siderate, and perversely antagonistic. It would be equally false to condemn all masters as to praise all men. But after all allowances are made, the men have the worst of it. They make things bad for themselves and for their masters by their want of knowledge. If they �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 7 The industrial and political influence of Socialism. do not form some kind of Trades’ Union they cannot save their wages, and if they do form Unions they cannot save themselves. Industry in England is a chopping machine, and if the poor man does not take care he is always under the knife. We will now tell how the Flannel Weavers of Rochdale, whose historians we are, have contrived to extricate themselves somewhat. Our Trades’ Committee numbered, as all these committees do, a few plucky fellows, and a deputation was eventually appointed, and set off on their mission. Many employers made the required advance, but others, rather than do so, would let their works stop. This resistance proved fatal to the scheme, seconded as it was by the im­ petuosity of the weavers themselves, who did not understand that you cannot fight capital without capital. The only chance you have is to use your brains, and unless your brains are good for something, are well informed and well-disciplined, the chance is a very poor one. Our flannel weavers did not use their brains but their passions. It is easier to hate than to think, and the men did what they could do best —they determined to retaliate, and turned out in greater numbers than their comrades at work were able or willing to support. The cooler and wiser heads advised more caution. But among the working class a majority are found who vote moderation to be treachery. The weavers failed at this, time to raise their wages, and their employers succeeded, not so much because they were right, as because their opponents were impetuous. At this period the views of Mr. Robert Owen, which had been often advocated in Rochdale, were recurred to by the weavers. Socialist advocates, whatever faults they else might have, had at least done one service to employers—they had taught workmen to reason upon their condition—they had shown them that commerce was a system, and that masters were slaves of it as well as men. The masters’ chains were perhaps of silver, while the workmen’s were of copper, but masters could not always do quite as they would any more than their servants. And if the men became masters to-morrow, they would be found doing pretty much as masters now do. Circumstances alter cases, and the social reformers sought to alter the circum­ stances in order to improve the cases. The merit of their own scheme of improvement might be questionable, but the Socialism of this period marked the time when industrial agitation first took to * reasoning. Ebenezer Elliott’s epigram, which he once repeated as an * Chartists have always complained that their most active men were won from them by the new logic of the Social Reformers. Indeed, some Social reformers conceived a dis­ trust of political reform as absurd as that professed by many Chartists for social reform; but the ‘ Doctrine of Circumstances’ had one moralising effect upon the multitude—it taught them to regard with pity many opponents whose throats they otherwise would have cut with pleasure. Coleridge has owned (2'Ae Friend, p. 263, vol. ii.) to the pacific influence of this doctrine on his own spirit when excited by a sense of injury received. When the Bishop of Exeter called attention to the evil he discovered in the ‘ Doctrine of Circum­ stances,’ he omitted to notice that if it sometimes weakened moral effort, it always dimin­ ished hatred, a fact of great political importance in a country where class rivalry is intense, and where the poor grow poorer as the rich grow richer, except where private benevolence steps in to bridge over the inequality. ’ �8 HISTORY OF THE The Communistic epigram of Ebenezer Elliott. argument to the present writer, pointed to doctrines that certainly never existed in England:— ‘ What is a Communist? One who hath yearnings For equal division of unequal earnings; Idler or bungler, or both, he is willing To fork out his penny, and pocket your shilling,’ The English working class have no weakness in the way of idle­ ness ; they never become dangerous until they have nothing to do. Their revolutionary cry is always ‘ more work I ’ They never ask for bread half so eagerly as they ask for employment. Communists in England were never either ‘ idlers or bunglers.’ When the Bishop of Exeter, to whom we have referred, troubled Parliament, in 1840, with a motion for the suppression of Socialism, an inquiry was sent to the police authorities of the principal towns as to the character of the persons holding those opinions (the same who built in Manchester the Hall of Science, now the Free Library, at an expense of £6000 or £7000). The answer was that these persons consisted of the most skilled, well-conducted, and intelligent of the working class. Sir Charles Shaw sent to the Manchester Social Institution for some one to call upon him, that he might make inquiries relative to special proceedings. Mr. Lloyd Jones went to him, and Sir Charles Shaw said, that when he took office as the superintendent of the police of that district, he gave orders that the religious profession of every individual taken to the station-house should be noted; and he had had prisoners of all religious denominations, but never one Socialist. Sir C. Shaw said, also, that he was in the habit of pur­ chasing all the publications of the Society, and he was convinced, that if they had not influenced the public mind very materially, the outbreaks at the time, when they wanted to introduce the ‘ general holiday,’ would have been much worse than they were, and he was quite willing to state that before the government, if he should be called upon to give an opinion. The followers of Mr. Owen were never the ‘ idlers,’ but the phi­ lanthropic. They might be dreamers, but they were not knaves. They protested against competition as leading to immorality. Their objections to it were theoretically acquired. They were none of them afraid of competition, for out of the Socialists of 1840 have pro­ ceeded the most enterprising emigrants, and the most spirited men of business who have risen from the working classes. The world is dotted with them at the present hour, and the history of the Rochdale Pioneers is another proof that they were not ‘ bunglers.’ No popular movement in England ever produced so many persons able to take care of themselves as the agitation of Social Reform. Moreover, the pages of the New Moral World and the Northern Star of this period amply testify that the Social Reformers were opposed to ‘ strikes,’ as an untutored and often frantic method of industrial rectification; as wanting foresight, calculation, and fitness; as an irritation, a waste of money and temper. And when a strike led, as they often have done, �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 9 The Teetotal and Chartist proposals for saving the world. to workmen coercing their comrades, and forcibly preventing those who were willing to work at'the objectionable rate, from doing so, the strike became an injustice and a tyranny, vexatious, disreputable, and indefensible. As there was a general feeling that the masters who had refused their demands had not done them justice, they resolved to attain it in some other way. They were, as Emerson expresses it, ‘English enough never to think of giving up.’ Hereupon they fell back upon that talismanic and inevitable twopence, with which Rochdale mani­ festly thinks the world can be saved. It was resolved to continue the old subscription of twopence a week, with a view to commence manufacturing, and becoming their own employers. As they were few in number, they found that their banking account of twopences was likely to be a long time in accumulating, and some of the committee began to despair; and, as nothing is too small for poverty to covet, some of them proposed to divide the small sum collected. At this period a Sunday afternoon discussion used to be held in the Temperance or Chartist Reading Room. Into this arena some mem­ bers of the weavers’ committee carried their anxieties and projects, and the question was formally proposed, ‘ What are the best means of improving the condition of the people ?’ It would be too long to report the anxious and Babel disputation. Each orator, as in more illustrious assemblies, had his own infallible specific for the deliverance of mankind. The Teetotallers argued that the right thing to do was to go in for total abstinence from all intoxicating drinks, and to apply the wages they earned exclusively to the support of their families. This was all very well, but it implied that everything was right in the industrial world, and that the mechanic had nothing to do but to keep sober in order to grow rich; it implied that work was sufficiently plentiful and sufficiently paid for; and that masters, on the whole, were sufficiently considerate of the workman’s interests. As all these points were unhappily contradicted by the experience of every one concerned, the Teetotal project did not take effect. Next, the Chartists pleaded that agitation, until they got the People’s Charter, was the only honest thing to attempt, and the only likely thing to succeed. Universal Suffrage once obtained, people would be their own law makers, and, therefore, could remove any grievance at will. This was another desirable project somewhat over­ rated. It implies that all other agitations should be suspended while this proceeds. It implies that public felicity can be voted at dis­ cretion, and assumes that acts of parliament are omnipotent over human happiness. Social progress, however, is no invention of the House of Commons, nor would a Chartist parliament be able to abolish all our grievances at will; but Chartists having to suffer as well as other classes, ought to be allowed an equal opportunity of trying their hand at parliamentary salvation. The Universal Suffrage agitation scheme was looked upon very favourably by the comB �10 HISTORY OF THE Professor Newman on the abolition of shop debts. mittee, and would probably have 'been adopted, had not the Socialists argued that the day of redemption would prove to be considerably adjourned if they waited till all the people took the Pledge, and the government went in for the Charter. They, therefore, suggested that the weavers should co-operate and use such means as they had at command to improve their condition, without ceasing to be either Teetotallers or Chartists. In the end it came about that the Flannel Weavers’ Committee took the advice of the advocates of co-operation. James Daly, Charles Howarth, James Smithies, John Hill, and John Bent, appear to be the names of those who in this way assisted the committee. Meetings were held, and plans for a Co-operative Provision Store were deter­ mined upon. So far from there being any desire to evade responsi­ bility, as working class commentators in Parliament usually assume, these communistic-teetotal-political co-operators coveted from the first, a legal position; they determined that the society should be enrolled, under Acts of Parliament, 10th Geo. IV., c. 56, and 4th and 5th William IV., c. 40. CHAPTER IH. THE DOFFERS APPEAR AT THE OPENING DAY.---- MORAL BUYING AS WELL AS MORAL SELLING. Next, our weavers determined that the society should transact its business upon what they denominated the ‘ ready money principle.’ It might be suspected that the weekly accumulation of twopences would not enable them to give much credit; but the determination arose chiefly from moral considerations. It was a part of their socialistic education to regard credit as a social evil—as a sign of the anxiety, excitement, and fraud of competition. As Social Reformers, they had been taught to believe that it would be better for society, and that commercial transactions would be simpler and honester, if credit were abolished. This was a radical objection to credit. * However advantageous and indispensable credit is in general com­ merce, it would have been a fatal instrument in their hands. Some of them would object to take an oath, and the magistrate would object to administer it, thus they would be at the mercy of the dis* A valued book, now in their Library, did not then exist, to teach them to distinguish be­ tween prejudice and a moral political economy. In the book referred to, the author says:— ‘ Heartily do I wish that shop debts were pronounced after a certain day irrecoverable at law. The effect would be, that no one would be able to ask credit at a shop except where he was well known, and for trifling sums. All prices would sink to the scale of cash prices. The dishonourable system of fashionable debtors, who always pay too late, if at all, and cast their deficiencies on other customers in the form of increased charges, would be at once annihilated. Shopkeepers would be rid of a great deal of care which ruins the happiness of thousands.’—Lectures on Political Economy, by Professor Newman, p. 255 �, ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 11 The stupendous proposals of our Equitable Pioneers. ■honest who would come in and plunder them, as happens daily now where the claim turns upon the oath. Besides, some of them had a * tenderness with respect to suing, and would rather lose money than go to law to get it; they, therefore, prudently fortified themselves by setting their faces against all credit, and from this resolution they have never departed. From the Rational Sick and Burial Society’s laws, a Manchester communistic production, they borrowed all the features applicable to their project, and with alterations and additions their society was registered, October 24th, 1844, under the title of the ‘Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers.’ Marvellous as has been their subsequent suc­ cess, their early dream was much more stupendous—in fact, it amounted to world making. Our pioneers set forth their designs in the following amusing language, to which designs the society has steadily adhered, and has reiterated the same terms much nearer the day of their accomplishment (in the Society’s Almanack for 1854). These Pioneers, in 1844, declared the views of their Association thus:— ‘ The objects and plans of this Society are to form arrangements for the pecuniary benefit and the improvement of the social and domestic condition of its members, by raising a sufficient amount of capital in shares of one pound each, to bring into operation the following plans and arrangements:— ‘ The establishment of a Store for the sale of provisions, clothing, etc. ‘ The building, purchasing, or erecting a number of houses, in which those members, desiring to assist each other in improving their domestic and social condition, may reside. ‘ To commence the manufacture of such articles as the society may determine upon, for the employment of such members as may be without employment, or who may be suffering in consequence of repeated reductions in their wages. ‘ As a further benefit and security to the members of this society, the society shall purchase or rent an estate or estates of land, which shall be cultivated by the members who may be out of employment, or whose labour may be badly remunerated.’ Then follows a project which no nation has ever attempted, and no enthusiasts yet carried out:— ‘That, as soon as practicable, this society shall proceed to arrange the powers of production, distribution, education, and government; or, in other words, to establish a self-supporting home-colony of united interests, or assist other societies in establishing such colonies.’ Here was a grand paper constitution for re-arranging the powers of * In those days the working class were justified in their jealousy of those set ‘in authority over them,’ to an extent happily less credible now. So late as February, 1849, our co-operators stipulated that a clause should be inserted in a lease of premises they were about to take, to the effect that it should not be invalid upon a conviction of nuisance against them. Their pacific objects might be sworn as a ‘ nuisance ’ by enemies, and ma­ gistrates on the bench, finding them legally defenceless, might listen to prejudice against them. Such cases have occurred elsewhere. �12 HISTORY OF THE The difficulty of collecting working class subscriptions. production and distribution, which it has taken fifteen years of dreary and patient labour to advance half way. Then follows a minor but characteristic proposition:— ‘ That, for the promotion of sobriety, a Temperance Hotel be opened in one of the society’s houses as soon as convenient.’ If these grand projects were to take effect any sooner than universal Teetotalism or universal Chartism, it was quite clear that some activity must take place in the collection of the twopences. The difficulty in all working class movements is the collection of means. At this time the members of the ‘Equitable Pioneer Society’ numbered about forty subscribers, living in various parts of the town, and many of them in the suburbs. The collector of the forty subscriptions would probably have to travel twenty miles ; only a man with the devotion of a missionary could be expected to undertake this task. This is always the impediment in the way of working class subscriptions. If a man’s time were worth anything at all, he had better subscribe the whole money than collect it. But there was no other way open to them; and, irksome as it was, some undertook it, and, to their honour, per­ formed what they undertook. * Three collectors were appointed, who visited the members at their residences every Sunday ; the town being divided into three districts. To accelerate proceedings an innovation was made, which must at the time have created considerable excite­ ment. The ancient twopence was departed from, and the subscription raised to threepence. The co-operators were evidently growing ambitious. At length the formidable sum of £28 was accumulated, and, with this capital, the new world, that was to be, was commenced. Fifteen years ago, Toad Lane, Rochdale, was not a very inviting street. Its name did it no injustice. The groundfloor of a ware­ house in Toad Lane was the place selected in which to commence operations. Lancashire warehouses were not then the grand things they have since become, and the groundfloor of ‘ Mr. Dunlop’s premises,’ here employed, was obtained upon a lease of three years at £10 per annum. Mr. William Cooper was appointed ‘cashier;’ his duties were very light at first. Samuel Ashworth was dignified with * The executive policy of democracies is in a very crude state among the people. Time and zeal are wasted wofully. A committee of thirteen working men sometimes debate half an evening away as to whether ninepence or thirteenpence shall be expended upon a broom. Money ought not to be wasted upon brooms, nor ought hard-reared zeal to be ex­ pended in the study of the petty cash book. Illustrations occur in the minutes of the Rochdale Society. ‘ Resolved, that the two parties attending the Bank on business receive the sum of sixpence each, and the third party twopence.’ (June 10, 1850.) Judging by the remuneration, the transactions could not have been very responsible. ‘ Resolved, that the shopmen be presented with an apron and sleeves each, in consideration of having to make up some bad money.’ (Feb. 28, 1850.) This is a very amusing instance of economical compensation. ‘ Resolved, that we have two cisterns for treacle, two patent taps from Bradford, a shovel for sugar, and one for currants, and that the step-ladder be repaired.’ (May 9, 1850.) ‘ Resolved, that the grate at the back of the wholesale warehouse be opened for air.’ (March 6, 1851.) ‘ Resolved, that there be a watering-can provided for the store.’ (March 28, 1852.) No doubt a protracted debate, five speeches each all round, seven or eight explanations, and heavy replies by the mover and seconder, preceded these momentous resolutions. �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 13 Toad Lane in 1844. The opening day of the Co-operative Store. the nomination of ‘ salesman; ’ his commodities consisted of infinitesimal quantities of ‘ flour, butter, sugar, and oatmeal.’* The entire quantity would hardly stock a homoeopathic grocer’s shop, for after purchasing and consistently paying for the necessary fixtures, £14 or £15 was all they had to invest in stock. And on one desperate evening—it was the longest evening of the year—the 21st of December, 1844, the ‘Equitable Pioneers’ commenced business; and the few who remember the commencement, look back upon their present opulence and success with a smile at their extraordinary opening day. It had got wind among the tradesmen of the town that their competitors were in the field, and many a curious eye was that day turned up Toad Lane, looking for the appearance of the enemy; but, like other enemies of more historic renown, they were rather shy of appearing. A few of the co-operators had clandestinely assembled to witness their own denouement; and there they stood, in that dismal lower room of the warehouse, like the conspirators under Guy Fawkes in the Par­ liamentary cellars, debating on whom should devolve the temerity of taking down the shutters, and displaying their humble preparations. One did not like to do it, and another did not like to be seen in the shop when it was done: however, having gone so far there was no choice but to go further, and at length one bold fellow, utterly reck­ less of consequences, rushed at the shutters, and in a few minutes Toad Lane was in a titter. Lancashire has its gamins as well as Paris—in fact, all towns have their characteristic urchins, who display a precocious sense of the ridiculous. The ‘ doffers ’ are the gamins of Rochdale. The ‘doffers ’ are lads from ten to fifteen, who take off full bobbins from the spindles, and put them on empty ones.f Like steam to the engine, they are the indispensable accessories to the mills. When they are absent the men have to play, and often when the men want a holiday, the ‘ doffers ’ get to understand it by some of those signs very well understood in the freemasonry of the factory craft, and the young rascals run away in a body, and, of course, the men have to play until the rebellious urchins return to their allegiance. On the night when our store was opened, the ‘ doffers ’ came out strong in Toad Lane—peeping with ridiculous impertinence, round the corners, ventilating their opinion at the top of their voices, or standing before the door, inspecting, with pertinacious insolence, the scanty arrangement of butter and oatmeal; at length, they exclaimed in a chorus, ‘ Aye ! the owd weaver’s shop is opened at last.’ Since that time two generations of ‘ doffers ’ have bought their butter and oatmeal at the ‘ owd weaver’s shop,’ and many a bountiful and wholesome meal, and many a warm jacket have they had from that store, which articles would never have reached their stomachs or their shoulders, had it not been for the provident temerity of the co­ operative weavers. * These are the articles specified in the minutes of Dec. 12,1844. t To pull off a hobbin is, in the language of mills, to ‘ doff ithence the phrase ‘ doffers.’ �14 HISTORY OF THE The self-made difficulties of the early co-operators. Very speedily, however, our embryo co-operators discovered that they had more serious obstacles to contend with than derision of the ‘ doffers.’ The smallness of their capital compelled them to purchase their commodities in small quantities, and at disadvantage both of quality and price. In addition to this, some of their own members were in debt to their own shopkeepers, and they neither could, nor dare, trade with the store. And, as always happens in these humble movements, many of the members did not see the wisdom of pro­ moting their own interests, or were diverted from doing it, if it cost them a little trouble, or involved some temporary sacrifice. Of course the quality of the goods was sometimes inferior, and sometimes the price was a trifle higher. These considerations, temporary and trifling compared with the object sought, would often deter some from be­ coming purchasers, for whose exclusive benefit the store was projected. If the husband saw what his duty was, he could not always bring his wife to see it; and unless the wife is thoroughly sensible, and thoroughly interested in the welfare of such a movement, its success must be very limited. If the wife will take a little trouble, and bear with the temporary sacrifice of buying now and then an article she does not quite like, and will send a little farther for her purchases than perhaps suits her convenience, and will sometimes agree to pay a little more for them than the shop next door would charge, the co­ operative stores might always become successful. Pure quality, good weight, honest measure, and fair dealing within the establishment, buying without higgling, and selling without fraud, are sources of moral and physical satisfaction of far more consequence to a welltrained person than a farthing in the pound cheaper, which the same goods might elsewhere cost. How heavily are we taxed to put down vice when it has grown up—yet how reluctant are we to tax ourselves ever so lightly to prevent it arising. If there are to be moral sellers, there must be moral buyers. It is idle to distinguish the seller as an indirect cheat, so long as the customer is but an ambiguous knave. Those dealers who make it a point always to sell cheaper than any one else, must make up their minds to the risk of dishonesty, to the driving of hard bargains, or of stooping to adulterations. Our little store thought more of improving the moral character of trade than of making large profits. In this respect they have educated their associates and customers to a higher point of character. The first members of the store were not all sensible of this, and their support was consequently slender, like their knowledge. But a staunch section of them were true co-operators, and would come far or near to make their purchases, and, whether the price was high or low, the quality good or bad, they bought, because it was their duty to buy. The men were determined, and the women no less enthusiastic, willing, and content. Those members of the store who were true to their own duty, were naturally impatient that all the other members should do the same; they expected that every other member should buy at the store what­ ever the store sold, that the said member purchased elsewhere. Not con- �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 15 Promises ‘ to find.’ Appearance of a millionaire and a martyr. tent with wishing this, they sought to compel all members to become traders with the store; and James Daly, the then secretary, brought forward a resolution to the effect that those members who did not •trade with the store should be paid out. Charles Howarth opposed this motion, on the very proper ground that it would destroy the free action of the members. He desired co-operation to advance, he said he would do all he could to promote it; that freedom was a principle which he liked absolutely, and, rather than give it up, he would forego the advantages of co-operation. It will be seen, as our little history progresses, that this love of principle has never died out, nor, indeed, been impaired amid these resolute co-operators. James Daly’s motion was withdrawn. CHAPTER IV. THE SOCIETY TRIED BY TWO WELL-KNOWN DIFFICULTIES—PREJUDICE AND SECTARIANISM. In March, 1845, it was resolved that a license for the sale of tea and tobacco be taken out for the next quarter, in the name of Charles Howarth. This step evidently involved the employment of more capital; for though the members had increased, funds had not in­ creased sufficiently for this purpose. The members, in public meeting assembled, were made aware of this fact; then, for the second time in the history of the Rochdale Store, do we hear of any member being in possession of more than twopence. One member ‘ promised to find’ half-a-crown. ‘ Promised to find ’ is the phrase employed on the occasion—it was not ‘promised to pay, or subscribe, or advance.’ ‘ Promised to find ’ probably alluded to some mysterious effort re­ quired to produce a larger sum than twopence in those parts. Another member ‘ promised to find ’ five shillings, and another ‘ promised to find’ a pound. This last announcement was received with con­ sternation, and the rich and reckless man who made the promise was regarded with double veneration, as being at once a millionaire and a * martyr. Other members ‘ promised to find ’ various sums in propor­ tion to their means, and in due time the husbands could get from the store the solace of tobacco, and wives the solace of tea. At the close of 1845 the store numbered upwards of eighty members, and possessed * I have rescued and shall preserve the name of this pecuniary hero—it was William Mallalieu, a trusted servant of John Feilden, M.P., now of Todmorden, who joined the Society at its fifth meeting, September 12th, 1844. It does seem like poking fun at the thing to make this note, but those concerned know it to be ludicrously true. The present writer well remembers the feeling of exultation with which the important accession of £1 was accomplished; and there was only Mr. JHallalieu in all Rochdale at that time, willing and able to help the humble movement to that extent. They little expected, ten years later, to be able to put this minute upon their books—* Resolved, that A. Hill and T. Smithies wait upon the Board of the Rochdale Corn Mill Society, and give them notice that £1,500 lying in the Bank, belonging to this Society, is now at their command.’—Minutes, Marell Sth, 185.5. �16 HISTORY OF THE First social effects of the experiment. Early rules of the Society. a capital of £181 12s. 3d. * At first the store paid 2| per cent, interest on money borrowed, then 4 per cent. After paying this interest, and the small expenses of management, all profits made were divided among the purchasers at the store, in proportion to the" amount expended; and the members soon began to appreciate this very palpable and desirable addition to their income. Instead of their getting into debt at the grocer’s, the store was becoming a savings’ bank to the members, and saved money for them without trouble to themselves. The weekly receipt for goods sold during the quarter ending December, 1845, averaged upwards of £30. ‘ The Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers, held in Toad Lane, in the Parish of Rochdale, in the County of Lancaster,’ made up its mind that a capital of £1,000 must be raised for the establishment of the store. This sum was to be raised by £1 shares, of which each member should be required to hold four and no more. In case more than £1,000 was required, it was to be lawful for a member to hold five shares. At the commencement of the store, it was allowed a member to have any number of shares under fifty-one. The chances of any member availing himself of this opportunity were very dreary. But the. officers were ordered, and empowered, and commanded to buy down all fifty-pound shares with all convenient speed; and any member holding more than four shares was compelled to sell the surplus at their original cost of £1, when applied to by the officers of the Society. But should a member be thrown out of employment, he was then allowed to sell his shares to the board of directors, or other member, by arrangement, which would enable him to obtain a higher value. Each member of the Society, on his admission night, had to appear personally in the meeting room and state his willingness to take out four shares of £1 each, and to pay a deposit of not less than threepence per share, or one shilling, and to pay not less than three­ pence per week after, and to allow all interests and profits that might be due to him to remain in the funds until the amount was equal to four shares in the capital. Any member neglecting his payments was to be liable to a fine, except the neglect arose from distress, sickness, or want of em­ ployment. When overtaken by distress, a member was allowed to sell all his shares, save one. The earliest rules of the Society, printed in 1844, have, of course, undergone successive amendments; but the germs of all their existing rules were there. Every member was to be formally proposed, his name, trade, and residence made known to every one concerned, and a general meeting effected his election. The officers of, the Society included a President, Treasurer, and * The Society paid no interest upon its shares the first year, and all profits were allowed to accumulate with a view to increasing capital.—Vide Minute of Committee Meeting, Aug. 29. 1844. �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 17 Five Directors valued at half-a-crown. Secretary, elected half-yearly, with three Trustees and five Directors. ^Auditors as usual. The officers and Directors were to meet every Thursday evening, at eight o’clock, in the committee room of the Weavers’ Arms, Yorkshire Street. Then followed all the heavy regulations, common to enrolled societies, for taking care of money before they had it. The only hearty thing in the whole rules, and which does not give you the tic doloreux in reading it, is an appointment that an an­ nual general meeting shall be holden on the 4 first market Tuesday, * at which a dinner shall be provided at one shilling each, to celebrate the anniversary of the grand opening of the Store. At which occasion, no doubt, though the present historian has not the report before him, the first sentiment given was 4 Th’ owd Weyvurs’ Shop,’ followed by a chorus from the 4 Doffers.’ The gustativeness of the members appears not to have sustained an annual dinner, for in'1847 we find records of the annual celebration * assuming the form of a 4 tea party,’ to which, in right propagandist spirit, certain Bacup co-operators were invited. The Store itself was ordered to be opened to the public (who never came in those days at all) on the evenings of Mondays and Saturdays only—from seven to nine on Mondays, from six to eleven on Saturdays. It would appear from this arrangement, that the poor flannel weavers only bought twice a week in those times. A dreadful string of fines is attached to the laws of 1844. The value of a Trustee or Director may be estimated by the fact, that his fine for non-attendance was sixpence. It is plain that the Society expected to lose only half-acrown if the whole five ran away. However, they proved to be worth more than the very humble price they put upon themselves. Under their management members rapidly increased, and the Store was opened (March 3, 1845) on additional days, and for a greater number of hours:— Monday from 4 to 9 p.m. Wednesday „ 7 to 9 „ Thursday „ 8 to 10 „ Friday „ 7 to 9 „ Saturday „ ‘ 1 to 11 „ On February 2nd, 1846, it was resolved that the Store be opened on Saturday afternoons for the meeting of members; an indication that the business of the Store was becoming interesting, and required more attention than the weavers were able to give it after their long day’s labour was over. In the October of this year, the Store com­ menced selling butcher’s meat. For the three years 1846-8, the Store was tried by dulness, apathy, and public distress. It made slow, but it made certain progress under them all., Very few new members were added during 1846 ; but the capital of the Society in* An early minute, Oct. 6,1845,1 find appoints an Anniversary Tea. It was ‘ resolved, Oct. 7, 1850, that neither tea nor dinner be provided to celebrate the anniversary’ of that year. This festival must have been a modest one. C �18 HISTORY OF THE Even a bad trade season adds members to the Store. creased to £252 7s. ljd., with weekly receipts for goods averaging £34 for the December quarter. In case of distress occurring to a member, we have seen that he was permitted to dispose of his shares, retaining only one. During 1847 trade was bad, and many of the members withdrew part of their shares. Nothing can better show the soundness of the advantages created by the society, than the fact that the first time trade became bad, and pro­ visions dear, the members rapidly increased. The people felt the pinch, and it made them look out for the best means of making a little go far; and finding that the payment of a shilling entrance money, and threepence a week afterwards—which sum being paid on account of their shares, was really money saved—would enable them to join the Store; they saw that doing so was quite within their means', and much to their advantage. Accordingly, many availed themselves of the opportunity of buying their goods at the Store. The Store thereby encouraged habits of providence, and saved the funds of the parish. At the close of 1847, 110 members were on the books, and the capital had increased to £286 15s. 3|d., and the weekly receipts for goods during the December quarter were £36. An increase of £34 of capital, and £2 a week in receipts during twelve months, was no great thing to boast of; but this was accomplished during a year of bad trade and dear food, which might have been expected to ruin the society: it was plain that the co-operative waggon was surely, if slowly, toiling up the hill. The next minute of the Society’s history is unexpected and cheering. . The year 1848 commenced with great ‘distress ’ cases, and an acces­ sion of new members. Contributions were now no longer collected from the members at their homes. There was one place now where every member met, at least once a week, and that was at the Store, and the cashier made the appointed collection from each when he appeared at the desk. Neither revolutions abroad, nor excitement nor distress at home, disturbed the progress of this wise and peaceful experiment. The members increased to 140, the capital increased to £397, and the weekly receipts for goods sold in the December quarter rose to £80; being an increase of £44 a week over the previous year in the amount of sales. The lower room of the old warehouse was now too small for the business, so the whole building, consisting of three stories and an attic, was taken by these enterprising co-operators, on lease for twenty-one years. More new members were added to the Society in 1849. The second floor became the meeting room of the members, and also a sort of news­ room, for on August 20th, it was resolved—‘That Messrs. James Nuttall, Henry Green, Abraham Greenwood, George Adcroft, James Hill, and Robert Taylor, be a committee to open a stall for the sale of books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.; the profits to be applied to the furnishing the members’ room with newspapers and books.’ At the close of 1849 the number of members had reached three hundred and �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 19 The Store nearly ■wrecked by the religious element. ninety. The capital now amounted to £1193 19s. Id., and the weekly receipts for goods had risen to £179. In the next year a very old enemy of social peace appeared in Rochdale. The religious element began to contend for exclusiveness.. The rapid increase of the members had brought together numbers holding evangelical views, and who had not been reared in a school of practical toleration. These had no idea of allowing to their col­ leagues the freedom their colleagues allowed to them, and they pro­ posed to close the meeting room on Sundays, and forbid religious controversy. The liberal and sturdy co-operators, whose good sense and devotion had created the secular advantages of which the religious accession had chosen to avail itself, were wholly averse to this restriction. They valued mental freedom more than any personal gain, and they could not help regarding with dismay the introduction of this fatal source of discord, which had broken up so many Friendly Societies, and often frustrated the fairest prospects of mutual im­ provement. The matter was brought before a general meeting, on February 4th, 1850. We give the dates of the leading incidents we record, for they are historic days in the career of our Store. On the date here quoted, it was resolved, for the welfare of the Society:— ‘ That every member shall have full liberty to speak his sentiments on all subjects when brought before the meetings at a proper time, and in a proper manner; and all subjects shall be legitimate when properly proposed.' The tautology of this memorable resolution shows the emphasis of alarm under which it was passed, and the endeavour to secure by reiteration of terms, a liberty so essential to conscience and to progress. The founders of the Society were justly apprehensive that its principles would be overthrown by an indiscriminate influx of members, who knew nothing of the toleration upon which all co­ operation must be founded, and they moved and carried:—‘ That no propositions be taken for new members after next general meeting for six months ensuing.’ From this time peace has prevailed on this' subject. Very early in the history of co-operation—as far back as 1832—the Co-operative Congress, held in London in that year, wisely agreed to this resolution:—‘ Whereas, the co-operative world contains persons of all religious sects, and of all political parties, it is unanimously re­ solved, that Co-operators, as such, are not identified with any religious, irreligious, or political tenets whatever; neither those of Mr. Owen, nor of any other individual.’* Sectarianism is at all times the bane of public unity. Without toleration of all opinion, popular co-operation is impossible. These theological storms over, the Society continued its success. The members increasedin 1850 to six hundred; the capital of the Society, in cash and stock, rose to £2299 10s. 5d., and the cash received during the December quarter amounted to £4397 17s., or £338 per week. • Resolution of the third London Co-operative Congress. 1832. �20 HISTORY OF THE The porcupines of progress. In April, 1851, seven years after its commencement, the Store was open, for the first time, all day. Mr. William Cooper was appointed superintendent; John Rudman and James Standring shopmen. This year the members of the Store were six hundred and thirty; its capital £2785; its weekly sales <£308. Somewhat less than in 1850. The next, year, 1852, the increase of members’ capital and receipts was marked, and they have gone on since increasing at a rate beyond all expectation. To what extent we shall show in Tables of Results in another chapter. CHAPTER V. ENEMIES WITHIN AND ENEMIES WITHOUT, AND HOW THEY ALE WERE CONQUERED. The moral miracle performed by our co-operatives of Rochdale is, that they have had the good sense to differ without disagreeing; to dissent from each other without separating; to hate at times, and yet always hold together. In most working class, and, indeed, in most public societies of all classes, a number of curious persons are found, who appear born under a disagreeable star; who breathe hostility,' distrust, and dissension; whose tones are always harsh : it is no fault of theirs, they never mean it, but they cannot help it; their organs of speech are cracked, and no melodious sound can come out of them; their native note is a moral squeak; they are never cordial, and never satisfied ; the restless convolutions of their skin denote ‘ a difference of opiniontheir very lips hang in the form of a ‘ carpthe muscles of their face are ‘ drawn up ’ in the shape of an amendment, and their wrinkled brows frown with an ‘ entirely new principle of action they are a species of social porcupines, whose quills eternally stick out; whose vision is inverted; who see everything upside down; who place every subject in water to inspect it, where the straightest rod appears hopelessly bent; who know that every word has two meanings, and who take always the one you do not intend; who know that no state­ ment can include everything, and who always fix upon whatever you omit, and ignore whatever you assert; who join a society ostensibly to co-operate with it, but really to do nothing but criticise it, without attempting patiently to improve that of which they complain; who, instead of seeking strength to use it in mutual defence, look for weak­ ness to expose it to the common enemy; who make every associate sensible of perpetual dissatisfaction, until membership with them becomes a penal infliction, and you feel that you are sure of more peace and more respect among your opponents than among your friends; who predict to everybody that the thing must fail, until they make it impossible that it can succeed, and then take credit for their treacher- �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS, 21 Members of the opposition. ous foresight, and ask your gratitude and respect for the very help which hampered you; they are friends who act as the fire brigade of the party, they always carry a water engine with them, and under the suspicion that your cause is in a constant conflagration, splash and drench you from morning till night, until every member is in an ever­ lasting state of drip; who believe that co-operation is another word for organised irritation, and who, instead of showing the blind the way, and helping the lame along, and giving the weak a lift, and imparting courage to the timid, and confidence to the despairing, spend their time in sticking pins into the tender, treading on the toes of the gouty, pushing the lame down stairs, leaving those in the dark behind, telling the fearful that they may well be afraid, and assuring the despairing that it is ‘ all up.’ A sprinkling of these ‘ damned good natured friends ’ belong to most societies; they are few in number, but indestructible; they are the highwaymen of progress, who alarm every traveller, and make you stand and deliver your hopes; they are the Iagoes and Turpins of democracy, and only wise men and strong men can evade them or defy them. The Rochdale co-operators understand them very well—they met them—bore with them— worked with them—worked in spite of them—looked upon them as the accidents of progress, gave them a pleasant word and a merry smile, and passed on before them ; they answered them not by word but by act, as Diogenes refuted Zeno. When Zeno said there was no motion, Diogenes answered him by moving. When adverse critics, with Briarian hands, pointed to failure, the Rochdale co-operators quietly replied by succeeding. * Whoever joins a popular society, ought to be made aware of this curious species of colleagues whom we have described. You can get on with them very well if they do not take you by surprise. Indeed, they are useful in their way; they are the dead weights with which the social architect tries the strength of his new building. We men­ tion them because they existed in Rochdale, and that fact serves to show that our co-operators enjoyed no favour from nature or accident. They were tried like other men, and had to combat the ordinary human difficulties. Take two examples. Of course the members’ meetings are little parliaments of working men—not very little parliaments now, for they include thrice the number of members composing the House of Commons. All the mutual criticisms in which Englishmen proverbially indulge, and the grumblings said to be our national characteristic, and the petty jealousies of democracies, are reproduced on these occasions, though not upon the fatal scale so common among the working class. Here, in the parliament of our Store, the leader of the opposition sometimes shows no mercy to the leader in power; and Rochdale Gladstones and Disraelies very freely criticise the quarterly budget of the Sir George Cornewall Lewis of the day. At one time there was our friend Ben, a member of the Store so known, who was never satisfied with anything—and yet he never complained of anything. He looked his A ' . �22 HISTORY OF THE The effects of success upon the suspicious. disapproval, but never spoke it. He was suspicious of everybody in a degree, it would seem, too great for utterance. He went about everywhere, he inspected everything, and doubted everything. He shook his dissent, not from his tongue, but his head. It was at one time thought that the management must sink under his portentous disapprobation. With more wisdom than usually falls to critics, he refrained from speaking until he knew what he had to say. After two years of this weighty travail the clouds dispersed, and Ben found speech and confidence together. He found that his profits had in­ creased notwithstanding his distrust, and he could no longer find in his heart to frown upon the Store which was making him rich. At last he went up to the cashier to draw his profits, and he came down, like Moses from the mount, with his face shining. Another guardian of the democratic weal fulminated heroically. The very opposite of Ben, he almost astounded the Store by his ceaseless and stentorian speeches. The Times newspaper would not contain a report of his quarterly orations. He could not prove that anything was wrong, but he could not believe that all was right. He was invited to attend the meeting of the Board; indeed, if we have studied the chronicles of the Store correctly, he was appointed a member of the Board, that he might not only see the right thing done, but do it; but he was too indignant to do his duty, and he was so committed to dissatisfaction that above all things he was afraid of being undeceived; and, during his whole period of office, he sat with his back to the Board, and in that somewhat unfriendly and inconvenient attitude he delivered his respective opinions. Whether, like the hare, he had ears behind has not been certified; but, unless he had eyes behind, he never could have seen what took place. A more perfect member of an opposition has rarely appeared. He was made by nature to conduct an antagonism. At length he was bribed into con­ tent—bribed by the only legitimate bribery—the bribery of success. When the dividends came in behind him, he turned round to look at them, and he pocketed his ‘brass’ and his wrath together; and, though he has never been brought to confess that things are going right, he has long ceased to say that they are going wrong. The Store very early began to exercise educational functions. Besides supplying the members with provisions, the Store became a meeting place, where almost every member met each other every evening after working hours. Here there was harmony because there was equality. Every member was equal in right, and was allowed to express his opinions on whatever topic he took an interest in. Religion and politics, the terrors of Mechanics’ Institutions, were here common subjects of discussion, and harmless because they were open. In other respects the co-operators acquired business confidence as well as business habits. The Board was open to everybody, and, in fact, everybody went everywhere. Distrust dies out where nothing is concealed. Confidence and honest pride sprung up, for every member was a master—he was at once purchaser and proprietor. But all did �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 23 The difficulty of serving the poor. not go smoothly on. Besides the natural obstacles which exist, ignorance and inexperience created others. Poverty is a greater impediment to social success than even pre­ judice. With a small capital you cannot buy good articles nor cheap ones. What is bought at a small Store will probably be worse and dearer than the same articles elsewhere. This discourages the poor. With them every penny must tell, and every penny extra they pay for goods seems to them a tax, and they will not often incur it. It is of no use that you show them that it and more will come back again as profit at the end of the quarter. They do not believe in the end of the quarter—they distrust the promise of profits. The loss of the penny to-day is near—the gain of sixpence three months hence is remote. Thus you have to educate the very poor before you can serve them. The humbler your means the greater your difficulties— you have to teach as well as to save the very poor. One would think that a customer ought to be content when he is his own shopkeeper; on the contrary, he is not satisfied with the price he charges himself. Intelligent contentment is the slowest plant that grows upon the soil of ignorance. Some of the male members, and no wonder that many of the women also, thought meanly of the Store. They had been accustomed to fine shops, and the Toad Lane warehouse was repulsive to them; but after a time the women became conscious of the pride of pay­ ing ready money for their goods, and of feeling that the store was their own, and they began to take equal interest with their husbands. As usually happens in these cases, the members who rendered no sup­ port to the new undertaking when it most wanted support, made up by rendering more complaints than anybody else, thus rendering no help themselves and discouraging those who did. It has been a triumph of penetration and good sense to inspire these contributors with a habit of supporting that, which, in its turn, supports them so well. There are times still when a cheaper article has its attraction for the store purchaser, when he forgets the supreme advantage of knowing that his food is good, or his garment as stout as it can be made. He will sometimes forget the moral satisfaction derived fsom knowing that the article he can buy from the Store has, as far as the store can influence it, been produced by some workman, who, in his turn, was paid at some living rate for his labour. Now and then, the higgler will appear at the little co-operative stores around, and the store dealers will believe them, and prefer their goods to the supplies to be had from the store, because they are some fraction cheaper; without their being able to know what adulteration, or hard bar­ gaining elsewhere, has been practised to effect the reduction. Any person passing through the manufacturing districts of Lan­ cashire will be struck with the great number of small provision shops; many of them dealing in drapery goods as well as food. From these shops the operatives, to a great extent, spread their tables and cover their backs. Unfortunately, with them the credit system is the rule, �24 HISTORY OF THE Feargus O’Connor’s Land Scheme retards the Store. and ready money the exception. The majority of the people trading at these shops have what is called a ‘ Strap Book,’ which of course is always taken when anything is fetched, and balanced as often as the operatives receive their wages, which is generally weekly, but in many places fortnightly. A balance is generally left due to the shop­ keeper, thus the great number of operatives are always less or more in debt. When trade becomes slack, he goes deeper and deeper, until he is irretrievably involved. When his work fails altogether, he is obliged to remove to another district, and of course to trade with another shop, unless at great inconvenience he sends all the distance to the old shop. It sometimes happens that an honest weaver will prefer all this trouble to forsaking a house that has trusted him. One instance has been mentioned to the present writer, in which a family that had re­ moved from a village on one side of the town to one on the opposite side, continued for years to send a distance of two miles and a half to the old shop for their provisions, although in doing so they had to pass through the town of Rochdale, where they could have obtained the same things cheaper. This is in every way a grateful and honourable fact, and the history of the working class includes crowds of them. We are bound to relate that the capital of the Store would have increased somewhat more rapidly, had it not at that time been ab­ sorbed by the land company of Feargus O’Connor. Many members of the Store were also shareholders in that concern, and as that company was considered by them to be more feasible, and calculated sooner to place its members in a state of permanent independence, much of the zeal and enthusiasm necessary to the prospect of a new society were lost to the co-operative cause. The practise of keeping up a national debt in this country, on the interest of which so many are enabled to live at the expense of industrious taxpayers, and the often immoral speculations of the Stock Exchange, have produced an absurd and injurious reaction on the part of many honest people. Many co-operative experiments have failed through want of capital, because the members thought it imiporal to take interest, and yet they had not sufficient zeal to lend their money without interest. Others have had a moral objection to paying interest, and as money was not to be had without, of course these virtuous people did nothing—they were too moral to be useful. All this showed frightful ignorance of political economy. If nobody practised thrift and self-denial in order to create capital, society must remain in perpetual barbarism; and if capital is refused interest as compensation for its risk, it would never be available for the use of others. It would be simply hoarded in uselessness, instead of being the great instrument of civilisation and national power. The class of reformers who made these mistakes were first reclaimed to intelligent appreciation of industrial science by Mr. Stuart Mill’s ‘ Principles of Political Economy, with some of their applications to Social Philosophy �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 1 25 No necessity for the State to join in the coercion of progressive opinion. Most of these ‘applications’ were new to them, and though made with the just austerity of science, they manifested so deep a consideration for the progress of the people, and a human element so fresh and sincere, that prejudice was first dispelled by sympathy, and error afterwards by argument. The principle of co-operation—so moralising to the individual as a discipline, and so advantageous to the state in its results—with what difficulty has it made its way in the world 1 Regarded by the states­ man as some terrible form of political combination, and by the rich as a scheme of spoliation; denounced in parliament, written against by political economists, preached against by the clergy; the co-operative idea, as opposed to the competitive, has had to struggle, and has yet to struggle its way into industry and commerce. Statesmen might spare themselves the gratuitous anxiety they have often manifested for the suppression of new opinion. Experience ought to have shown them that wherever one man endeavours to set up a new idea, ten men at once rise up to put it down; not always because they think it bad, but because, whether good or bad, they do not want the existing order of things altered. They will hate truth itself, even if they know it to be truth, if truth gives them trouble. The statesman ought to have higher taste, even if he has not higher employment, than to join the vulgar and officious crowd in hampering or hunting honest innovation. There is, of course, a prejudice felt at first on the part of shopkeepers against co-operative societies. That sort of feeling exists which we find among mechanics against the intro­ duction of machinery, which, for want of better arrangements, is sure to injure them first, however it may benefit the general public after­ wards. But, owing to the good sense of the co-operators, and not less to the good sense of the shopkeepers of Rochdale, no unfriendli­ ness worth mentioning has ever existed between them. The co­ operators. were humbly bent on improving their own condition, and at first their success in that way was so trivial as not to be worth the trouble of jealousy. For the first three or four years after the com­ mencement of the Store, its operations produced no appreciable effect upon the retail trade of the town. The receipts of the Store in 1847, four years after its commencement, were only £36 a week; about the receipt of a single average shop, and five or ten times less than the receipts of some shops. But of late years, no doubt, the shopkeepers, especially smaller ones, have felt its effects. In some instances shops may have been closed in consequence. The members of the Store extend out into the suburbs, a distance of one or two miles from the town. It has happened in the case of at least one suburban shop­ keeper, that half the people for a mile round nim had become Store purchasers. This, of course, would be likely to affect his business. The good feeling prevailing among the tradesmen of the town has been owing somewhat to a display of unexpected good sense and moderation on the part of the co-operators, who have kept themselves free from the greed of mere trade and the vices of rivalry. If the D �26 HIST0EY OF THE The co-operators, and their wise policy toward shopkeepers. prices of grocery in the town rose, the Store raised its charges to the same level. It never would, even in appearance, nor even in selfdefence, 'Use its machinery to undersell others; and when tradesmen lowered, as instances often occurred, their prices in order to undersell the Store, and show to the town that they could sell cheaper than any society of weavers, and when they made a boast of doing so, and invi­ ted the customers of the Store to deal with them in preference, or taunted the dealers at the Store with the higher prices they had to pay, the Store never at any time, neither in its days of weakness nor of strength, would reduce any of its prices. It passed by, would not recognise, would in no way imitate this ruinous and vexatious, but perfectly legitimate, resource of competition. The Store conducted an honest trade—it charged an honest average price—it sought no rivalry, nor would it be drawn into any, although the means of winning were quite as much in its hands as in the hands of its oppo­ nents. The prudent maxims of the members were, ‘ To be safe we must sell at a profit.’ ‘ To be honest we must sell at a profit.’ ‘ If we sell sugar without profit, we must take advantage covertly in the sale of some other articles to cover that loss.’ ‘ We will not act covertly ; we will not trade without profit whatever others may do; we will not profess to sell cheaper than others; we profess to sell honestly ’—and this policy has conquered. , Some manufacturers were as much opposed to the co-operators’ Store as the shopkeepers—not knowing exactly what to make of it. Some were influenced by reports made to them by prejudiced persons— some had vague notions of their men acquiring a troublesome inde­ pendence. But this apprehension was of short duration, and was set at rest by the good sense of others. One employer was advised to dis­ charge some of his men for dealing at the Store, who serviceably answered ‘He did not see why he should. So long as his men did their duty, it was no business of his to dictate where they should deal. They had as much right as he had to spend their money in that mar­ ket where they thought it would go farthest, and if they learned thrift he did not see what harm it would do them, and if they could save money they had a right to do so. Indeed, he thought it was their turn.’ The co-operators have long enjoyed the good opinion of the majority of the manufacturers, and the higher classes of the town. The members of the Store are so numerous, that the masters come in contact with them at almost every turn. The co-operators work for nearly every employer in the town, and many hold the most trusty and responsible situations. The working class in general hold the co-operative society in high esteem, and what is more natural, since it aims at bettering their condition ? Indeed, the society exercises considerable influence in the town. As its members are spread over every part, every local or public movement is known to one or the other, and is communicated rapidly as they meet with their fellow members at the Store. Facts circulate—opinion is elicited—criticism �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 27 The ‘ exploded fallacy ’ becomes a ‘ paying ’ fallacy. follows—a general conviction upon particular points springs up—and thus many learn what is the right view to support, and support it with more confidence from the knowledge that numbers, upon whom they can rely, share it. The slowness of the Rochdale movement for two or three years may be attributed to the want of confidence in any scheme originating among the working classes for the amelioration of their condition. The loss, trouble, and anxiety entailed upon the leading men of the previous co-operative societies in Rochdale, were still within the recollection of many. These reminiscences would naturally intimidate the cautious. There were others who were not aware that the former societies had been wrecked by the credit system. The ‘ Equitable Pioneers ’ had most studiously avoided that shoal. In fact, so many co-operative experiments had been stranded by credit, that an almost universal opinion was prevalent, not only in Rochdale, but through­ out the country and in Parliament, that co-operation was an exploded fallacy, and the poor co-operators, whose enterprise we report, were looked upon as dangerous emissaries of some revolutionary plot, and at the same time as fanatics deluded beyond all hope of enlightenment, who were bent on ruining themselves, and too ignorant to com­ prehend their folly or their danger. It was not until the small but unfailing stream of profits began to meander into all out of the way cottages and yards—it was not until the town had been repeatedly astonished by the discovery of weavers with money in their pockets, who had never before been known to be out of debt, that the working class began to perceive that the ‘ exploded fallacy ’ was a paying fallacy; and then crowds of people who had all their life been saying and proving that nothing of the kind could happen, now declared that they had never denied it, and that everybody knew co-operation would succeed, and that anybody could do what the Store did. CHAPTER VI. THE GREAT FLOUR MILL PANIC. Towards the close of 1850, a new society takes its place in our narrative—namely, the ‘ Rochdale District Corn Mill Society.’ A similar one had long flourished in Leeds, a history of which would be a very instructive addition to co-operative literature. * The Rochdale imitation commenced its active operations about the close of 1850. * An account appeared in the local newspapers of 1849, of the success of the Leeds and Halifax Corn Mill Societies, which had effected a general reduction in the price of flour in those towns, thus serving the whole public, besides supplying to their own members pure flour cheaper than the public price, with added profits. These facts, circulated by the newspapers, led Mr. Smithies, Mr. Greenwood, and Mr. Charles Howarth to initiate the discussion of a corn mill movement in Rochdale, at the Equitable Pioneers’ meetings. �23 HISTORY OF THE Co-operative affairs take a turn for the worse. This Corn Mill Society, meeting at the Elephant and Castle, Man­ chester Road, received encouragement from the Store. It, however, soon appeared that the mill had too little money to enable it to carry on the corn business; it had to get its grain from such persons as would supply it on credit. The directors being unacquainted with the business, had, of course, to entrust it to other hands than their own, very much to its disadvantage. Our ‘ Equitable Pioneers ’ invested, in the shape of shares in the corn mill, from £400 to £600. In 1851 they began to lend to the Corn Mill Society, on account of goods to come in. Unfortunately, the goods sent in—namely, the flour, was of an inferior quality. This was owing to two causes. First, the corn mill, being short of capital, was obliged to buy where it could get credit, instead of where it could get the best corn ; being in the power of him who gave credit, they were often compelled to accept an inferior article at a high price. Second, there was a want of skill in the head miller—in the grinding department. The ‘Equitable Pioneer Society’ decided to sell no flour but the ‘Rochdale Corn Mill Society’s,’ and that being inferior, of course the sale fell * off. This is another of those little crevices in the walls of a popular experiment, through which the selfishness of human nature peeps out. Of course a man who pays a dearer rate than his neighbour for any article, taxes himself to that amount; but, in a public movement, this is one of those liabilities which every man who would advance it must be prepared to encounter. When the support of the purchasers at the Store began to drop off by this refusal to take the flour, it brought on a crisis in the co-operative society. By the end of the third quarter of 1851, the corn mill had lost £450.f This produced a panic in the Store, which was considered, by its investments, to be implicated in the fall of the corn mill. It was soon rumoured that the Store would fail, and some of the members proposed that the corn mill business be abandoned. Others suggested that each member of the Store should subscribe a pound to cover the loss, and clear out of it. But as the corn mill held its meetings at the Pioneers’ Store, and its leading members belonged to the Store, Mr. Smithies considered that their honour was compromised if they were defeated; and insisted, with much energy, that the name of ‘ Pioneers ’ must be given up, unless they went on altogether. Had the mill been brought to the hammer at this time, there would not have been realised ten shillings in the pound. This was the point to try their faith in co-operation. The members did not fail. Some brought all the money they could collect together to enable the difficulties to be conquered; a few, as usual in these cases, fell back. In the first place, amid those who distinguished themselves to avert the disaster of failure, all agree to * The deficiency of capital is always aggravated by miscalculation. After contracting for the machinery of £750, the millwright sent in a hill of extras of £140—a dressing machine at £44 was overlooked; the result was that when the mill was ready no money existed with which to purchase grain. t The joy with which the directors hailed the production of their first sack of flour was turned into dismay at this result. �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 29 Cheap bookkeeping. The bailiff appears. name Abraham Greenwood, whose long and protracted devotion to this work cost him his health, and nearly his life. How much has depended, in the fate of the Store, on the honesty of its officers, may be seen from the disasters of the corn mill, arising from defects of character in some of its servants. One miller systematically went to Manchester, instead of to Wakefield, to buy his flour. By acting in concert with some seller, he got a commission in Manchester, and the Store suffered for it. The first great loss of the mill was probably occasioned in this way. The next miller had a weakness for ‘ toddy,’ and his successor was liable to faint perceptions of truth; so between the man who would not know what he was doing, and the man who did not know what he was doing, and the man who did not know what he was saying, the affairs of the corn mill got somewhat confused. Another very usual error among the working class muddled every thing further. Thinking it economical to accept volunteer book­ keepers, they had their books kept by those who offered—who officiated in turns—and the books were duly bungled for nothing. The confusion was cheap but inextricable, and the perplexity of everything grew worse confounded. The directors acted with good sense and vigour as soon as they comprehended their position. The defective manager for the time being was dismissed, Mr. A. Green­ wood, the president of the society, acting in his place. A paid book­ keeper was appointed—debts were commenced liquidation by small instalments, when an unexpected disaster overtook them. One morning news was brought to town that the bailiffs were in possession, to the dismay of the struggling co-operators, and secret satisfaction of the prophets of failure, who could not help felicitating themselves on so portentous a sign. The landlord, of whom the Corn Mill was rented, had neglected to pay the ground landlord his rent, and for three years’ ground rent, amounting to £100, he had put in a distraint upon the property of the co-operators, who were not morally re­ sponsible. This enemy was in due time routed—perseverance triumphed, and successive dividends, from fourpence to one shilling in the pound, cleared off the loss of £450, and the day of substantial profits at length dawned. When the Store was first opened, one shopkeeper boasted that he could come with a wheelbarrow and wheel the whole stock away, which was quite true. He had the command of ten times more capital. He threatened that he would sell cheaper, and break up the Store. It was quite true that he could sell cheaper, but the weavers held together, and he did not break up the Store. There were many unfriendly traders of this way of thinking. It often happens that men who do not exactly mean ill towards you, become your enemies artificially. They begin by predicting that you will fail, and without exactly wishing you should fail, are sorry when you do not. As an abstract matter, they would perhaps be glad of your success; but having committed themselves to a prediction, they are disgusted when �30 HISTORY OF THE A ran upon the Store. The stocking-foot comes into requisition. you falsify it, and they will sometimes help to bring about your ruin for no other reason than that of fulfilling their own prediction. In 1849, when the savings’ bank in Rochdale so disgracefully broke, and many thousands of pounds of the hard earnings of the poor were swept away, the poor and ruined people turned to the Store for * protection. Since 1849 there has been no savings’ bank in Rochdale. Many of the weavers who, up to this time, had preferred investing their money in the bank, had now to look out for another place in which to deposit their savings. They felt that they had misplaced their confidence in the savings’ bank, which was an institution without an adequate responsible security, or in which they had no controlling influence over the application of the money. As the Store offered both these advantages, and a higher rate of interest, many of their bank dividends^ found their way to the Store, and future savings also. They had more confidence in the ‘ Equitable Pioneers ’ than in the pseudo government bank. The failure of the savings’ bank led to an accession of members and capital to the Store. This growth of con­ fidence brought great discredit on the prophets to whom we have been referring. No sooner, however, did the Corn Mill panic get rumoured about, than they recurred with sinister emphasis to their old pre­ dictions, and their rumours brought about a run upon the Store. The humble directors said nothing, but quietly placed their cashier behind the counter with orders to pay every demand. One man, who had twenty-four pounds in the Store, the whole of which he had made from the profits, began with a demand for sixteen pounds. He had some sort of sympathy for his benefactors, and thought he would leave a little in their hands. ‘ Are you about to commence some sort of business ? ’ asked the cashier. ‘ No,’ said the man, ‘ but I want my money.’ ‘ Well, you are aware that notice is required ? ’ ‘ Oh, yes, and I am come to give notice.’ He ‘ would have his money.’ ‘ Well,’ said the cashier, ‘ we avail ourselves of the notice when we are likely to be short ; but we can dispense with notice now. You’d better “ tak brass now.” ’ And they made the man ‘ tak brass ’ then, and much to his astonish­ ment, he was obliged to carry his money away in his pocket, and he went away, half suspecting he had been playing the fool. Eighteen months after, this man brought his money back: he had kept it in some stocking foot all that time (that celebrated ‘ patent safe ’ of the poor), losing the interest. He himself then told the cashier the story of his taking it out; in consequence of being assured * Out of £100,403 deposits, an officer had appropriated to his own use £71,717. The amount still due to the depositors (1857) is £38,287. Sir A. Ramsay has lately presented a petition to the House of Commons on the subject. t 12s. 6d. in the pound is all yet paid. �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 31 The panic subsides. that the Store would break. He now tells the story to his comrades, far and near, and nobody has more confidence in the Store than he. Next a woman appeared : she would have her money out then. It was at once offered to her—then she would not have it. She de­ manded her money because she had been told she could not get it; and when she found that she could have it, she did not want it. More sensible and quickwitted than the dullard who carried his sixteen pounds home to his stocking foot, when she found there was no risk, she left her money. Another instance occurred, in which a woman generously refused to draw her money out whether it was in danger or not. A shopkeeper said to her:—‘ You say you have £40 in the Store; well, it will be sure to break, and you had better draw it out.’ The woman answered:—‘ Well, if it does break, it will break with its own; it has all been saved out of my profits—all I have it has given me.’ From the depositors the panic extended to traders; but the panic among them did not last long. At that time, corn was bought for the mill one week, and paid for the next. The payments, at this time, were made at Wakefield, one week under the other. One week the buyer-in missed the paying. The old gentleman who was, in this case, the creditor, was told by millers about him that the Store had broken—he might depend upon it. He took an express train to Rochdale and a cab from the railway station, rushed down to the Store, and demanded his money. He was quietly asked for his invoice, and his money was at once paid him; and he was told if he knew any others wanting money on account of goods supplied to the Corn Mill, to be kind enough to send them in. The old gentleman went away very much astonished; he felt that he should never have another order; and he afterwards stated to the superintendent at the railway station, he had ever since regretted the unfortunate journey he was induced to make. About this time, the bank in Rochdale, with whom our ‘ Equit­ able Pioneers’ did business, did them a frank piece of service, which they have always remembered with appreciation. Some tradesmen being at the counter of the bank, a person remarked that he thought the Store was running down, evidently fishing from the bankers some confirmation of his suspicions. The answer given by one of the firm was, that he did not see why it should, as the Board had left £2000 in their hands for a long time, which they had never touched. This obser­ vation established confidence in influential quarters; and as the depositors who applied for their money at the Store invariably car­ ried it back with them in their pockets, it soon restored confidence among their own order. The humble directors of the Store, like all other honest men, had more pride and pleasure in paying money than in receiving it, and their firm and judicious conduct re-established the credit of the ‘ Equitable Pioneers.’ Here are from one to two thousand weavers, who have done what Sir John Dean Paul failed to do—kept an honest banking house. In point of morality, how infinitely superior are these Rochdale Co- �32 HISTORY OF THE Objections to genuine food. operators to that Lord of the Treasury who finally poisoned himself on Hampstead Heath I Surely these men are as fit for the franchise as Paul and Sadleir, as Hugh Innes Cameron and Humphrey Brown, What . standard of electional fitness does the Government take, who gives the franchise to fraudulent bankers and knavish lords of the treasury, and withholds it from honest weavers ? The September quarter of 1852 showed a clear balance of gain for that quarter of £100 upon the Corn Mill. The energy of Mr. Greenwood and his colleagues had turned upwards the fortunes of the Corn Mill. In the origin of their flour operations a curious circumstance occurred. Determined to supply all things genuine, they supplied the flour so. It might be inferior, as we have related it was, but it was pure; but being pure, it was browner than the usual flour in the market. It was rejected for its difference of colour. A friend of the present writer, disgusted with the spurious coffee of London, made arrangements to supply the common people with a genuine cup. To this end he opened a house in Lambeth, and ground up the real berries pure. But no one would drink his coffee, and he had to shut up his house. Accustomed to adulterated coffee, until their taste was formed upon depraved compounds, the people rejected the pure beverage. So it happened to our Corn Mill. The unadulterated flour would not sell. The customers of the Store knew neither the colour nor taste of pure flour. Then there was a cry against the co­ operators. It was said they could not compete with the usual millers; and if they adulterated, the only way open of rendering their flour popular, there would be another cry out against them for adultera­ ting it, and being as bad as other traders. For a short time they made their flour white in the usual way, but it was so much against their principles to do so, that they discussed the folly of the preference with their purchasers at the Store, and the pure flour, of whatever colour, was taken into favour, and from that day to this it has been sold genuine. CHAPTER VH. SUCCESSIVE STEPS OF SUCCESS. THE ROCHDALE STORE ON A SATURDAY NIGHT. The Equitable Pioneers’ Society is divided into seven departments :• * Grocery, Drapery, Butchering, Shoemaking, Clogging, Tailoring, Wholesale. A separate account is kept of each business, and a general account is given each quarter, showing the position of the whole. The grocery business was commenced, as we have related, in December, 1844, with only four articles to sell. It now includes what­ ever a grocer’s shop should include. �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 33 History of the wholesale department. The drapery business was started in 1847, with an humble array of attractions. In 1854 it was erected into a separate department. A year earlier, 1846, the Store began to sell butchers’ meat, buying eighty or one hundred pounds of a tradesman in the town. After awhile, the sales were discontinued until 1850, when the Society had a warehouse of its own. Mr. John Moorhouse, who has now two assistants, buys and kills for the Society three oxen, eight sheep, sundry porkers and calves, which are on the average converted into .£130 of cash per week. Shoemaking commenced in 1852. Three men and an apprentice make, and a stock is kept on sale. Clogging and tailoring commenced also in this year. The wholesale department commenced in 1855, and marks an important development of the Pioneers’ proceedings. This depart­ ment has been created for supplying any member requiring large quantities, and with a view to supply the co-operative stores of Lan­ cashire and Yorkshire, whose small capitals do not enable them to buy in the best markets, nor command the services of what is otherwise indispensable to every Store—a good buyer, who knows the markets and his business, who knows what, how, and where to buy. The wholesale department guarantees purity, quality, fair prices, standard weight and measure, but all on the never failing principle—cash payment. After registering the Society under the 13 and 14 Viet., chap. 115, * the Society turned its attention to a wholesale department, an opera­ tion which would have been impossible but for the legal protection of this Act, an Act which has called forth more expressions of gratitude to Parliament than any Act. I ‘have ever heard commented upon by working men. The Pioneers’ laws say (we quote three of their rules):— 14.—The wholesale department shall be for the purpose of supply­ ing those members who desire to have their goods in large quantities. 16. —The said department shall be charged with interest, after the rate of five per cent, per annum, for such capital as may be advanced to it by the Board of Directors. 17. —The profits arising from this department, after paying for the cost of management and other expenses, including the interest afore­ said, shall be divided quarterly into three parts, one of which shall be reserved to meet any loss that may arise in the course of trade until it shall equal the fixed stock required, and the remaining two thirds shall be divided amongst the members, in proportion to the amount of their purchases in the said department. In 1854, a Conference was held in Leeds, to consider how the co-operative societies of Lancashire and Yorkshire could unite their * An act whieh is itself an answer to those who would apply the maxim of Laisser faire (Let things alone) to politics, a maxim which, however advantageous in political economy, cannot, observes Professor Newman, be applied to politics without blundering or disin genuousness.—Political Economy, p. 188. E • �34 HISTORY OF THE Distribution of profits, and the discussions thereon. purchases of produce and manufactures among themselves. Mr. Lloyd Jones lent his valuable counsel on this occasion, and at Rochdale, where a second Conference with this object was held in August, 1855. Of course the cardinal question was, who should find capital to carry out the idea of a wholesale department. Some stores were willing to contribute a proportional share, others had hardly cash to carry on their own operations; other stores, with a prudence very old in the world, pro­ posed to see how the plan was going to succeed before joining in it. This is a cautiousness commendable in some cases, but were all to act upon it no advance would ever be made. The Equitable Pioneers accepted the initiative with their usual pluck. As many of the stores had the notion in their heads that all the Rochdale Pioneers took up • succeeded, several stores joined, and put in a little money; but the principal capital was supplied by our enterprising friends, the Rochdale Equitables. As the law we have quoted shows, they stipu­ lated for five per cent, on their advances. Differences, though not dissensions, arose. The Equitable Pioneers’ Society felt dissatisfaction that stores, not contributing a fair share of capital to work the whole­ sale trade, should yet receive an equal dividend of profits in propor­ tion to their trade with the department. As the Equitable Pioneers found nearly all the capital, they were by many thought entitled to nearly all the profit. On the other hand, it was urged that the five per cent, on their capital was all they had a right to, and they had no claim to the profits made by the trade of other stores. The Store of the Pioneers dealt with the wholesale department, and had, in common with other stores, their profits upon the amount of their own trade. It was true that many stores only bought articles that yielded little profit, while the Rochdale Store bought so generally and largely as to create the chief profits itself, besides risking its capital, which seemed at first to be in danger. For in the March quarter of 1856, £495 10s. 4d. were lost through purchasing sugars, syrups, treacle, soaps, etc., when prices were high, which prices came down before the goods could be sold. A committee of inquiry at a later date reported that several stores had increased their purchases from the wholesale department of goods, which yielded even more profit than the purchases of the Pioneers’ Store. Mr. William Cooper, the Secretary, defended the proceedings and position of the department, and it was ultimately agreed that the District Stores had dealt fairly by the wholesale department on the whole, although they had not supported it by capital to the extent the promoters could have wished. Still many remained dissatisfied, although they were unable to show what was wrong, and at an adjourned quarterly meeting, so late as October, 1856, it was ‘Resolved, that the wholesale stock be dispensed with.’ Owing to the energy of Mr. Samuel Stott and others, this resolution never took - effect. The department being founded by an enrolled rule, it could not be dispensed with without an alteration of the rules, and before an alteration in the rules can take place the three-fourths of the whole members specially convened must consent to it. The opponents of the �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 35 The wholesale department saved by an Aet of Parliament. department despaired of getting this wide ratification of their partial dis­ satisfaction, and the department continued. The loss of £495 10s. 4d. has, by the end of the March quarter of 1857, in one year’s operation, been reduced to £141 14s. Id. In half a year more, the loss will be cancelled, and profits beyond the interest on capital accrue. The stores, to their credit, continue to trade with the department, just as though they were receiving a dividend in addition to the interest on the capital, which they will shortly do; were they to receive no dividend, it would be to their advantage to trade with the depart­ ment. The most important officer of a store is the purchaser. He must be acquainted with his business and the markets. No honesty, if he has not tact and knowledge, will prevent him from damaging the prosperity of a store by bad purchases. Small stores cannot always find such a man, nor support him when they do. But a wholesale department, by keeping a few such, can serve all stores, can enable the smallest to command genuine articles equally with the greatest, and to command them even cheaper, as well as better, as large, united, wholesale purchases can be made more advantageously, of course, than small ones. It is clear, however, that this admirable and welldevised department must have fallen but for the wise provision of the Act of Parliament, upon which Mr. Stott and his colleagues fell back. This useful law gives stability to a society, it prevents short-sighted sections from destroying general purposes, and enables the errors of a few to be revised and rectified by the decision of a veritable majority of all concerned. The members of the Store attracted from a distance, make their purchases—some once a fortnight, and have their goods sent home; others unite together and employ a carter to deliver them. The desire to obviate this inconvenience, and the difficulty of serving the great increase of members at Toad Lane (the Central Store), Branch Stores have been lately opened. A members’ meeting can no longer beheld at the Store Rooms. 1,600 members make a public meeting, and the business meetings of the Society are held in the public hall of the town. In 1856, the first Branch was opened in the Oldham Road, about a mile from the centre of Rochdale. In 1857, the Castleton Branch, and another in the Whitworth Road, were established, and a fourth Branch at Pinfold. An idea of the appearance of a Branch Store may be gathered from the next page. On each side the door a narrow upright sign, the height of the entrance, gives the following information:— �36 HISTORY OF THE External appearance of the front of a Branch Store. EQUITABLE PIONEERS * CO-OPERATIVE STORES. Enrolled in proportion according to the money to Law. expended. No second Objects. prices. To improve the social and domestic its members. [Copied from All purchases the Doors of paid for the School Lane condition of on delivery. Branch.'] Five per cent, interest paid on shares. Dividends declared quarterly. Remaining profits divided amongst purchasers �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 87 The Store sets up an Almanack. The ‘owd weyvurs’ shop,’ or rather the entire building, was (in 1849), as we have related, taken on lease by the Store, in a state sadly out of repair. One room is now handsomely fitted up as a news-room. Another is neatly fitted up as a library. Every part has undergone * neat refitting and modest decoration, and now wears the air of a thoroughly respectable place of business. The corn mill was, of course, rented, and stood at Small Bridge, some distance from the town—one mile and a half. The society have since built in the town an entirely new mill forthemselves. The engine and the machinery are of the most substantial and improved kind. It is now spoken of as ‘ the Society’s New Mill in Weir Street, near the Commissioners’ Rooms.’ The capital invested in the corn mill is £8,450, of which £3,731 15s. 2d. is subscribed by the Equitable Pioneers’ Society. The corn mill employs eleven men. The Almanack of 1855 announced the formation of a ‘ Manufacturing Society,’ enrolled pursuant to the 15 and 16 Vic., chap. 31. Every Branch of the (we are entitled to say now) Great Store’s proceedings are enrolled pursuant to some Act or other. This was their first for­ mal realisation of the design announced eleven years before, of attempting the organisation of labour. Now they avail themselves of the Industrial and Provident Societies’ Act for carrying on in common the trades of cotton and woollen manufacturing. The capital in this department is £4,000, of which sum £2,042 has been subscribed by the Equitable Pioneers’ Society. This Manufacturing Society has ninety-six power looms at work, and employs twenty-six men, seven women, four boys, and five girls—in all, forty-two persons. In 1854, the Store commenced to issue an Almanack, in which their announcements to members were made, and from which the reader might gather the historic sympathies of the co-operators from the memorable men and dates selected. Now a considerable portion of dates is occupied with their Store, and Corn Mill, and other meetings. Advertisements of the different operations of the society are given; a little history of its origin is crowded into one corner; the ancient objects of the society are repeated in another place; such principles and extracts from the laws as are suitable for the information of strangers find due place upon the same broad sheet. In 1855 they announce their Central London Agents:—‘ The Central Co-operative Agency, No. 356, Oxford Street.’ In 1856 they add, ‘and the Universal Purveyor (William Islip and Co.), No. 33, Charing Cross.’ In 1853 the Store purchased, for £745, a warehouse (freehold) on the opposite side of the street, where they keep and retail their stores of flour, butcher’s meat, potatoes, and kindred articles. Their committee­ rooms and offices are fitted up in the same building. They rent other houses adjoining for calico and hosiery,! and shoe stores. In their wilderness of rooms the visitor stumbles upon shoemakers and tailors, at work under healthy conditions, and in perfect peace of mind as to * Vide Almanack, 1854. t In 1855 the drapery stock was ordered to be insured in the Globe for £1000. �38 HISTORY OF THE Toad Lane on Saturday night. the result on Saturday night. Their warehouses are everywhere as bountifully stocked as Noah’s Ark, and crowds of cheerful customers literally crowd Toad Lane at night, swarming like bees to every counter. The industrial districts of England have not such another sight as the Rochdale Co-operative Store on Saturday night. At seven o’clock there are five persons serving busily at the counter, others are weighing up goods ready for delivery. A boy is drawing treacle. Two youths are weighing up minor articles and refilling the shelves. There are two sides of counters in the grocer’s shop twelve yards long. Members’ wives, children of members, as many as the shop will hold, are being served; others are waiting at the door, in social conversation, waiting to go in. On the opposite side of the street, three men are serving in the drapery department, and nine or ten customers, mostly females, are selecting articles. In the large shop, on the same side of the street, three men are chopping and serving in the butchers’ department, with from twelve to fifteen cus­ tomers waiting. Two other officers are weighing flour, potatoes, preparing butter, etc., for other groups of claimants. In other premises adjoining, shoemakers, doggers, and tailors are at work, or attending customers in their respective departments. The clerk is in his office, attending to members’ individual accounts, or to general business of the society. The news-room over the grocery has twenty or more men and youths perusing the newspapers and periodicals. Adjoining, the watch club, which has fifty-eight members, is collecting its weekly payments, and drawing lots as to who shall have the repeaters (manufactured by Charles Freeman, of Coventry), which the night’s subscription will pay for. The library is open, and the librarian has his hands full in exchanging, renewing, and delivering books to about fifty members, among whom are sons, wives, and daughters of members. The premises are closed at ten o’clock, when there has been received during the day for goods £420, and the librarian has let out two hundred books. In opposite districts of the town, the Society has now open four Branch Stores for the convenience of outlying members, where, on a lesser scale, the same features of sales are being repeated. But it is not the brilliance of commercial activity in which either writer or reader will take the deepest interest; it is in the new and improved spirit animating this intercourse of trade. Buyer and seller meet as friends; there is no overreaching on one side, and no suspicion on the other; and Toad Lane on Saturday night, while as gay as the Lowther Arcade in London, is ten times more moral. These crowds of humble working men, who never knew before when they put good food in their mouths, whose every dinner was adulterated, whose shoes let in the water a month too soon, whose waistcoats shone with devil’s dust, and whose wives wore calico that would not wash, now buy in the markets like millionaires, and, as far as pureness of food goes, live like lords. They are weaving their own stuffs, making their own shoes, sewing their own garments, and grinding their own �BOCHBALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 39 The agency of the pulpit and the Store. Moral effects of co-operation. corn. They buy the purest sugar, and the best tea, and grind their own coffee. They slaughter their own cattle, and the finest beasts of the land waddle down the streets of Rochdale for the consumption of flannel weavers and cobblers. * When did competition give poor men these advantages? And will any man say that the moral character of these people is not improved under these influences ? The teetotallers of Rochdale acknowledge that the Store has made more sober men since it commenced, than all their efforts have been able to make in the same time. Husbands who never knew what it was to be out of debt, and poor wives who, during forty years, never had sixpence uncondemned in their pockets, now possess little stores of money sufficient to build them cottages, and go every week into their own market with money jingling in their pockets; and in that market there is no distrust, and no deception; there is no adulteration, and no second prices. The whole atmosphere is honest. Those who serve neither hurry, finesse, nor flatter. They have no interest in chicanery. They have but one duty to perform—that of giving fan­ measure, full weight, and a pure article. In other parts of the town, where competition is the principle of trade, all the preaching in Rochdale cannot produce moral effects like these.f As the Store has made no debts, it has incurred no losses; and, during thirteen years’ transactions, and receipts amounting to £303,852, it has had no law suits. Children are not generally sent to shops when adults can be spared for the errand, as it is very well known children are put off with any­ thing. The number of children who are sent to the Store to make purchases, is a proof of the honourable family confidence it has inspired. A child is not sent to the Store with a message to go to a particular man with grey whiskers and black hair, and get him to serve, and to be sure and ask him for the ‘ best butter.’ Everybody has grey whiskers and black hair at the Store; the child cannot go to the wrong man, and the best butter is given to every one, old and young, without its being asked for, for the best of all reasons—they keep no bad. The meetings of the Store wore quite a family feature during the first few years. Afterwards, when the members much increased, the meetings assumed a more commercial character. Of course the Store will not now hold its eighteen hundred members. They are numerous enough to make a large public meeting; and the Public Hall, at Rochdale, has to be engaged when a general meeting is held. The perfect freedom of intercourse maintained, the equality of all, which has ever been undisturbed, both in the board room and on every occasion of intercourse, have imparted an air of independence cf * Last year, the Society advertised for a Provision Agent to make purchases in Ireland, and to devote his whole time to that duty. t The Arbitrators of the Societies, during all then- years of office, have never had a case to decide, and are discontented that nobody quarrels. The peaceableness of the Co­ operators amounts to what elsewhere would be termed ‘ contempt of court.’ �40 HISTORY OF THE Progress of the Store. feeling and manner to the whole. Eighteen hundred workmen are brought into weekly intercourse with each other, under circumstances which have raised the tone of society among them all. The Directors of this important and encouraging movement are the same modest and unassuming men they were thirteen years ago; shining in oil, or dusted with flour, in flannel jackets and caps, they in no way answer the expectations of strangers in appearance, how­ ever they surpass expectation in moral and commercial capacity. The following Table shows the progress of the Store from 1844 to 1857—a period of thirteen years. Year. 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 No. of Mem­ bers, Amount of Capital. Amount of cash Receipts per week in sales in Store. December quar. Annual. £ s. £ s, d. 28 0 O 28 710 6 74 181 12 5 1,146 17 252 7 1| 80 1,924 13 110 286 5 3j 2,276 6 397 0 0 140 6,611 18 1,193 19 1 390 2,299 10 5 13,179 17 600 17,638 4 2,785 0 14 630 16,352 5 3,471 0 6 680 22,760 0 5,848 3 11 720 33,364 0 7,172 15 7 900 44,902 12 11,032 12 104 1400 63,197 10 12,920 13 14 1600 79,788 ' 0 15,142 1 2 1850 Total sales in thirteen years, £303,852. d. Amount of Profit. Annual. £ s. d. £ s. d. 30 0 0 32 17 5 80 16 34 0 0 7 72 2 36 0 0 10 80 0 0 117 16 54 179 0 0 561 3 0 338 0 0 889 12 0 990 19 308 0 0 0 0 1,206 15 371 0 0 524 0 0 1,674 18 0 1,763 11 0 661 0 O 1,204 0 0 3,106 8 0 3,921 13 1,353 0 0 0 1,491 0 0 5,470 6 0 Total profits, £19,888 16s. ll£d. The Capitals of Three Departments. 6 34 10 104 9 5 84 24 114 24 44 14 84 1856-7. Store. Com MUI. Manufactures. Total of Capitals. 1856— £12,920 1857— 15,142 £8,450 8,450 £4,000 5,500 £25,370 29,092 Weekly Receipts of the same, 1856-7. 1856— £1,353 1857— 1,491 £850 1,184 £360 300 Total Annual Returns. £133,276 153,088 These Returns will be much higher for 1858, as the Balance Sheet for the first quarter shows an increase of more than £10,000 for the year, for the Store alone. �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 41 Two classes exist in all societies who are never to be viewed separately. CHAPTER VHI. ANECDOTES OE THE MEMBERS. THE WORKING CLASS STAND BY THE STORE, AND THEY ‘ KNOW THE REASON WHY.’ It is as instructive as it is gratifying to notice the kind of replies fre­ quently made by persons who have been served by the Store. One woman who had about £50 in the Store to her credit, was told the ‘ Store would break,’ by persons who wished it would do so. She answered, ‘ Well, let it break; I have only paid one shilling in, andlhavefifty pounds in it. It ’ll break with its own if it do break.’ These anecdotes are very common. Many poor people, whose confidence was sought to be tampered with, have answered alarmists, who have tried to shake their trust—‘Well, if it do smash it may smash, with all it has of mine, for it has paid me out more than ever I paid in,’ These answers not only show good sense, but gratitude and generosity of sentiment. In all service of the people there will be ingratitude displayed. Every man finds it so, sometimes among his private and chosen friends; no doubt, it will be so with the public, whom you serve at random. In publicism, in all human relations, a man who will not be cast down needlessly must learn to look on both sides. He will in every crowd find many whom he cannot respect, and who do not deserve respect; and numbers of poor, yet devoted, trusting, toiling, manly, impassable, grateful men and women, whom you might worship in the fulness of the sentiment of admiration with which they inspire you. ‘ Another fact ought not to escape notice, which none but those having considerable experience are aware of—viz., it is seldom that the people whom you expect to help forward a movement do it. Exactly those on whom you most rely—commonly those whom you select for appeal—deceive you, or fail to help when you expect, and when the crisis requires it. The effects of the Store in improving the finances of its members was seen in the instance of one known as Dick, who has lived in a cellar thirty years, and was never out of debt. He one morning astonished his milkman by asking him to change him a £5 note. The sly dog never had one before, and he felt a pardonable pride in displaying his first possession. Dick has now twenty pounds of ‘ brass ’ in Store. And most of those who have the largest balances standing to their credit, are persons who have never paid, many shillings in. The whole is the accumulation of their profits. The following cases, designated by the numbers belonging to the particular member, were taken by the present writer from the books of the Store in 1853, and communicated to the Leader newspaper �42 HISTORY OF THE Examples of the advantages derived by members of the Store. ‘No. 12 joined the Society in 1844. He had never been out of a shop­ keeper’s books for forty years. He spent at the shop from twenty shillings to thirty shillings per week, and has been indebted as much as £30 at a time. Since he has joined the Pioneers’ Society he has paid in con­ tributions £2 18s.; he has drawn from the Society as profits £17 10s. 7d.; and he has still left in the funds of the Society £5. Thus he has had better food and gained £20. Had such a society been open to him in the early part of his life, he would now be worth a considerable, sum. ‘No. 22 joined the Society at its commencement. He was never out of a shopkeeper’s debt for twenty-five years. His average expen­ diture with the shopkeeper was about ten shillings per week, and was indebted to him forty shillings or fifty shillings generally. He has paid into the Society £2 10s.; he has drawn from the Society £6 17s. 5d.; he has still left in the funds of the Society £8 Os. 3d. He thinks the credit system made him careless about saving anything, and pre­ vented his family from being as economical as they would have been had they been compelled to pay ready money for their commodities. In this he agrees with No. 12. Since he (No. 22) has joined the Society, he has enjoyed other advantages, having a place accessible, where he can resort to, instead of going to the public-house or beer-shop for information and conversation. ‘ No. 114 joined the Society in 1848. Paid in fifteen shillings, has drawn out £11 14s. 1 Id., has still in the funds of the Society £7 2s. lid. Gained in two years £18. • ‘ No. 131 joined the Society at its commencement in 1844. He says he was never out of debt with a shopkeeper for fourteen years. He spent on an average about nine shillings per week with the shopkeeper, and generally owed him from twenty to thirty shillings. He has paid into the Stere as contributions at different times £1 18s. 4d.; and has drawn from it £1 12s. Id.; and has still in the funds of the Society £3 Is. lOd. He thinks the credit system one reason why he was always poor, and that since he joined the Society his domestic comfort has been greatly increased; and had he not belonged to the Society in 1847, he would have been obliged to apply to the parish officers for relief. ‘ Thus the members derive all the advantage of a sick as well as a benefit society. It is thus that the Society give to its members the money which they save.’* A mother, who had always sent her child to the neighbouring slfbp, at length began to send her child to the Store, which was more than a mile away from her house. The child asked the mother why she should be sent so far away for things instead of going into the shop next door. The mother explained to the child that the profits made at the Store would come to them. The child understood the lesson, and would come down in a morning to fetch the food for breakfast, * These instances were quoted by Chambers's Journal at the time of their appearance. - �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 43 Four cows and a half killed weekly. and the family at home would wait till she returned; and, as Sir James Graham would express it, both mother and child knew the reason why. A butcher’s wife expressed her new experience thus :— ‘ Instead of having to take her “ strap ” book with her, she now had money in her pocket and money in the Store.’ One member has .£50 in the Store, all of which he has made by profits, he having drawn out for his own use all that he ever paid in. In one case a woman withdrew £5. from her savings in the Store, not so much because she had special occasion for the money, as for the pleasure of having £5 in her possession. She had traded at shops for nearly half a century, and she declared it was the first time she had ever had £5 of her own in her hands in her life. A husband who dealt at the Store, and had accumulated money in it, had a wife who did not believe in co-operation, and was easily persuaded that the Store was unsafe, and she took the opportunity of drawing his savings from the Store and placed them, for more safety, in the savings’ bank. Before long the savings’ bank broke. The poor woman’s faith was made whole by the mishap. She gathered up the tardy dividends of the bank and replaced the residue in the Store, where since they have remained. George Morton, an old man above sixty, says that had there been no Store, he does not know how he must have lived without going to the poor-house. The profits he has received from the Store on goods purchased has nearly kept him in food for the last eleven years—that is, from 1845 to 1856. He has, during that time, received in dividends £77 3s. 6d., and has remaining in the Society £11. He has never paid into the Society more than £5 16s. 7|d. altogether. Of the confidence in the dealings of the Store, Mrs. Mills, a widow, gives this testimony. She came to the Store for a steak, but as the Store butchers had none, and she wantedit for a sick person, she went into the public market and bought a pound and a half. On reaching home she weighed her purchase, and found that the pound weighed fourteen ounces, and the half-pound only seven ounces. She now says that when there is no steak at the Store, ‘ they lump itmeaning that they make shift until the Store is replenished. This anecdote, which is perfectly genuine, gives no bad idea of a Rochdale sickness, to which a pound and a half of steak seem congenial. The vege­ tarians might take a turn there. Speaking of beef—the other day I was standing at the upper window of the Store, when the Store butchers, who had just come from the Society’s abbatoirs, drove up with an immense waggon full of ‘ prime joints.’ Upon looking over the chief butcher’s bill, I found he reported himself as having ‘ killed four cows and a half,’ which led me to inquire by what co-operative process he was enabled to kill half a cow at a time. The explanation was this. Some butcher in the town wanted half a cow for that day’s market, the Store wanted four cows and a half only, so the fifth cow was divided and both parties served, which the butcher called ‘ killing half a cow.’ �44 HISTORY OF THE The beneficial influence of the Store upon marriages. ‘ The Tillycoultry Co-operative Society ’ admits no member who is immoral in his conduct. A female householder is admitted a mem­ ber, but is refused a vote. The Baking Company of the same place has a similar ungallant and uncivil rule. * The Rochdale Store renders incidental but valuable aid towards realising the civil independence of women. Women may be members of this Store, and vote in its proceedings. Single and married women join. Many married women become members because their husbands will not take the trouble, and others join it in self-defence, to prevent the husband from spending their money in drink. The husband cannot withdraw the savings at the Store standing in the wife’s name unless she signs the order. Of course, as the law still stands, the husband could by legal process get possession of the money. But a process takes time, and the husband gets sober and thinks better of it before the law can move. Many single women have accumulated property in the Store, which thus becomes a certificate of their conjugal worth. And young men, in want of prudent companions, consider that to consult the books of the Store would be the best means of directing their selection. The habits of honourable thrift acquired by young men, members of this Store, renders it unlikely that they would select industrious girls in marriage for the purpose of living in idleness upon their earnings or savings, as happens elsewhere.f What quality is it that makes a poor woman pay her way ? Ladies do not always do it; many bankruptcies in London are occasioned by their neglect; the poor woman who has been born with that faculty, or who has acquired it, is a treasure and a triumph of good sense and social cultivation. The difficulty of bringing about this result many working class husbands can tell. The art of living within your income is a gift. The woman who has it, will do it with £1 a week; she who has it not, will be poor with £20. Peter Noakes, tired of finding himself always in debt, wants to get his wife one week in advance with the world. He wants to stand clear on the shopkeepers * books. He knows that the small tradesman cannot pay his way un­ less his customers pay theirs. He therefore saves, by carefulness and secret thrift, a little money, and one week delights his wife by giving her double wages, that she may pay in advance for her things. What is the result? Next week he finds her running into debt as usual. He complains, and then she tells him the everlasting story of a thousand working class homes, ‘What could she do? Mr. Last’s bill for Tommy’s boots had never been paid, the account for Billy’s jacket had stood over till she was ashamed of it, little Jane’s shoes were out at the toes, and poor Polly, she was the disgrace of the * Vide rules 1845-6 of the above societies. t Vide letter of S. H. Musgrave, read by Sir Erskine Perry at the public meeting to con­ sider the laws relating to the property of married women, held at 21, Regent Street, Lon­ don, 31st May, 1856.—Law Amendment Journal, No. 14, p. 94. �BOCHPALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 45 Peter Noakes and family. family for want of a new frock, and as for Mrs. Noakes herself, her own bonnet was not fit to be seen, she would rather stop in the house for ever than go out in that old fashioned thing any longer.’ Poor Peter is overwhelmed—he had never thought of these things. In fact, Mrs. Noakes tells him, ‘he never does think of anything. He gets up and goes to work, and comes home and goes to bed, and never thinks of anything in the house.’ What can Peter do ? He does the only thing he ought—he allows that his wife ought to know best, confesses that he is very stupid, kisses her in confirmation of his re­ pentance, and promises to save her another week’s wages, and she shall try what can be done the next time. In the course of a few weeks, Peter, by over-work and. going without customary half-pints of beer, saves up another week’s wages, when, alas! he finds that the shoemaker has sent in another bill, and the tailor another account— that Master Tommy’s trousers have grown too short for him, young Billy’s jacket is out at the elbows, Jane’s shoes let in water, Miss Polly (bless her sweet soul!) is still the disgrace of the family, and Mrs. Noakes, although Peter thought she never looked so young nor so pretty as she did last Sunday, declares her bonnet ‘perfectly hate­ ful ; indeed, there is not such another fright as herself in the whole neighbourhood, and if Peter was like anybody else, he would be ashamed to see his wife go out in such a condition.’ And the little book still goes to the shop, Peter eats cheese tough as gutta percha, she buys tea that has been used to boiling before it was sold to her, the coffee tastes grievously of burnt corn, Tommy’s boots are a long time being mended, Mrs. Noakes never has sixpence to bless herself with, her money is all condemned before it comes in; Peter, degraded and despairing, thinks he may as well drink a pint as a half-pint—• things can’t be worse at home. He soon ceases to take interest in public affairs. How can he consistently help the public who can­ not help himself? How can he talk of independence, who is the slave of the shoemaker and the tailor ? How can he subscribe to a political or social society, who cannot look his grocer in the face ? Thus he is doubly destroyed. He is good neither for home nor parish. So ends many domestic experiments for paying in advance. When children are sick, or the husband is out of work, a wife will submit to any amount of privation. If she would submit to half as much from pride of independence as she will from affection, thousands of families, now always poor, would be in possession of moderate competence. But to starve your household when you can help it, to prevent them being starved one day when you cannot help it, implies good sense, strength of will, and courageous foresight, which many women certainly display, but which is yet so rare a quality that one cannot but marvel and applaud the Rochdale Co­ operators, who have taught so many families the art of getting out of debt, and inspired them with the pride of keeping out. Let the enemies of co-operation ponder on this fact, and learn wis­ dom ; let the friends of co-operation ponder on this fact and take �46 HISTORY OF THE The partition of profits. courage ; the fact that the members in a short period learn provident habits by connection with these societies—habits which, in some cases, forty years of competition have failed to teach. CHAPTER IX. BULES AND AIMS OF THE SOCIETY. The founders of the society were opposed to capital absorbing all urofit arising from trade, and to hit upon a plan that should give proportionally the gain to the persons who make it, was a problem they had to solve. After meeting several times for the purpose of agreeing to laws, Mr. Charles Howarth proposed the plan of dividing profits on purchase—that is, after paying expenses of management, interest on capital invested, at a rate per cent., the remaining profits to be divided quarterly among the members in proportion to their purchases or dealings with the society. This plan continues the feature of the Rochdale Store. The division of profits is made quarterly from the net proceeds of all retail sales in every department, after paying:— 1. —Expenses of management. 2.—Interest on loans. 3. —Reduction in value of fixed stock. 4. —Dividends on subscribed capital. 5. —Increase of capital for the extension of business. 6. —Two and a half per cent, (of the remainder after the above are provided for) applied to educational purposes. The residue thus accruing is divided among the members of the Store in proportion to the amount of their respective purchases during the quarter. The Pioneers prudently established early in their career a ‘ Re­ demption Fund,’ which consists of the accumulation of entrance fees of one shilling from each member. The last two pounds drawn from the society by a retiring member are liable to a forfeit of one shilling each pound. The trade of non-members of the society affords some profit. These sums go to the Redemption Fund, which is a reserve to meet the depreciation of the fixed stock. In all financial reports of the Society a broad allowance is always made for depreciation of stock, and the fixed capital at stock-taking is always estimated be­ low its real value, so that if the Society broke up, it is calculated that every subscriber of £1 invested in the Society would receive twentyfive shillings as his dividend. A new member must now hold five £1 shares in the capital. He pays one shilling deposit on these on entrance, and threepence a week afterwards, or three and threepence a quarter, until the £5 are paid up; but these payments are assisted by all the profits he makes by �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 47 Assistance of members in distress. dealing at the Store, and any interest, which is fixed at 5 per cent., accruing to him as successive pounds are made up. All profits and interest are not paid to the member, but carried to the credit of his shares, until the £5 are paid. The board of directors may suspend any member whose conduct is considered to be injurious to the Society, and a general meeting may expel him, after which he has great difficulty in obtaining re-admission, if he desires it. The Store supplied the capital for opening the Wholesale depart­ ment, for which it charges that department 5 per cent, interest. The profits, after paying cost of management and interest on capital, are divided quarterly into three parts, one part as a reserve against losses, the remaining two parts among the purchasers, in proportion to the amount of their respective transactions. Any Co-operative Society can buy to any extent through one of its members, who, however, must become a member of the ‘ Equitable Pioneers’ Society.’ A member, being in distress, may withdraw any sum he may have in the funds of the Society above £2, at the discretion of the Board of Directors. In the great distress period of 1849, many applications were made to be allowed to draw all out except £1. Though it is rarely that any Director puts a question as to the personal affairs of an applicant, yet narratives were volunteered of so painful and remark­ able a character, that the Directors learned to esteem that co-operation which had placed in their hands a wholesome power of relief. To this day these Directors recur to the experience of that year when defending the Society. Members may withdraw any sum above £5 according to the following scale of notice:— £2 10s. at once on application to the Board. 2 10 to 5 at 2 weeks’ notice. 5 0 „ 10 — 3 10 0 „ 20 — 4 20 0 „ 30 — 5 30 0 „ 40 — 6 40 0 „ 50 — 7 50 0 „ 60 — 8 60 0 „ 70 — 9 70 0 „ 80 — 10 80 0 „ 90 — 11 90 0 „ 100 — 12 No member can hold more than £100 of shares in the society * except by way of annuity, nor, under any circumstances, shall his interest in the funds exceed £30. The Directors can obtain loans, but not exceeding four times the amount of the paid up subscriptions of the members for the time being. * A recent Act of Parliament has increased this amount to £200. �48 HISTORY OF THE The liability of the Store to income tax settled. All disputes are settled— 1. —By the Directors, or 2.—By appeal at a general meeting. 3. —By arbitration. Complaints and suggestions relative to the qualities or prices of goods, or conduct of servants or the Society, are required to be made in writing to the Directors, who record their decision thereupon; if this be not satisfactory, the question is referred to a special general meeting, whose decision is final. The question of liability to income tax occupied the attention of the Store for several years. Its apparently final solution may be use­ ful information to other Stores. In August, 1850, the Board applied to editors of newspapers, who are the popular lawyers of the poor, to learn whether Co-operative Societies were liable when the individual members have not the requisite amount of income. Answers so obtained could not have the force of law, but they had the quality of direction. The Society paid Income Tax regularly, but as the separate income of each member was far below the amount at which the government commences its assessment, the Society appealed against it. Still the local Commissioners forced its payment. They were told, indeed, that each member might demand a form of Exemption, and claim the amount of his assessment back again. But this, on the part of a thousand members, involved too much trouble, as the Exemption claims must have been filled up for them in most cases. One year the members went to the Appeal office in a body, but the Commissioners refused to admit them, and required one representative to be appointed. It ended in the old order to pay being enforced. Opinions of Members of .Parliament were obtained, who said the Society was liable, and the opinions of lawyers, who said they were not liable. As their num­ bers and importance increased, their confidence grew, and, in 1856, they resolved to make a stand against the exaction, and, if need be, carry it to trial. An adjourned meeting of the Board, held in October, appointed Messrs. Smithies and EUis ‘ to appeal against the Income Tax.’ These officers, who were trustees of the Society, pre­ sented themselves on Appeal day, and argued that the Society was exempt, being enrolled under the Industrial and Provident Societies’ Act, which forbid any member receiving more than £30 annually in any or all forms from the Society. The case was adjourned to another day, when it was to be heard first. The day came, but Messrs. Smithies and Ellis were edified by the opportunity ’ of hearing numerous cases disposed of without their case being called on. They were told to come the following day. On the ‘ following day ’ they were told they should receive notice when required to appear, as the Commissioners were in correspondence with London. Messrs. Smithies and Ellis had the happiness never to be sent for. However, the In­ come Tax Collector could not refrain from making his accustomed demand, and insisted that it must be paid, giving the Society the gratifying assurance that, if illegal, they could get it back again. The �49 ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. Example of an English resolution passed by the Pioneers. Society, however, were not to be gratified in this way. They thought it audacity on the part of the collector to make the demand, so long as the case was undecided, and an attempt to use his legal position to intimidate uneducated men. Mr. William Cooper reported the case to the Pioneers’ Board, who put on their minutes, December 4th, 1856, this very English resolution :—‘ Resolved, that we do not pay the Income Tax until we are made.’ The next Saturday, the collector again called and demanded the money. He was told the decision of the Board. He replied, in professional terms, that ‘ he wanted no un­ pleasantness, but the Society had no alternative but to pay, and that, if his demand was not paid in a few days, he should seize the goods of the Store.’ On the Board being informed of that, they resolved, Dec. 18th, 1856, ‘ That the Income Tax Collector take his own course.’ He has not taken his course to this day, nor have the Commissioners made any sign of having a course to take. One most honourable feature of the Society, which proves the earnest desire of the members for self-improvement, is the reservation of a portion of their funds for educational purposes. The 2| per cent, of their quarterly profits assigned for division among the members, together with the fines accruing from the infraction of rules, con­ stitute a separate and distinct fund, called the ‘ Educational Fund,’ for the intellectual improvement of the members of the Store, the main­ tenance and extension of the Library, and such other means of * instruction as may be considered desirable. GENERAL FINANCIAL ACCOUNT OF THE EDUCATIONAL FUND. Receipts. £ s. d. Donations -' - 12 6 2| per cent, from Edu­ cational Fund - 424 18 11| Catalogues and Fines 17 19 11 Sale of Newspapers- 2 14 3 Sundry receipts - - 3 7 9 £450 3 4| Disbursements. £ Paid for Books - - 308 Bookbinding - 20 55 Book Case- - 25 55 Wages - - - 28 55 Catalogues, etc. 6 55 Newspapers - fl7 55 Sundry Dis55 bursements - - 2 Cash on hand - - 41 £450 s. 11 12 9 5 0 5 d. 9 3| 11 8 9 8 8 41 6 2| 3 41 Their News-room is as well supplied as that of a London club, and the Library contains 2,200 volumes of the best, and among them, many of the most expensive books published. The Library is * A minute of Sept. 20th, 1853, orders a motion tQ be made at the quarterly meeting, for awarding £40 to the Library. f 1 he News-room has become chargeable on the Education Fund only within the last six months. The quarterly meeting passed a resolution that the News-room should be free to members, and supported from the Education Fund. �50 HISTORY OF THE Co-operative colonizers wanted. free. In their News-room, conveniently and well fitted up, a member may read, if he has the time, twelve hours a day, also free. From 1850 to 1855, a school for young persons was conducted at a charge of twopence per month. Since 1855, a room has been granted by the Board for the use of from twenty to thirty persons, from the ages of fourteen to forty, for mutual and other instruction on Sundays and Tuesdays. Any readers of these pages, who may contemplate forming Stores in their own neighbourhood, will, on application to the Secretary of the Equitable Pioneers’ Society, Toad Lane, Rochdale, obtain the laws at present in force, and other printed documents from which executive details may be learned, not necessary to be included in this history; but a personal visit to the Store ought to be made by all who would initiate similar establishments. Many Members of Parliament, political economists, and some distinguished publicists, have made journeys of late years to the Rochdale Store. The officers receive with courtesy, and give information with enthusiasm to, all inquirers. Indeed, they are often found travelling thirty miles from their homes to give evening explanations to some workmen’s meeting desirous of information in practical co-operation, and of forming societies themselves. It will greatly promote the extension of Co-operative Societies if the Rochdale Pioneers will train officers who may be transplanted to the towns commencing' Stores, to organise and con­ duct them. This co-operative colonisation will save both waste and failure in many places. Though an element of self-sacrifice for the good of others—a feeling that justice rather than selfishness should pervade industrial inter­ course, if it is to be healthy—animates these co-operators, they are neither dreamers nor sentimentalists. This may best be shown by a quotation from a letter by one of their leaders, to whom we elsewhere refer—Mr. Smithies. ‘The improved condition of our members is apparent in their dress, bearing, and freedom of speech. You would scarcely believe the alteration made in them by their being connected with a co-operative society. Many well-wishers to the cause think that we rely too much upon making ourselves capitalists; but my experience among the working classes for the last sixteen years has brought me to the conclusion, that to make them act in union for any given object, they must be bound together by chains of gold, and those of their own forging.’ In 1855, a co-operative conference was held at Rochdale. A Com­ mittee was appointed to carry out certain resolutions agreed to. Abraham Greenwood, President, James Smithies, Secretary, published a declaration of the principles on which the proceedings of the said Committee would be regulated. We shall quote them to the credit of co-operation. They were these :— I. That human society is a body consisting of many members, the real interests of which are identical. II. That true workmen should be fellow-workers. �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 51 The moral principles of Co-operation. HI. That a principle of justice, not of selfishness, must govern our exchanges. We think these three sentences honourably illustrate how much higher is the morality of co-operation than that of competition. When did any commercial firm ever issue, and, what is more, act up to, a manifesto like this ? The co-operative conference of 1855, held in Rochdale, was called by the Equitable Pioneers ; the delegate from London was Mr. Lloyd * Jones, who has as continually aided, as he has serviceably defended, these associations. On this occasion, the Rochdale Society, in addition to the manifesto of its own principles and public aims, which entitled it to distinction above all other societies, took the opportunity of paying a just tribute to the labours of others, to which they had themselves been indebted, as well as the public ‘ They were convinced that the Society for Promoting Working Men’s Associations had, during the period of its active existence, con­ ferred great benefits on the Co-operative cause, by gathering all sorts of valuable information, and spreading it throughout the country amongst the various Co-operative bodies; by urging on the attention of Parliament, through members favourable to the cause, the legal hindrances to the movement; and by helping to procure such alter­ ations of the laws relating to Friendly Societies as to give freer action and greater security to the men who have embarked in the Co­ operative undertaking. Not only have they done these things, but they have likewise drawn up model laws suitable for either distribu­ tive or productive associations, so as to facilitate the safe enrolment of all Co-operative bodies, and to secure the highest degree of legal accuracy with the smallest possible cost; in addition to which, they have at all times given legal advice freely to such of the Societies as stood in need of it—a matter, it must be acknowledged, of great value to bodies of working men. There was one object, however, which the gentlemen belonging to this Society did not accomplish, although they aimed to do so with much perseverance and great patience, and that was to beget amongst those engaged in the movement a recog­ nition of the duties that spring from the principle upon which these Societies are founded, a recognition without which co-operation can never acquire unity and force sufficient to carry it triumphantly over the obstacles which competition, united with ignorance and selfishness, oppose to its progress. ‘ The Rochdale Equitable Pioneers feel deeply the value of the services rendered to Co-operation by the Council of the Society for * Mr. Lloyd Jones, being the manager of the Manchester branch of the Co-operative Central Agency of London, and subsequent traveller for that firm, has frequently visited the working and co-operative societies of the North of England, and addressed the mem­ bers at their anniversary meetings. On these occasions, and at the several co-operative conferences held in London, Manchester, Rochdale, Leeds, and Bury, he has exercised an im­ portant influence in the development of the co-operative idea. The ‘ wholesale depart­ ment ’ of the Rochdale Store, so important a step in organisation, was carried out under his advice. �52 HISTOR OF THE Acknowledgments to the Society for promoting Working Men’s Associations. Promoting Working Men’s Associations; and, as the fullest and most acceptable acknowledgment, they considered that the best thing they could do would be to attempt to continue the work which the Society for Promoting Working Men’s Associations had begun, and perfect, if possible, the design which they unfortunately failed to complete.’ Never was testimony more nobly deserved than this thus borne to the services rendered to working men by the gentlemen known in London as ‘ Christian Socialists.’ Professor Maurice, Mr. Vansittart Neale, the Rev. Charles Kingsley, Mr. Fur nival, Mr. Ludlow, and others, guided by their wisdom and sustained by their wealth, efforts for ‘ Promoting Working Men’s Associations,’ for which the people will be more grateful as they acquire more knowledge to appreciate their sympathy, their generosity, their patient and costly services. The Working Men’s College of London is the crowning tribute of their catholic love of the people. The Rochdale Store has done business for several years with ‘ The Universal Purveyor,’ instituted by J. L. St. Andre, author of the * ‘Prospects of Co-operative Associations in England,’ a volume re­ markable for comprehensive views of industrial organisation. In the words of one whose approval is praise, ‘ M. St. Andre, whatever may be his enthusiasm, or his over-estimate of what can be done with men as they are, appears to have the merit of a sincere desire to draw associations together in a spirit of unselfish co-operation, and at the same time to place them in a healthy connection with the external world.'^ We record, and rightly, the names of inventors and discoverers— we record the names of those who signalise themselves on the field of battle—it is no less useful to record the names of those who have dis­ covered, or perfected, or, at least, improved the art of self-help among the people, and conquered in the field of industry, providence, and good sense, where so many fail and perish. Every name represents the continuity of small duties well fulfilled—a quality more valuable to society than the emulation of sublime virtues. Every member of this Store has been a co-worker equally with the officers, but we can only enumerate those who have taken the lead in the greatest and most successful experiment ever conducted by the people. Their perseverance must give a new idea of the capacity of the working class. The first general meeting of the founders of the Store was held in the Social Institution, Rochdale, on Sunday, August 11th, 1844. The first resolutions upon their minutes are as follows:— Resolved, 1st—That the following persons be appointed to conduct the business of the Society now established—Mr. John Holt, Treasurer, Mr. James Daly, Secretary, Mr. Miles Ashworth, Presi* And sustained by the Rev. Charles Marriott, Fellow of Oriel, one of those great Churchmen who commend the priestly character by uniting a clear faith to works of wide human interest. f ‘ The Co-operative Principle not opposed to a True Political Economy,’ by the Rev. Charles Marriott, B.D., Fellow of Oriel—pp. 35-6. �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 53 The Founders and Directors of the Rochdale Equitable Pioneers’ Society. dent, Messrs. Charles Howarth, George Ashworth, and William Mallalieu, be appointed Trustees. 2nd. That Messrs. James Tweedale, James Smithies, James Holt, James Bamford, and William Taylor be appointed Directors. 3rd. That John Bent and Joseph Smith be appointed Auditors. (Signed) Miles Ashworth, Chairman. ARBITRATORS OF 1844. Mr. James Wilkinson, shoemaker, High Street; Mr. Charles Barnish, weaver, Spotland; Mr. George Healey, hatter, Suddenbrow; Mr. John Garside, cabinet maker, High Street; Mr. John Lord, Weaver, Cronkey Shaw. The present arbitrators (1858) are—* homas Livsey, Esq., Aider­ T man, Rochdale, late Chief Constable; f John Garside, cabinet maker; Rev. James Wilkinson, Unitarian Minister; John Lord, publican; Samuel Tweedale, foreman. First among the arbitrators of the Co-operative Manufacturing Society, and of the Corn Mill Society, of which we have yet to speak, stands the name universally esteemed among the working classes of Lancashire, of Jacob Bright, Esq., Mayor of Rochdale. officers’ names from official publications of the store, etc. John Holt (Treasurer), Benjamin Rudman, James Standring— names appended to the Laws of 1844. John Cockcroft, Henry Green, John Kershaw—names attached to the Laws of 1848. William Cooper and Abraham Greenwood—from Laws of 1855. George Adcroft (President), James Hill, Robert Taylor, John Whitehead, Robert Hoyle, Thomas Hollows, James Joyce Hill, George Morton, James Mittall, John Clegg—names attached to Corn Mill Rules. Abraham Hill, Treasurer; John Tweedale, Robert Woolfenden, Trustees; Robert Law, Thomas Hill, James Whittaker, Directors; Samuel Ashworth, Superintendent. Store officers from the Almanack of 1854. Samuel Fielding, David Hill, John Hollows, Trustees; Peter McKenzie, Robert Whitehead, William Ellis, Adam Grindrod, Directors. Store officers from the Almanack of 1855. James Manock, Trustees; John Smith, Secretary; Thomas Clegg, Isaac . Tweedale, John Worsnip, Directors; Emeryk Roberski,t Superintendent. Store officers from Almanack of 1856. Edward Farrand, Clerk. Corn Mill advertisement. Vide Alma­ nack, 1856. * The most radical and popular chief constable of the day. t Known among old Social reformers as ‘ Father Garside.’ t An intelligent young Polish exile, exiled through the Hungarian struggle, to whom employment was given in the Store, and who rose to be superintendent. He has lately emigrated to Australia. * �64 HISTORY OF THE Words that fall on stony ground. William Whitehead, Secretary. Vide Manufacturers’ advertise * ment, 1856. John Aspden, Librarian; William Holt, Samuel Newton, Robert Clegg, Samuel Clegg, Robert Howarth, Thomas Halliwell, Com­ mittee of Library. Vide Almanack, 1856. John T. W. Mitchell, Secretary; John Kenworthy, Trustee; Jonathan Crabtree, Thomas Fielding, Thomas Cheetham, Samuel Stott, Directors. Store officers from the Almanack of 1857. James Clegg, George Watson, Matthew Ormerod, William Briggs, William Hoyle, Abraham Howard, Edmund Kelly, Thomas Whittaker. Library Committee from Almanack of 1857. These names are given here in the order of time in which they appear in the public documents cited, and with the office annexed the person happened to hold in the list quoted. Each name is given but once, though most of them occur again and again, some in connection with every office. For instance, Mr. James Smithies, to whom the members, some time ago, presented a valuable watch and chain, in testimony of their regard, has held offices during twelve years. Mr. Abraham Greenwood, who has been specially mentioned in connection with the Corn Mill, has been an officer nine years. Mr. William Cooper has been an officer in the Store from the commencement. To the last-named persons I have been mainly indebted, and especially to Mr, W. Cooper, the present Secretary, for the sources of the leading facts of these pages. CHAPTER X. THE OLD CO-OPERATORS---- WHY THEY FAILED. THE NEW CO­ OPERATORS---- WHY THEY SUCCEED. ‘ That were a noble achievement which should originate a system of more wages and less work, that the labour of the handicraftsman might be lighter on his hands, and his earthly blessings and little comforts be increased; and that were a still more worthy achievement which should teach him to fill his intervals of time with the study of phi­ losophy, and the pursuit of literature and science.’ Thus wrote Dr. Chalmers. ‘ This that they call organisation of labour, is, if well understood, the problem of the whole future, for all who would in future govern man.’ Thus wrote Thomas Carlyle. ‘ It appears from actual experiment, that a thousand subscribers of from one penny upwards will yield a weekly revenue of £5. In Great Britain there are 6,000,000 adult males. Take of these, in­ cluding such females as choose to subscribe. 4,000,000; these will yield �BOCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEEBS. 55 Numbers, Union, and Knowledge, the conditions of Power. £20,000 weekly, or £1,040,000 a-year.' Now, £1,040,000 a-year, with compound interest, would amount, £ s. d. In 10 years, to - 18,232,413 14 11 In 20 years, to • 65,522,599 8 3 In 30 years, to ■ 188,181,161 18 8 In 40 years, to ■ 506,325,883 12 8 In 50 years, to 1331,511,365 15 1 In 60 years, to 3471,129,995 18 4 Now this sum would buy all the property of the kingdom. Do noc suppose for a moment that 4,000,000 of working men will soon be found steadily subscribing their penny or twopence a-week for this object; but these figures show what a fund there lies in the smallest co-operation of the millions, and which the devotion of the sums ex­ pended merely on spirits and tobacco might accomplish for mankind.’ So calculates the Leeds Redemption Society, and seeks to win by figures those whom rhetoric fails to reach. ‘Wait no longer on the banks of the great and ever-growing river of poverty, for the golden boat of the capitalists to carry you over, till you perish. Awake to the fact you may become capitalists your­ selves—that you can and must help yourselves.’ Thus exhorts the People's Journal, in its genuine sympathy for the working classes. Upon how many thousands of our countrymen have these words of wise direction fallen, as upon ‘ stony ground,’ The more, therefore, the esteem with which the public will regard the men of Rochdale, upon whom they have not fallen in vain. That co-operation was the secret whereby the poor could make money was known to old co-operators, though the Rochdale Society has been the most skilful in turning it to progressive account; for as early as 1831, one William Shelmerdine, storekeeper of a society, meeting at 7, Rodger’s Row, Deansgate, Manchester, reported that their members, with a stock of only £46 12s., and subscriptions of £26 10s., had made, in twelve months, £20 2s. of profits. Eight members founded the society, and thirty-six had joined it by the end of the year. The second Co-operative Congress was held in Birmingham, in October, 1831. The first appears to have been held in Manchester, in May, in the same year. In this year, the Lancashire and York­ shire Co-operator appeared—a small fortnightly penny paper, calling itself the advocate of the useful classes, and bearing this sensible motto:— ‘ Numbers without Union are powerless— And Union without Knowledge is useless.’ The true warning is here, though twenty-six years of experience has not supplied the necessary wisdom to profit by it. At the third London Co-operative Congress, 1832, there was re­ ported the existence of a ‘ Rochdale Friendly Co-operative Society,’ �56 HISTORY OF THE The Pioneers’ terror of credit. which sent, as a delegate to London, one William Harrison. It had a secretary of the gentle name of T. Ladyman, whose address was 70, Cheetham Street, Rochdale. The Society was formed October, 1830. In 1832 it had fifty-two members. It employed ten members and families. It manufactured flannel. It had thirty-two volumes in its library. It had never discussed the ‘ principles of exchange;’ and there were two societies in its neighbourhood. In 1832, there existed in Birkacre a society, whose secretary was Ellis Piggot, Printer’s Arms, Salford, which had 3,000 members and <£4,000 of funds. This society were silk and calico printers. At the third London Co-operative Congress there were sixty-five societies represented, of which nine were in London. Of the dele­ gates or secretaries, the following names are still known:—W. Lovett, B. Cousins, T. Whitaker. Why have so many stores one after the other disappeared ? Some have not known how to turn their prosperity to a progressive account, and have grown tired of a monotonous success. There have been of late years failures around Rochdale; the leading cause assigned is the system of credit. The Oldham Mechanics’ Store, and the Bolton Store, were broken up through the strike of the amalgamated ironworkers; but it was said they paid twenty shillings in the pound. The Brighton Store did not acquit itself so well on its failure, which was attributed to its giving credit to its members. Mr. Smithies, who is certainly the most com­ petent and practical authority we can follow, said, writing in 1855:— ‘Nearly all the Stores, there is hardly one exception, are now on the ready-money principle. We find that those Co-operative Societies which commenced by giving credit, but have since adopted the ready money plan, have all improved since doing so. I look upon the strap book,’ says he, ‘ as one of the greatest evils that can befal a working man. He gets into debt with the shopkeeper, and is, for ever after, a week behind; and, as we express it here, eats the calf in the cow’s belly.’ Hence arose that just terror of credit which the Store from the first betrayed. In their first book of laws—the laws of 1844—the grand fine, the lion fine of the list there given, was to be inflicted on any officer, who, on any pretence, should either purchase or sell any article except for ready money; which prohibition, as usual when they are emphatic, is given twice over. The Liverpool Co-operative Store, rising every year in importance and usefulness, gives credit to the amount of two-thirds of the paid up shares of the members. The Store connected with Price’s Patent Candle Manufactory acts upon a similar rule. This, of course, is a perfectly safe form of credit, but it involves a great additional amount of book-keeping, and stops short of that moral discipline which ready money payments exercise upon the poor and naturally improvident. In Rochdale, each workman in the manufacturing department is required to become a capitalist Either by weekly subscription or �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 57 Mr. Coningham, M.P. other payments he is required to hold five shares in the Society. Each of these artizan shareholders receives 5 per cent, upon the amount he has invested. After the payment of this interest, and the wages of the workmen at the usual average of the district, and all trade expenses, the surplus of profit is divided according to the wages received by each workman. The amount of profit over 5 per cent, interest, which is first paid to the shareholders, is divided equally between the share­ holders and the workmen. One half goes to the shareholder according to the number of his shares; the other half goes to the workman or workwoman according to the wages paid to him or her. The dividend in the Rochdale Co-operative workshops, paid January, 1857, was one shilling and sixpence upon every pound of wages received by workman or workwoman. An important difference in the division of co-operative profits in Padiham and in Rochdale must be noticed. In Padiham, workmen who had made small savings, and other minor capitalists, subscribed a fund among them, bought machinery, and employed workmen. The chief profits were reserved by the subscribers of the capital for themselves. The workmen they employed had better situations and somewhat higher wages than at other mills. This arose from most of the pro­ prietors being workmen, and having a sympathy with the persons they employed. In other respects, the Padiham Cotton League Company, under the Joint Stock Companies’ Act, paid their profits wholly to the capitalists or shareholders. All the Societies enrolled under this act are understood to pursue this rule. It is no part of their plan to acknowledge the labourer’s right to a share of the profits his labour creates, which is the Rochdale principle. By precautions and good sense, the Rochdale Co-operators have succeeded, notwithstanding the impediments the prejudices of their class put in their way. During the period known among them as ‘ the Corn Mill Panic,’ Mr. Coningham, M.P., to whom the country is indebted for valuable personal reports of the Working Men’s Asso­ ciations of Paris, consented to make an advance of capital to assist in the exigence of the Corn Mill, but on being very naturally required to submit their securities to the examination of his solicitor, the Board objected to ‘having anything to do with a lawyer,’ yet their securities were ample and good, and they knew it. Confidence among the members was sought the first year of the existence of the Store by establishing and showing plainly that checks upon the honesty of the officers existed. Drawers conveniently con­ * structed are now used by each salesman, provided with brass or tin coins according to the nature of his sales, of which he hands to each purchaser an amount exactly representing the cash expended. The treasurer and secretary of the Store, the Corn Mill, and Manu­ facturing departments, balance their cash accounts weekly. This rule, * Vide Board Minute, Oct. 20, 1845. H �58 HISTORY OF THE How co-operative Stores originate, which enables errors to he corrected as they may arise, has operated very beneficially. Security is now taken from £200 to £10 from each officer employed, according to his measure of responsibility. Each officer in charge of a shop till gives £10 security. Where other guarantee is not pro­ vided, the Society holds the deposits of the officer in the Society, and if he has not a sufficient amount paid in, he is required to make up such amount by periodical payments. For sums so lying in the hands of the Society, interest is paid as in the case of shares. This is a very efficient regulation of securities, for no man will find it answer his purpose to rob himself. The early Boards of Directors assisted the shopmen in their duties. Economical in all their improvements, it was not until 1854 that they lowered the floor of their flour Store, for the convenience ofchildren and the aged members coming to make purchases. Numerous Stores have at times sprung up around the Rochdale one, and in consequence of its example; but none have been con­ ducted with the same ability, nor have achieved more than a tithe of its success. This is owing to no fault in the principle, but to defi­ ciency on the part of those who apply it, to want of sense, of union, of patience, and enterprise. The reare numerous instances in which the Stores have not only succeeded, but, in the opinion of the mem­ bers, have succeeded too well. They have made more money than they know what to do with. Not knowing how to employ their savings advantageously, they have been returned to the members, who have commenced again. Their Directors have lacked the talent ofexpand­ ing their operations, and making their capital reproductive. The Roch­ dale Weavers appear to have been bom with a special talent for co-operation. One cause of the striking success of these co-operators is, no doubt, to be found in the great economy of their trade expenses. The pro­ portion of the salaries they pay to their receipts is very small. It * would be impossible to maintain the same rate in the metropolis, where rents and wages are higher, and the rate of poor men’s provi­ sions, in leading articles, the same. In answer to a question put to him on this point, Mr. W. Cooper writes me—‘ I see no reason why the people of London cannot carry on a Co-operative Society as well as people who live in the provinces. In a small town, some dozen or twenty persons will meet, and agree that if a Co-operative Provision Store could be commenced it would be a good. These twelve or twenty do commence one. They work on together, determined to make the thing do. When it has worked on awhile, people who doubted begin to see that it can be carried out, and they join too. I see no reason why a number of earnest men in London cannot act in the same way.’ In answer to other questions, the same informant • The cost of distribution at the central Ftore is 1| per cent, upon the returns, and ■with the branch shops, about '2 A per cent.; so that for two per cent, ill working expenses of rent, rates, wages, etc., are defrayed.—John Hot.mks’s paper, partially read before the British Association for the Advancement of Social Science, at Birmingham, which we commend to the reader. �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 59 The appearance of the town of Rochdale. writes-—‘At the commencement of a Co-operative Store or Manu­ facturing Society, it is essential that the members be visited or brought together often, so that contributions may be collected to establish and carry on the Society, and that the members may become acquainted with the objects, position, and requirements of the Society. With this kind of management a Store easily acquires sufficient capital to work its business with, because the members have gained confidence, and pay in subscriptions on their own account without being much looked after.’ To get people together in this personal and continuous manner is the difficult problem in London. Making some allowance for higher expenses in proportion to profits, the thing might be done if a num­ ber of the working class could be got to act together, and keep together, for this end. It requires to convert a number of them to a clear view of their own personal interest, to be promoted in no other way, and a deep sense of duty towards their order, whose character is elevated by such successes. Compare Rochdale with Liverpool for instance. In Rochdale, a little bridge, that spans, like a rocking horse, an imaginary stream, in which there is nothing liquid but the mud, situated in an invisible part of the town, is the only picturesque object in it. There is, indeed, a church with a flight of steps to it, so narrow, steep, and interminable, that you can never get to it, or if you do, it is a question as to whether you will ever get back. The remainder of the town is made up of roads that lead to nowhere, ornamented with factories apparently built before the dawn of architecture. There is not a building in Rochdale upon which it will do any one good to look. The town is in the shape, of a tea cup, with a gutter at the bottom and a burying ground upon the rim. In such a place, if people are disposed to act together, there is nothing in the way of striking attraction around them to prevent them. The people are immensely before the town, which, like many other manufacturing towns in the north, has grown into importance anyhow ; but will, no doubt, yet assume the magnificence which is gradually being imported into Bradford, Leeds, and other places, which, twenty years ago, were quite as unpromising as Rochdale. Now pass to Liverpool, with the bright and busy Mersey—its migratory population—its magnificent buildings—its open halls, surpassing in variety those of London. Plainly, it requires more devotion among the few to carry a Store to success here than it does in Rochdale. Then if you compare the ordinary provincial town, fixed, stolid, and tame, with London and its countless attractions, the difficulty is greater. The people are ‘ too clever by half’ to be useful. Will a dozen men stick to a plan of reform year after year, never failing on the weekly night of meeting to be at their posts, amid the charms of the metropolis ? Dickens is making a speech at Drury Lane, or reading his ‘ Christmas Carol’ at St. Martin’s Hall—Thackeray is lecturing on the ‘Four Georges’ at the Surrey Gardens, with Mr. Spurgeon to succeed him—Robson is coming out in a new character—Mr. Saunders has a new play at the Haymarket— �60 HISTORY OF THE Peculiarities of Co-operation in London and the provinces. Cardinal Wiseman is preaching in the next street—Dr. Cumming is to prove that the end of the world will occur on Saturday, and the People’s Subscription Bands play in the Parks on Sunday— Neal Dow is at Exeter Hall, and George Dawson at the Whittington Club—there is Cremorne, Rosherville, and Kew—the National Gallery and the British Museum, and the Houses of Commons and Lords, South Kensington Museum, and public meetings, where you may hear speakers never to be heard before, and often never again— and countless other allurements. A man must have self-denial as well as interest, who steadfastly grinds coffee berries and watches the sale of tea and sugar, and sits for fourteen years upon Candle and Treacle committees, amid this confluence of celebrities and novelties. This is why popular movements in London, which depend upon the working and middle classes, make such uncertain progress. Unless a man be wise enough to choose a side and discharge its obligations as a sacred duty, undertakes to win others to act in concert with him and pursues his object with the fidelity of a soldier, nothing can be de­ pended upon. In fine, it requires working men in London to be as superior to the average of their class in the metropolis as the Pioneers of Rochdale are superior to the average of their own class in Lan­ cashire, and then co-operation may carry its moral discipline and physical comfort among the poor of London by district operation. The Leeds Corn Mill Society—the Padiham Co-operative Manu­ facturers—the Galashiels Co-operators—present features of success worthy to be placed side by side with the Rochdale Store. Whether in being originated and conducted by purely working men—whether in the variety and development of their operations—whether in propa­ gandist spirit—they are to be compared or placed before the Rochdale Pioneers, are matters I leave for others to determine. The public will be glad to hear more about these experiments than these pages can communicate. * Just as the farmers, some years ago, could not be prevailed upon to make returns of their crops, lest their interests should be prejudiced in Parliament by the fact, so the Co-operators in some districts, having the fear of the Income Tax Commissioners before their eyes (the Rochdale issue of this question not being known, or not being considered settled), or distrust of government, object to make reports. Mr. T. Barker, of Todmorden, in an unfilled return sheet before me, assigns this reason for its incompleteness. Todmorden, Walsden, Bridge End, Alma Works, and Commercial, are the Flour Mills, Stores, and Works mentioned on his return. Mr. Smithies, of Roch­ dale, whom I had requested to get certain forms filled up for me, despairs on these grounds of succeeding. Working men were once injudiciouslytreated by employers in this way. * For the History of the People’s Flour Mill Society of Leeds, certainly the second co­ operative experiment in the empire, the reader cannot do better than consult the paper mentioned in the note on p. 58. It may, probably, be had of the author, James Holmes, Leeds, or the printer, David Green, 38, Boar Lane, Leeds. We are not aware that it has been published. �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 61 Opinions of W. R. Greg and Professor Newman. Where the men dressed with some taste, and maintained an appear­ ance of social comfort, masters were apt to infer that they were doing too well, and would reduce their wages. This had a disastrous influence on the men, who came to regard careless habits and indigence of dress means of keeping up wages. How were working men to be raised from improvidence while those who ought to incite them to improvement suggested to them the policy of keeping themselves poor, in order to avoid being made poor. A master whose pride or ignorance was put to the blush by superiority in the manners of his men, would reduce their wages in order to lower their tone. This, however, has greatly changed now; and where it has not changed, working men have had the sense to perceive that the majority of masters-are prouder of being enabled to say ‘ all my men are worth money,’ than that ‘half of them are in debt.’ Throughout mankind the tendency is universal to help those who can help themselves. The poorest man that exists will, if he reflects, find himself un­ consciously acting on this feeling. The very beggar will not give to the beggar if he has reason to think that what he gives him will do him no good. There is no benevolence, high or low, that will many times repeat the act of pouring the water of charity into a sieve. This fact, so common to every man’s experience, should teach the working class that if they display the habits of thrift, others will display the disposition to help. Moral statistics will assure the intelligent Work­ man that where there is one employer who reduces the wages of his men because of their social aspirations, there are ten who reduce them because they see no hope of their improvement. Writers who speak with the authority of political science, have testified to the utility of these efforts of self-help, some of which we have here endeavoured to illustrate. One to whom the working classes are indebted both for instruction and defence, remarks:—‘We think, moreover, that these Co-operative Associations may be one of the most powerful of the many influences now at work for the education of the lower orders of the people; that wisdom will be gained, if not wealth, from the industry, self-control, and mutual forbearance needed to conduct them.’* This is the place where one may usefully cite words which one of the sincerest friends' of the people has written, and which cannot be too widely known among them, as this grave truth is not to be dis­ puted. ‘ I must, indeed, avow it as my own strong impression, that the deepest deficiency in the operatives of our great towns is a moral one, consisting in an extravagant susceptibility to the opinion of their own order, or an unreasonable suspicion of even the best masters. ‘ I lately heard the case of a letter-printer, now deceased, who used to employ in his trade the savings of his workmen with mutual ad­ vantage. At one time, he had thus in his hands as much as a thousand pounds, the property of one of the workmen. A master manufacturer * W. R. Greg, ‘ Investments of the Working Classes,’p. 120. �HISTORY OF THE Defensive words by J. S. Mill. at Manchester assured me that he would gladly employ in his business any sums which his men would entrust him with, but that it was out of the question, although, personally, he was on excellent terms with them. To invest money in their master’s business, would be binding themselves to his interests, and separating themselves proportionably from that of their own order. Such a step might even expose them to resentment, and, at any rate, their party feeling was too alive. They had an indefinable suspicion that the master would be able to take advantage of it. Many of them, perhaps, did not like the master to know how rich they were. If they could set up a business among themselves, with their own capital, this would flatter their pride ; but to combine with their master was so unpalatable a thought, that they preferred to receive at the Savings’ Bank a smaller per centage than he would give them, or else to contribute their money (in large mea­ sure to be wasted) at Benefit Clubs, or finally to consume it in immediate enjoyment. ‘ All the information which I have been able to gather, converges to the same conclusion : that the operatives have a decided repugnance to the only thing which has a reasonable chance of doing them good collectively—viz., a closer union between themselves and their master. If this be the case, they must wait and suffer, until their mind is changed, or until a new generation rises, with a better mind.’* But no sentence ever written about the people is more likely to serve them than the following words by Mr. J. S. Mill:—‘ In Europe the time, if it ever existed, is long past, when a life of privation had the smallest tendency to make men better workmen or more civilised beings.’ This sentence strikes at the root of that intellectual apathy about the condition of the people, which has checked, and still checks, so many endeavours for their elevation. The gentlemen of England are, as a class, probably less indolent and sensual than the poor. Opulence, and the means of physical ease, have not robbed them of enterprise. No spur of privation remains to stimulate them, but the spur of intellect, of art, of high cultivation, excites them, occupies them, interests them—a new pride possesses them, and a lofty con­ sciousness of nobler powers than those which poverty simulated, now carries them on to a destiny undreamed of, and, indeed, undesired before. When this truth is applied to the common people, when it is no longer an article of parish faith, that ‘ privation’ is the sole incentive of labour, the social policy of our rulers will be changed, and the systematic ele­ vation of the people begin. When, a few years ago, Mr. Carlyle began, with his noble insight, to write of ‘ Captains of Industry,’ he was considered to have visions of the most hopeless class of chieftains ever pictured in romances. But his ideas, grafted on the age, have taken root. Modern employers, if they wished, might found chieftainships, nobler far than those of feudal days, and will, no doubt, do it yet. The Crossleys, Akroyds, * Professor F. W. Newman’s lectures on ‘ Political Economy,’ pp. 321-2. �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. 63 The law of social progress independent and inevitable. and Salts of the north, are already taking proud places in the indus­ trial history of the people. A few years ago, the ‘ hives ’ of Lanca­ shire and Yorkshire, Halifax, Bradford, Leeds, and Manchester, were dreary as penal settlements—as Oldham, Ashton-under-Lyne, Hyde, Stockport, and crowds of smaller towns, are still. Of late years, how­ ever, the warehouses of Manchester, and Bradford, and Leeds have assumed an air of magnificence. Buckingham Palace does not look half so imposing as does the regal structure erected by Sir John Watts, of Manchester. Towering in variegated marble, head and shoulders above all surrounding structures—occupying the site of sixty-three former tenements—it stands the Monarch of Warehouses. The factory worker grows taller by looking up at it—the most insensible inspire pleasure in walking by it. Must not the beef built, square­ headed, shrewd Bradford man, grow somewhat refined, and even proud, if he has a spark of national spirit in him, as his way home lies by those noble structures every day rising up on his path, and raising the industrial glory of his native town and land ? Are we not all far away, proud to think that trade is not all mammon worship and gross materialism. Is it not a relief to see the careful saving merchant, wooing the arts, and obtain from the brain of the designer glorious structures, in which to wear his patiently earned wealth ? Let not the pallid, often stunted, hot-air-stewed factory hands of Hyde, on pre­ carious nine shillings or fourteen shillings a week, nurse a sense of perpetual despondency. Their turn is coming. When the noble warehouse has, for some time, been admired, public attention will be turned to the factory, and next to the ‘ factory hand,’ and will be found quite ready to admire both, if they will bear admiring; and then it will never do for the proud and rich employer to say, ‘ Oh, I keep dainty rooms to store my cottons in; but as for the people who make them, any murky, sooty, unventilated and dreary den will do for them.’ The day is coming when no employer in the north will like to say this. Mr. Titus Salt has been the first to feel this, and Saltaire, the noble factory and dwellings he has erected, point to what will one day be done. Workmen think it a privilege to get an engagement in Mr. Salt’s mill. The town of Bingley has been deserted by men who prefer Saltaire. The work­ men’s rooms, in which the factory operations are carried on, are nobler, higher, healthier, pleasanter rooms, than the drawing rooms of the gentlemen of the north fifty years ago. Any workshop in Saltaire is pleasanter than any room in the house you pass at Bury, where the late Sir Robert Peel was born. A man, whose soul is affluent as well as his circumstances, will supple­ ment his stately warehouse by a stately and healthy factory; from being an artist in his premises, he will, to use Mr. Thornton Hunt’s words, become ‘an artist in flesh.’ He will covet that his men shall, in their way, look as well and bear themselves as gracefully as his machines, and then that they shall dwell in homes as tasteful, as salubrious, and as suitable as those accorded to spinning jennies: he will �64 HISTORY OF THE Anonymous placard opponents. covet that the ring of his money shall echo with the contentment of those who aided to earn it. Thus were advocates silent, and the plea of humanity disregarded, and social rights ignored, a principle of artistic consistency would, one day, enforce universal co-partnership in the produce of industry and the conquests of science. A SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER OF ILLUSTRATIVE PAPERS AND NOTES. During the progress of this little book through the press, which has been protracted much beyond the usual time, some new incidents in the career of the Store and its Departments have arisen, which deserve brief notice, to which we shall subjoin the latest Balance Sheet issued. Lately the Store has been attacked in local newspapers, and on placards, by anonymous writers, who appear to seek the destruction of the Society by sowing disunion and creating distrust of its financial security. The attacks were commenced during the panics of 1857. In the December quarter the Board reported that although unfavour­ able reports had tjeen circulated respecting ‘ the Stores,’ the number of members on the books was greater by forty-eight than at the com­ mencement of the quarter—making a total of 1848. Had the placard writers here referred to, succeeded in their design, considerable injury would have been done at that time, when so many firms were daily breaking, to a large body of the working class. Had the credit of any commercial House been attacked in the same way, a jury would have given considerable damages, had the case been brought before them: and we think the Board of Directors would do well to regard themselves as entitled to the usual protection of commercial Houses, and to make an example of the first responsible assailants to whom they can trace similar wanton aggressions. There is fear that enemies to the success of the Pioneers, enemies on competitive grounds, will, now that the Pioneers have become really formidable, seek to destroy them by disunion. It requires great good sense and mutual powers of forbearance to sit silent, and see statements published, which appear to the public more than half true, and which you know to be wholly false. The temptation to go into controversy in self-defence is very great; and the ease with which controversy slides into perso­ nalities we all know—then time is wasted, temper lost, and only scandal is gained, and the enemy triumphs. Any shrewd opponent may naturally calculate that amid 2,000 persons, some will be found who may, by taunts of want of courage, or want of truth, be seduced into a disastrous newspaper or placard war. It is said of the first Napoleon, that in the early part of his Italian campaign he was followed by numerous letters, some criticising him, some abusing him, and all perplexing him very much to answer. After a good deal of time had been consumed in replies, which time might have been much �ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. Suggestion for dealing with personal controversy. better employed upon maps and strategy, and actual war with the enemy, it occurred to him to throw all his letters into a capacious basket, and let them lie there for six weeks : at the end of which period, he found that time and events had answered then! dearly all. We recommend some such plan as this tb the Board of Directors of the Rochdale Store. We recommend them to “refer all. matters of controversy to a coihmittee of three cleat-headed, dispassionate men, whose duty it should be to give very brief explanations of any point really misunderstood; and if any controversy seemed called for, to enter upon it only once a year, and to lay by all placards, newspapers, letters, and articles, until December, and 'then reply, to what time and success may not have confuted, and what the public may not have forgotten (which will be found to be nine-tenths of the whole), and then let silence and peace prevail for twelve months more. We now subjoin examples of the Quarterly Reports issued by the Board of directors of the Equitable Pioneers, and the Committee of Management of the R. D. C. C. M. S. (Rochdale District Co-operative Corn Mill Society), to the Members. In matters of moral speculation, it is said that nothing is so delusive as statistics; but in matters com­ mercial nothing is more satisfactory than figures. A good tall balance oh the right side is as intelligible as a flag on a fortress. ISO I.—ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS * SOCIETY. Fifty-third ’Quarterly Report of the Accounts of the Society, for the Quarter ending March 23rd, 1858. The profits this quarter are much larger than last, which may be partly accounted for by the fact} that at the commencement of the quarter we had a quantity of goods on hand, the market price of which was then very low, but which advanced during the quarter. It has been resolved upon by the members At the quarterly meeting that the minor accounts should not be printed, but that they should be posted in the News Room, to which all the members have free afccess. Your Board of Directors, have the satisfaction to inform the members that the prospects of the Society are most cheering, consider­ ing the effects of the late panic through which we have just passed, without any serious drawback in ahy of our undertakings ; they have also great pleasure in stating that the Library has been considerably extended during the past quarter. t �66 HISTORY OF THE The fifty-third quarterly report of the Store. CASH ACCOUNT. Dr. To Cash. Balance December Quarter “ ft ft ft <« ft ft ft Received for Goods, Grocery: Toad Lane ........... ft Oldham Road........... ft School Lane ... ... ft Whitworth Road ... ft Pinfold .................. ft Drapery Department ft Butchering ........... ft Shoemaking........... ft Clogging.................. £ ■ s. d. 2309 14 8| ... 7970 0 0 ... 2057 10 0 ... 1469 10 0 ... 1590 0 0 ... 1282 0 0 ... 706 10 0 ... 1375 0 0 ... 191 0 0 49 10 0 16691 To Interest in the Rochdale Branch of the Manchester and Liverpool District Bank......................................... “ Contributions......... . ................................................. “ Propositions ................................................................. 0 0 102 1 7 454 8 3 5 5 0 £19,562 9 Cr. £ By Cash paid for Goods ... ... ... ... 14229 10 11 ft ft Less, Discount ........... ... 200 17 8| ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft Wages .................. Rents .................. General Expenses... ... Carriage of Goods... s. 6J d. 14028 13 oi 334 I oj 11 19 3 67 2 3| 90 19 9 Withdrawn by Members.......... 1 ... ••• Balance, Cash..,............... ... ... ... ... 504 2 4 1772 7 4 3257 6 8 £19,562 9 6| £ S. d. 13138 125 76 7 5 454 161 10 1505 14 1 1 16 5 8 10 0 7 0 3 6 3J 0 3 6 0 01 GENERAL STATEMENT. LIABILITIES. To Members’ Claims, as per Ledger “ Building Fund .......................... ..................... No. 739 “ Redemption do............................. .................. “ 331 “ Guarantee do.............................. .................. “ 1633 “ Propositions................................. .................................. “ Contributions .......................... .................................. “ Interest on £12,922 paid up £ shares .......................... “ Owing for Goods......... . ........... .................................. Balance, Profit........... £15,484 3 10 �67 ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. Store profits of the fifty-third quarter, £1500. ASSETS. By Cash, “ “ “ “ “ w “ “ “ Balance ................................................................. Invested in the Rochdale District Corn Mill Society Interest added to our Account therein.................. Dividend on £6394, purchase at Is. 6d. in the £... Invested in the Rochdale Co-operative Manufac­ turing Society ................................................. Interest added to our Account therein.................. Stock in Goods.................................. .................. Owing by Stores and others ... t „ ................... Fixed Stock Account ......................................... Lease on Building........... ......................... ... £ 3257 3386 54 479 s. d. 6 8 5 4 16 6 11 0 2169 52 4849 98 936 200 14 0 4 11 13 0 9 0 4 6 9 0 £15,484 3 10 PROFIT ACCOUNT. Depreciation of Fixed Stock .................................. ........... 21 per cent, on £1481 18s. 8d. for Educational purposes Dividend on £13,822 purchase money, at 2s. in the £........... Balance ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• £ s. d. 23 8 4 37 0 11 1382 4 0 62 13 QI £1,505 Balance to divide ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 7 0£ £ s. d. 1505 7 0| £1,505 7 0| Balance brought down................................. 62 13 9| Frederick Greenwood, ) Auditors< Abraham Howard, J Edmund Kelly, Assistant Auditor. NO II.—ROCHDALE DISTRICT CORN MILL SOCIETY’S Twenty-Ninth Quarterly Report, ending March 21th, 1858. In issuing another Quarterly Report, the Committee of Manage­ ment beg to call the attention of members to the gradual progress in the business of the Society. In the quarter just ended there is a slight falling off in the value of the business done, owing to a depreciation in the price of flour. On the other hand, there has been a fair, and on the whole, a satisfactory increase on the quantity of business done, as the following figures of the ’previous quarter’s transactions—compared with those of the quarter ending March, 1858, of the present year, will show. �68 HISTORT OF TJJE The twenty-ninth quarterly report of the Corn Mill. Flour. Meal. Sundries. Quarter ending March, 1858............ 4643 . . . 1407 . . . 2470 Ditto. « December, 1857. . . 4193. . . . 1254 . . . 2090 450 ... 153 ... 380 Showing an increase on the December quarter of 983 bags. The Committee have further to say, that the business of the Society at present, is such as to give your Committee the expectation of an important addition to the business of the current quarter. Weir Street Mill, April 13th, 1858. CASH ACCOUNT. RECEIPTS. To Cash, Balance, December 26th, 1857................. -66 Receipts from Rochdale Equitable Pioneers ... it 46 Co-operative Store, Bacup ... ... 46 ft Do. do. Brickfield ................ ,.A 66 ft Do. do. Middleton ... ..... ... ft ft Do. <jp. Greenacres Hill, Oldharp, 66 ft Do. do. Jagger Lane, Hwd. ft ft Do. do. Bridge Street, do............. 66 ft Do. do. Junction, Saddlth............. 66 ft Do. do. Whitworth .................. 6. <» Do. do. Mi lnrow.......................... ft ft Do. do. Ending .......................... U 66 Do. do. Steps .......................... ft. S‘ Do. do. Bury .......................... 66. ft Do. do. Greenbooth .................. ft Do. do. Shaw .......................... ft. ft Do. do. Mossley.................. ... ft ft Do. do. Duckinfield .................. 66 ft Do. do. Wardle................ ... 66 ft Do. do. Firgrove... .... .... ... 66 ft Do. do, Littleborpugh,., ... ... 66 46 Do. do. Ridings.......................... ft 66 Do. do. Ashton .......................... 66 ft Do. do. Jumbo .......................... 46, ft Do. do. Roy ton ....................... ... 66 ft Do. dp. Bagslate .... ... .... ... 66 ft Do. do. King Street, Oldham ... 66c ft Dp, do, Hpbers. ........... ... w 66 ft> Do. do. Greenfield ... ... ... ft 66 Do. do. Chadderton .......... ... ft. 66. Do. jo. Facit .......... ... ... 66 46. Sundry persons........... .. Discounts, or Interest......... . .......................... Contributions ................................................. £ s. d. ••• ••• 1540 13 ••• ... 5382 1 ... ... 1582 18 664. 3 w595 11 VA 581 6 MeV W ... ... 391 16 265 7 ... ... ... ... 251 3 250 4 ... ... ... ... 207 11 ........... 206 5 ........... 200 0 •......... 196 2 ......... . 170 7 155 6 ... '••• ........... 153 3 137 9 ... ... 137 0 ... ... ........... 129 2 104 10 ........... 100 17 ... ... ......... . 100 9 96 18 ... ••• 63 1 ........... 0 ......... . 55 0 50 9 31 2 . ,. ... . 26 12 24 9 ... .... ... ... 2168 17 142 2 ......... . ........... 310 18 HI 74 7 2 9 7 0 6 74 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 10| * 2 6 11 £16;530; T 4 �69 ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. Corn. Mill profits—the twenty-ninth quarter, £780. £ DISBURSEMENTS. S. d. By Accounts paid for Grain .................................................. 13307 12 7£ “ Sacks returned ... ... ... ... ... .,. ... ••• ••• 417 8 ft ** Lancashire and Yorkshire Kailway Company’s Accounts 361 16 2 “ Sundry Accounts........................ . ... ... ... .... .v. 307 11 7 «• Addition to Fixed Stock ................... 192 14 1 “ Men’s Wages .................................. ... .... ••• —. 183s IQ? 0 Discounts paid ......................................................... ••• 175 1 111 * Coal Accounts paid .......................................... 43 3 71 * Pigs, do. ....................................... . •— ••• ••• 35 0 0 “ Hay and StrawAccounts paid................ 13 10 0 ¥ Travelling Expenses ................... .... — •••. ••• H IQ 2 * Tolls ................................................................................. 9 14 5 * Withdrawals......................................................................... 615 6 6 Balance, Cash on hand.................. 855 13 2j £16,530 1 4 GsEN-EBAiL ACCOUNTS. lIHmThT * I MEMBERS’LIABILITIES. £ By Member’s,Shares, as per Ledger ... .M v. ... - Loans ... .... .... ... ... v.............................. .. " Redemption Fund ... ......................... . ................... “ Contributions) ................ .. ... w ................ *• * Deposits > .......................................... — ••• “ Propositions ) ....................................................... - ••• “ Interest due............................................................... 121 * Owing L. & Y. Railway Co. for Carriage................ 77 “ Owing for Coals ... ... .... ... ..... .... <m “ Owing for Sundries ... .... v ••• w “ Depreciation of Eixed Stock .... ..% ... .... ...... “ Balance, Profit ... ... .......................... ••• S. d. 4939 3 0| 4628 9 5 135 2 11 11 194 0 ft 1 7 ft 17 0 3 4 6 13 5 ^0 18 4 66 19 3 7.83 14 1 £1:15,090 19 81 assets. To Balance, Cash on hand w, ... w, v. w, v Fixed Stock Recount .... ..... ...... w .w. »w. • » * ------- “ Grain, Flour, etc., on hand,.,, w jbsjl. .. “ Accounts owing .... ..... ••• w, w. w. v. “ Value of Horses and Carts ... .... ........... ••• « Value of Pigs ........................ ••• ......... * ••••• ••• | “ 901 Empty Sacks, Is. each... ... ................................. “ Hay and Straw on hand ... ........................................ “ Manure on hand .,................ • .................. * Coals ditto- .................. ... .................................• ifcrr “ Paid for Grain not yet received......................... ... ••• £. s. 855.13 ^357 14. %749 11 1.380.19 150. ,0 I®®- ® 45 1 3 0 ® 01 d. 2| 9 7 8 0 ® 0 0 ® ® 406 10 6 £11,090 19 8J �70 HISTORY OF THE Conditions requisite for co-operative success. PROFIT ACCOUNT. By Dividend on £13,824 purchase, being Members’ trade, at Is................................................................................. “ Dividend on £686 purchase, being Non-members’ trade, at Is................................................................................. ' “ Balance................................................................................ £ s. d. 691 ■ 4 0 34 6 0 58 4 1 £783 14 To Balance, Profit . I £ s. d. 783 14 1 £783 14 To Balance brought down ... 1 58 14 1 Audited by Samuel Stott and A L. Butterworth. NO. in.—PROFITS OF CO-OPERATION. Note to Tables, p. 4Q. It will be seen that the capital of this Society is, in round numbers, turned over five times a year, at a rate of 8 per cent, on the returns gross, and 35 per cent, net upon the capital.—John Holmes. Paper partially read before the British Association for the Advancement of Social Science, at Birmingham. NO. IV.—CONDITIONS REQUISITE FOR THE SUCCESS OF CO-OPERATION. 1. Sufficient members to enable the principle to operate. 2. Capital requisite to purchase all economically. 3. All sales, as well as purchases, to be for ready money only. 4. Understanding of the necessary conditions of business. 5. Managers equal to the average abilities of the trade. 6. Directors who have confidence in the principles of co-operation, and not too much confidence in any one untried. 7. Perseverence and patience to work out necessary results. 8. Forbearance towards each others disinterested opinions. 9. Equitable rules relating to Members, and legal ones under the Friendly Societies’, or other Parliamentary Acts. 10. Reports regularly published, showing income, out-go, expenses, operations, profits or loss, and the relations of each. 11. Correct audits of accounts, and guarantees from all in trust. 12. Careful oversight by all officials, and yet respect towards all who do their duty as servants to the Society. 13. Accumulation of funds for the purpose of extension, loss, wear and tear, etc., etc. All failures (and we know many sad ones) arise from the open breach of some one or more of the above conditions.—John Holmes. Idem. �71 ROCHDALE EQUITABLE PIONEERS. ___________ Five thousand co-operators within ten miles of Rochdale. NO. V.---- RECENT LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE PIONEERS * SOCIETY. Equitable Pioneers’ Co-operative Stores, Nos. 8, 16, and 31, Toad Lane, Rochdale, April 17th, 1858. Sir,—By this post I send the above report of the R. D. C. C. M. S. for March, 1858, from which you will see that the Society is making progress—as is the co-operative principle as a whole. I think I told you that our next step forward will he to extend the operations of the ‘ Manufacturing Society ’ here, and, while I write, a Committee is sitting to consider proposals which have been made in response to an advertisement for a capitalist to build us a Mill, which we purpose to fill with machinery, and work. The working classes may at times lose by having over confidence, but do not they lose much more who never have any confidence ? The five thousand members of the Co­ operative Societies within ten miles of Rochdale, representing twenty-five thousand persons, could not derive the benefits they now receive unless they had confidence in each other and in the principle of co-operation. We have received information by telegram thatDr. Bernard is acquitted, which produces great pride and satisfaction here. The people here are in no mood either to pander to, or flatter, the Emperor of France: a little more, and they would have been prepared to go to war—not with France, but Napoleon. William Cooper. To Mr. G. J. Holyoake. NO. VT.---- THE OPINION AND ADVICE OF LORD GODERICH, M.P. CA later Letter from the Secretary of the Store.) WEreceived a long letter from Mr. Holmes, of Leeds, this morning, April 26, 1858, which shows that they are aiming at Co-operative Stores to distribute their groceries in preference to the agency principle, which they adopted to distribute the flour made at their Mill. In the course of his letter he remarks, ‘ The other day our West Riding Member, Lord Goderich, being in the town, visited our Mill, and met the Board in a conference. We had a very interesting meeting and conversation. His lordship told us we, Leeds and Rochdale (or rather Rochdale and Leeds, for we cheerfully give way to your superiority), were the objects of frequent conversations both in the House and out of it; that our success was most welcome to some good statesmen, who see if the people are doing well, all else must be well. Our prosperity was pointed at as proving the people can, and will, manage their own affairs. If we fail, the reputation of the principle will be seriously damaged, and when our contentions and difficulties are mentioned, it ties their hands. He told us it was not ourselves alone we should consider^, we were now objects held up and closely watched by other Societies, and other people would follow us if we succeed, or be dis- �72 HISTOBY OS' THE BOCHDALE EQUITABLE MONEE Kg. Important advice of Lord Goderich, M.P. heartened if we fail. We had a most kind and strong exhortation to go on, economise, save, and extend — to be shrewd, wise and peaceful. It would take me long to tell you all, but he promised us good service should we need it, and he be able to do us good. By the way I could recommend you to send reports to Lord * Goderich, Mr. Conningham, M.P., Mr. Slaney, M.P., and other good friends in London. It affords them pleasure, and their sympathy is deserving of return. * The cordial interest taken by Lord Goderich in the welfare of the working classes is well known, not only in the West Biding but throughout England. We choose to close this brief history with the above transcript of his wise and influential Words of encouragement and advice. END. JOHN WATTS, PKiNTEK, 147, FLEET STREET, LoSPON. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Self-help by the people : history of co-operation in Rochdale Description An account of the resource Edition: 3rd Place of publication: London Collation: [4], 72 p. : ill. (tables) ; 19 cm. Notes: "The chapters of this little 'History' were commenced to be inserted in the Daily News (in 1857)..." [From Preface]. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Holyoake, George Jacob Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Holyoake & Co. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [1858] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5213 Subject The topic of the resource Co-operative Movement 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 (Self-help by the people : history of co-operation in Rochdale), 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 Cooperation Rochdale (Greater Manchester) Rochdale Equitable Pioneers Society Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7be69ad8f8c4ecb7c5744a0577af001f.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=JrAbodGClHXGnT8UrCEyceSeoJqrU115f7wGNogTDEER%7ENZu2Pz9I0%7E%7EmivxpKb-kMy42-plj1arym6fvco1frhc3zJEAmPnPbYWXfM6ocCIJNQknYlPku37rTsbpEJ8urCIyqSxcTJiN-kOU9Ct2Hv1WH1JIzo38igajUVaXwAgERZ07xXMpi%7EpbqbovHkfBQY8utRjzXtB59p6P8jQkZe838Fj0019NMbyid9-YJ6IP0BeNFhOn%7EJPyuc6cThCVrstCgi6hipRXLwNjWHhP8Zq6BUPI94qSpvXFD1gcflggdnpkq1U0DbWEDwcfa5MJVgynkagaIO1ftbkxCsEcA__&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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 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 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/80e9996980e2c27ff46dce43d319598f.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=JzITmxc1V9PKIXuheDTLI7Bot%7Ezkp-0e35ozfogE8h8W%7EHb-QI1Aar%7E5xc9w-nQf3fq2aDmqm6AqL400%7EzJxkciDzyZJn6q%7EDVcp1zxlw7cpRPTOrF3ZHkZZmzlFHvXRiG6bUINF1crve0%7EhzS2x8OgS2wA91g3fXza0cMLXEG3cPV%7E-CpldWiJtujDLtXvshKvSTPa6dKRC7-XsSRbtEKxAU6DYd%7EFznrJqTfze0pZBJiUTct%7EI%7Ep9-LDqNIiS%7EpWj-Dfy7V5-TuhJcmXaBXIbks1yPw%7ET4BR83YpcL8-uu9I-SMNm9fInWg53iSuSq0o0YEVd7w%7Eu2c%7EMTcx0Psw__&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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Socialism 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 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Socialism and slavery, being an answer to Mr. Herbert Spencer's attack on the Social-Democratic Federation in the Contemporary Review, April 1884, under the title "The Coming Slavery" Description An account of the resource Edition: 2nd ed. Place of publication: London Collation: 12, [2] p. : ill. (front. port.) ; 23 cm. Notes: Publisher's list of books on socialism and handbills on unnumbered pages at the end. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Hyndman, H. M. (Henry Mayers) [1842-1921.] 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 1884 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G4977 Subject The topic of the resource Socialism Slavery Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Socialism and slavery, being an answer to Mr. Herbert Spencer's attack on the Social-Democratic Federation in the Contemporary Review, April 1884, under the title "The Coming Slavery"), 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 Slavery Socialism Spencer Herbert