Party politics and the social question: a word to the workers

Party politics and the social question: a word to the workersAuthor(s): AeonSource: Bristol Selected Pamphlets, (1885)Published by: University of Bristol LibraryStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/60247552 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 08:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Digitization of this work funded by the JISC Digitisation Programme.

University of Bristol Library and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toBristol Selected Pamphlets.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:03:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bristollib

http://www.jstor.org/stable/60247552?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


5

PARTY POLITICS

AND THE

SOCIAL QUESTION.

A WORD TO THE WORKERS.

b-z- jeo nsr,

LONDON:

LONDON LITEEAEY SOCIETY,

376, STEAND, W.C.

j UNIVERSITY | OF BRISTOL

j LIBRARY



X->0-H5"o9^S~(



PARTY POLITICS

THE SOCIAL QUESTION.

Can Party Politics touch the great social questions which .are the cause of our present unrest

Can any of the schemes put forward by the Conserva¬ tives, on the one side, or the Liberals and Radicals on the other, do aught to satisfy the growing yearnings which are filling so many breasts in all classes of the community for better possibilities of existence for the working classes of the United Kingdom 1

Have the Socialists anything to propose not too mani¬ festly unpractical to be worth taking into consideration 1 For, believe me, no matter how small and despised a sect may be to-day, if it possesses a key to unlock the door to more satisfactory industrial progress, it may be, to-morrow, an active power in the State.



If party politics cannot help us, and if we are not far

enough advanced to work for each other as Socialist re¬ formers urge, or for any other reason than for the most

immediately selfish gain, and under the strictest compulsion; is there any mode of alleviating the pressure which now hurries on material progress at the expense of all that is worth living for, in the lives of so many of the workers, without causing vaster evils by checking the growth of that progress at its roots 1

These are questions which the present generation must

solve, and solve quickly, if it desires to avoid troublous times ahead.

There is one thing that is absolutely certain, and in

addressing myself to the working classes I feel bound to lay especial stress upon it. That is, that in Great Britain, the

party of order, the party that would side against the discontented workman, if the question were one regarding his condition only, and not mixed up with other issues, and if any such question were put to the test of force, that

party is too numerous, too powerful, and too consolidated not to be able easily to crush the malcontents into sub¬ mission with cold steel and hail of lead.

We are apt to talk of the toiling millions of the popula¬ tion as if they formed the majority. As a matter of fact, all the agricultural produce and manufactured goods are

prepared for distribution by a little over ten millions, men and women all told, out of a population of about thirty-six millions. After allowing for the commercial, domestic and

professional workers, we have still close on twenty millions



left, so that to speak of the idling millions would give a a better idea of the real state of affairs. Not that they are idlers by any means, but only as far as productive in¬ dustries are concerned, and that they profit instead of

suffering, by reductions in the rate of wages. The agriculturalists would be too dull, and the shop boys

and serving men too sharp, to join the British-workman, if he proposed to fight for his rights, so that in numbers alone, if it depended on nothing else, he would be at a most hope¬ less disadvantage.

His true strength lies in the fact, that in England, society feels that it has got the upper hand, and is inclined to be merciful.

We are all saying to one another that the present system of remuneration of labour is manifestly unfair, and we would gladly welcome any practical remedial measure.

It is with the view of introducing such a measure that I shall now proceed to describe what I consider to be the real state of the present difficulty and the probable action of the various remedies hitherto proposed, ending up with a new

suggestion, which I believe is the guide to the middle course, which is proverbially that of safety.

I shall address my remarks to the working classes, for if

they are really to be benefitted, it is from them that the initiative must come. It is as true in peaceful, as in war¬ like revolution that "Who would be free themselves must strike the blow." I will not apologise for the fact that my statements are not clothed in the linguistic attire proper to the discussion of politico-economical topics, I learned what



I know in another school, and, though I am proud to believe that I seldom run counter to the established truths of that

science, I am of opinion, that all truth is benefitted by being occasionally stripped of technical verbiage and that old faces under new hoods may not be unacceptable even to the working man, with his Mill or his Eicardo, at his fingers ends.

It is no doubt desirable as a general rule, that subjects of

importance should be left in the hands of trained thinkers. That the doctor should treat upon medicine, the lawyer on law, the priest on theological, and the professed politician upon political topics.

In the first two of the above instances, indeed, the mass of ascertained facts which must be assimilated before

anything worth listening to, on either subject, couldpossibly bo said, is so great, that none but those who professionally devote their lives to such studies are at all competent to

speak upon them. Not so, however, with politics, at least, not so, to any¬

thing like the same extent. The very A.B.C. of the science of Government, its most

fundamental propositions, are continually being called into

question. The amount of settled information upon which

every one is agreed, is not so large, but that a fairly diligent student may bring himself abreast of the age, without

devoting a life time to its acquirement. There is, perhaps, then, some amount of excuse for me, who am not, and who never will be a politician, when I venture to address a few words to electors among the working classes, with reference



to the disposal of their votes, during the coming conflict of parties.

I must begin, of course, by professing to have nothing but the interests of the working classes at heart.

Everyone who addresses you will say that, so you may put it aside as nothing but an empty form, upon the value of which time only can pronounce.

Every one has his own objects in view, and you must decide for yourselves, as best you can, whether those objects are compatible with your interests or not, because, if they are not, make up your minds to it, your interests will be the ones to go to the wall.

To decide this point correctly, however, it is necessary not only that you should make a shrewd guess at the

objects of those who aspire to be your leaders, but that you should also have a clear idea of what your own interests are, for, believe me, that is a point on which you want very much more enlightenment than you are at all aware of.

If you have the patience to listen to me, I will tell you a few facts, which may serve to bring this lesson home to you.

In the first place then, you must bear in mind that you lead two very different lives, lives which re-act one upon the

other, but which are very plainly distinguishable. I mean the life you lead as individuals and the life you, at the same time, lead as parts of a huge social machine, of whose

organization and laws of growth you are in the densest

ignorance. As an individual you may get drunk, stay away from work, " bash " the wife, and bully the "kids," be as

dirty, thriftless and dissolute as you choose, or, by self-



denial and good temper, make an earthly paradise of your home, that is if you are among the lucky ones who have

anything that can honestly be called a home. Over those parts of your life, which depend upon the huge

organization called social growth, you have no more control than you have over the orbit of the moon.

I know it is very hard to persuade jou of this. I know, to take one instance, that you retain a robust

faith in the efficacy of trades unions and strikes to raise the

price of labour. Continual failures do not seem to open your eyes to the

impossibility of the attempt, but have you ever considered

Seriously what you are trying to do You are trying to keep starving people who have nothing

to sell but their labour, and purchasers who want to buy that labour a little cheaper than you choose to sell yours from coming together. Why, they will meet, in spite of

your most constant and vigilant efforts You might as well try to prevent the dew from reaching

the blades of grass, as try to prevent competition from

quickly eating away again, any increase of wages which combination can procure. I believe you are beginning to see this for yourselves, at least I have overheard workmen

frequently of late express the same belief, but they always seemed to do so in a shamefaced way, as if they were half conscious of betraying their cause.

It certainly must seem to them, at present, that if trades- unions and strikes will not help the labouring classes, noth¬ ing can, and that the only alternative would be to submit



with resignation to what they look upon as the extortionate

greed of the capitalist. This, however, is not, to my mind, a valid excuse for

reticence. If trades-unions and strikes can do you any good then

stick to them like men, in spite of any hardships they may entail.

If you don't think they can ultimately better your position, then the sooner you make that opinion known to those whose interests it is to promote them the better.

Eemember too, that you British-workmen are not the only workmen seeking employment.

Even, if you could all combine together, Irish included, which you know very well you could not, even then you could only share in the proceeds of production up to the

point at which it became advantageous for the capitalist to

import foreign hands, or to transfer his capital to foreign soil.

Proceedings which, as you know, are continually becom¬

ing easier and more frequent- Even supposing the capitalist debarred from taking either

of these steps, he would only require a little patience. He could not go on manufacturing at a loss, and he and his fellows all over the country, would have to close their works.

Industrial depression, commonly known as hard times, would then soon bring down your demands, in spite of your firmest combinations, and after each crisis, the last state of the labour market would be found to be worse than the first.



10

Don't think that I am trying to persuade you that

organised societies as a whole, or even those portions of them comprising the labouring classes only, are going from bad to worse. I think just the opposite, and I think you will be able to see for yourselves, if you take long enough views, that men are gradually mastering natural obstruc¬

tions, and continually becoming better able to live up to those high ideals, which are undoubtedly, the result of

exemption from sordid surroundings, upon such minds as are too strong to yield to the equally fatal alternative trammels of luxury and sloth.

Under the present arrangements, however, the labouring classes compete themselves out of anything like a due share in the general progress, whilst, at the same time, the spread of education and more refined feelings is continually ren¬

dering the individual less able to contemplate, without

indignant bitterness, the prospect of a life of hopeless and colorless toil.

I don't say either that the whole, or even the bulk of the labouring classes have to put up with such prospects. Large numbers of hand-workers are able to lead rational and enjoyable lives, not beneath the dignity of any true man to be content with. A life without labour, let me assure you, is by no means, an object of desire.

Unfortunately, however, a very large percentage-aije not so situated. Their lives are such as no man ought to submit to.

I have seen slavery, I have seen barbarism. I have seen

struggles to live against extremes of climate, but I never



11

saw human beings living under such debasing conditions, as

many of the so called free labourers in wealthy England. Between this lowest extreme and the stage of well re¬

munerated and not excessive toil, every shade of gradation exists, but, as long as people are to be found willing to lead, or, I should say, capable of leading the horrible lives

"alluded to, and which are now too well known to need further description, so long this miserable state of affairs must continue.

Competition will take care of that, and, as I have already reminded you, competition is not confined to the British

Islands, so do not think that any checks upon the increase of population, or emigration of surplus labourers from these

Islands, can better your condition. Whatever you do, whatever anyone does, as long as com¬

petition has full sway, so long will there be a considerable

portion of the working classes, leading lives becoming more and more degraded, until they reach the utmost limit of human endurance.

The necessary existence of this fringe of poverty on the outskirts of your ranks need not, perhaps much trouble you working men who are better circumstanced, especially as no one is able to show you anything you can do to alleviate it,, wore it not for the uncertainty of your own positions. Some of you have well grounded reasons for feeling secure, and all of you are prone to banish as far as possible, the consideration that your positions could possibly change for the worse, but while competition reigns, the only man who is realty secure



12

of his position is the man who is at the bottom of the ladder and can fall no further.

As to the general run of working men, hands taken on from week to week, they never can tell what their position is likely to be two or three months ahead. It depends on circumstances which they can neither control nor foresee.

The demand for the class of work at which they have

spent their lives in attaining skill, may suddenly vanish or be transferred in favour of a similar article produced else¬

where, and they may find that the depth to which a man out of work can sink, is a matter of much moment to themselves.

Even the most fortunate among you, when you begin to

get a little old and stiff, and are not quite as useful as a

younger man at lower wages would be, do not always find that promptness to acknowledge faithful services, which

might be expected of the successful employer, by tho^e who had hot thoroughly learned the ethics of the school of

supply and demand. The modern employer' says, in fact, if not in words, to

his workmen, " as long as you will work for me, as hard as

anyone else, for as little money as anyone else, you may stay, the moment you can't, or wont, you may go."

Now the fact that under the present system there always is and must be that somebody else ready to supplant the

ordinary labourer, and another and another ready to sup¬ plant the supplanter, is the real difficulty that we have to contend with.

You ask " why must it be so 1" I answer because no one has yet suggested an efficient remedy, I have already tried



13

to show you that trades-unions are powerless to help you, but time and experience are teaching you that lesson more

forcibly than I can, I shall therefore go on to discuss some of the other panaceas, offered you by Liberal and Eadical

politicians, and attempt to prove to you that as a class, for the arguments I shall use, are not at all intended to be ap¬ plicable to individuals, you cannot be benefitted either by land-nationalisation, emigration, Malthusianism, free trade, fair trade, social legislation, or charitable effort.

To commence with the Malthusian doctrine, which from late honest and noble-minded, though misguided, partisan¬ ship, has come to be better known as " Bezantism." It has

long been looked on as a sad and depressing condition of

affairs, that labouring folk had no other escape from the evils produced by the increase in their numbers, than by sacrificing the strongest instinct of their nature.

I don't know whether it can be considered much consola¬ tion to find out, as we are now doing, that this sacrifice, even if made, would have no effect in changing their con¬ dition. It has become plainly visible to all those who think for themselves, and who have not been " suckled in a creed outworn " that wherever transport of food is easy and cheap, the numbers of a nation, or a community of any sort, has nothing whatsoever to say to, and is in no way limited by, any ratio of productiveness in land. It would be just as reasonable to say, that the population of London could not exceed four millions, because there was only a certain number of acres of soil within its boundaries, as to assert that the population of Great Britain, could not exceed



14

thirty-six or any other number of millions for a similar reason.

The truth is there is a mysterious something called the

growth of a nation. Some nations are growing, some seem, for a time at all

events, to have ceased doing so. If growth goes on in Great

Britain, the population may come to be seventy or eighty millions, and yet the proportion of toiling stragglers, as

compared with the wealthy and the well-to-do, not be any different from what it is to day, or, at all events, if the number of very poor are increased in proportion, it will not be because there is not plenty of food easily procurable, and

plenty of money in the community to pay for it as well. In Great Britain, and it is Great Britain we are con¬

sidering, it is absurd to suppose that there is any limit' to the number of the population due to the productiveness or

-non-productiveness of land. It will also be found on consideration, that the total

number of the population, from whatever ranks recruited, has no necessary bearing on the price of labour in the labour

market, or on any phase of the condition of the working classes, and the fact of their refraining from reproducing their species in the natural manner, would not be represented by any improvement in that condition. The price of labour is regulated by the fact that, not only is labour itself a

perishable commodity, lost for ever if not at once utilised; but the labourers themselves are also perishable commodities, having no other means of deliverance from perishing than



15

by selling their labour immediately, for the best price which

they can obtain for it. If nobody in the place where they live wants the sort

of labour they can perform, then they must go elsewhere, or go into the poorhouse, or starve. Being willing to labour is of no use unless someone else happens to require that labour, and to be willing to pay for it. The amount which anyone will pay for it, also depends upon the proportion between the number of people in the neighbourhood who want work

done, and that of those willing to work; so that in those classes of work which require least skill, the competition is

only stopped at that point at which the labourer can no

longer remain alive. The cheaper he can live the cheaper he will work, and out of this vicious circle there is no way open to him. It so happens that in England, partly because our people used to be very honest and willing workers, and

partly because of the immense amount of labour-saving machinery invented, the price of labour was far below that of other countries.

The English artizan was better off than his continental

brother, but, although better paid—his work plus that done

by the machinery he attended to, cost the English Employer far less than the foreigu Capitalist had to pay, for an equal amount.

There has been, therefore, for a long time back, oppor¬ tunities for becoming an employer of labour, almost as numerous as those for obtaining employment. All under¬

takings managed with reasonable skill and honesty, were



16

pretty certain to pay, and the nation grew and flourished, increasing enormously in numbers and wealth.

This process of growth is marked by a fluctuation, between the numbers of the employers on one hand, and the em¬

ployed on the other. In a progressive community, cheapness of labour, if accom¬

panied by security for investment, as in such a community it will be, tempts more employers into the field, until labour once more becomes pretty well remunerated. Increase of

population goes on all the while, adding, of course, much more largely to the labouring, than to the labour employing portion of the community, while foreign labour is also attracted by the increased rates of pay. Labour comes down again then, and then more labour-employers spring up to increase the price of wages.

This see-saw, may go on successfully until the organised community swells to any size, provided only, that it can find means of exchanging the goods it manufactures to

advantage. The idea that working people can benefit their position as

a class in a progressive community by refusing to breed

children, is an absolute delusion.

Reducing the number of labourers reduces also the in¬ crease of employers, and the only difference on the whole is that there is not so numerous and wealthy a nation as there

might have been, and not that the labouring classes are one whit the better off.

Competition among the smaller number of labourers, for the smaller amount of labour is just as keen and the smal-

_— This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:03:24 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


17

lest modicum upon which a man will consent to live is still the actual, if not the ostensible, standard by which his value as a machine is regulated.

You cannot help yourselves as a class by putting j\Ialthu- sian doctrines into practice. Can the state then, or private enterprise, help you by promoting emigration 1

By no means. The same laws of growth, of which we are ignorant because we never studied them, step into baffle us. If emigration enhances the value of labour in a country beyond the average of foreign rivalry then some labour-em¬

ployers get choked off, or more foreign labour is attracted in, until from one or both causes the value of labour is again sufficiently reduced, and the level of the home labour market

brought once more to its former state. There is some shift¬

ing of English Eolk to Canada, 01 Australia and of Germans or Italians into England, but there is no change in the rela¬ tive proportion between employers and employed.

It is true, that the number of labourers may be so great, not compared with the total population or the amount of land, but as compared with the possible or probable growth of the

community, that it might be desirable, to cause them to

emigrate in such numbers only, as not to affect the home labour market, but then we do not know enough about the laws regulating the growth of the community, to enable us to judge of the existence of such opportunities with any degree of certainty.

Another point on which we must remain in absolute

ignorance is, whether some considerable proportion of those



18

caused to emigrate, might not have chanced to be endowed with those labour organising faculties, which might have made it more advantageous, not only that they, but perhaps •even the whole batch, should have remained at home.

This argument may be thought a little strained, something like discouraging infanticide, on the ground of the possible loss of a Shakespeare or a Milton, it is, however, valid as far as it goes, and applies with much enhanced force to volun¬

tary emigration, which consists mainly of those very people possessing capital and enterprise who would, if they saw their way to remaining at home, enormously enhance the

National, of course at the expense of Colonial, growth. The only sensible way we can deal with subjects we don't

nnderstand, such as the laws regulating the growth of com¬ munities, is by letting them alone, as far as possible. The

growths themselves are the outcome of an enormous number of individual actions, and the more those actions are left to the common sense and reason of the individual, the healthier the total result is likely to be.

In my opinion in the case of emigration, neither the State nor the philanthropic individual can do the least good by interference, as to the fraudulent emigration agencies they ought to be extirpated by the growing force of public in¬

telligence, as they soon will be, together with many other

pests and shams of the nineteenth century. One thing is certain, emigration, however conducted, can

have no effect on the price of labour in the labour markets of Great Britain.

The case of Ireland is proof positive, that the reduction



19

in numbers by emigration is not in itself sufficient, does not even in fact tend, to improving the condition of the labour market, for enormous reductions there, were found to be followed by no appreciable results.

On the other hand, industrial growth, might support on Irish soil, a population twice, aye, or ten times as numerous as the present. The members of which, except those be¬

longing to the lower industrial strata, would be in the

enjoyment of ample material prosperity, the upper classes revelling in wealth and luxury. Home Rulers seem to imagine they could do something to produce such growth, protection seeming to be the sheet anchor of "their purblind hopes. If they set themselves the task of starting an

opposition gulf stream, in the Atlantic Ocean, and com¬ menced by an attempt to hedge the present one into narrower limits, they would not be attempting anything more utterly beyond their puny powers. Modern industrial growth is produced by forces, which take their rise in all parts of the globe, civilised or uncivilised, and will flow in their own channels, however we may struggle to divert them.

If emigration then, cannot help us in our efforts to give the producer a somewhat larger share in production, let us see whether any changes in the present land laws, might not have the desired effect:

Where land is plentiful there is no poverty. Every individual in a Red Indian hunting tribe, who was strong enough, and cunning enough to live at all, was also able to live in as much comfort, as any of his fellows.

A good deal of land, however, was wanted, happy hunting



20

grounds had to be reckoned by the square league, and whole

continents could only support a few scattered tribes. Pastoral life, if not requiring such a vast territorial sub¬

stratum, still insists upon an ample share of elbow-room. The South African Boer, to take a modern instance, feels,

himself quite uncomfortably squeezed, if his farm does not

consist of at least two thousand morgen, about four thousand acres.

It is not until the rise of industrial centres has increased the value of the products of the soil that a living can be made out of a limited portion.

A market garden near a metropolis, will procure for a

man, a larger share of the material comforts of life, than a Garden of Eden in the wilds.

There is a limit, however, and the market garden must be really near the industrial centre, or the line of rail, or, better still, the water communication leading to it, or else the garden must be enormously increased in size, to make it a paying concern. Let us now consider the case of Great

Britain, where more industrial centres are crowded together than in any similarly-sized area on the globe. We find that there are about fifty millions of acres in the United

Kingdom, which it would be possible to cultivate, the rest

being moorland, water, and waste. On account of the large number of markets, which would

give value to small holdings, let us assume that an average of five acres per head, would enable the whole of the agri¬ cultural community, to live in decency and comfort. It



21

would not, of course, but I am making out the best possible case for land-nationalisation. Let us now suppose the utmost facilities given for acquiring land, and the whole of the ten millions who could be thus accommodated put in

possession of their various portions of ground, and yet we shall not find ourselves one step nearer the relief of the

pressure on the industrial labour market. Even supposing that the whole of the difference between

the existing number of agriculturalists, tenants, and land owners, and the suppositious ten millions had been made up from the ranks of the town workers, the only result would be an immediate influx of foreign labour to close up with

surprising rapidity the enormous gap. As no possible land nationalisation scheme could attract anything like the above numbers to agricultural pursuits, the change would be less

perceptible, but of just the same nature. As the industrial labour market was gradually relieved

by town workers being attracted to the soil, the tendency to a rise of wages would defeat itself by attracting foreign competition, just has we see it doing every day.

The truth is, however, that peasant proprietorship is not iu accord with the ideals of modern progress and education.

To endure a life of monotony and penurious saving, a man must be born to it, once he has tasted the excitement of the variety and occasional recklessness of expenditure, and

unexpected chances of the hand to mouth life of cities, lie can no more return to Beotian dullness, than a tiger cub who has tasted blood could feed contentedly on butter-milk and dog buscuit. '



22

On the other hand, if an increase cannot improve, a decrease in the number )f agriculturists in England can have nothing more than a temporary effect, either in injuring the condition of the industrial workers.

If the whole of the agricultural land of Great Britain

suddenly became unproductive, so that not a blade of grass nor an ear of corn could be raised upon it, as soon as the terrible disturbance that such a catastrophe would

naturally occasion, had passed away, the industrial centers would find themselves very much in the same position as before. They would be able to procure all the necessaries

- and luxuries of life from foreign sources by water carriage, at much the same prices as formerly, and, as long as they were able to pay for them, would have no cause to dread

scarcity of provisions, unless, of course, blockaded by hostile fleets. The question of the land in the United Kingdom has no more to do with industrial depression than has Malthusianism or emigration. There is one way indeed, in which land reformers can exercise a large amount of influ¬ ence over national growth, especially when they have ex-cabinet ministers as spokesmen, and that is by shaking the belief, in the general security of property. National

growth, though an irresistibly powerful, is also, an extremely sensitive organization, and it has been found that the very quickest way to hinder its development, is to cast doubt, however slight, upon the stability of investment. Although, thus a comparatively easy task to check national growth, the converse attempt to increase its rate of progress by legislative effort, is by no means so simple an affair. Hitherto,1



23

we have found the policy of non-interference to be the only one productive of satisfactory results. I need hardly at this date bring forward arguments to convince working men

that, for one of their number who might find employment, in consequence of the imposition of protective tariffs, whether openly avowed as such, or hidden under the specious catchword of fair trade, two or more, would be deprived of

employment, which would have been provided for them by the national growth, had it been allowed to go on unchecked. Free trade, in other words the policy of non-interference, allows this growth to reach its natural limits, and is beyond all question the best policy for the nation as a whole.

The question for you working men to consider, however, is, whether the Apostles of free trade know what they are

talking about, when they assert that it has any tendency to

improve your position, by enabling you to obtain any larger share, in the general proceeds of production.

The gentlemen referred to will tell you, that free trade, as soon as foreign nations come to understand its manifold

advantages, will work the longed for revolution in the British labour market, by so cheapening supplies that ordinary wages will mean an adequate share, in all the inecessaries of existence.

Is there a word of truth in this forecast 1 Is free-trade a friend to those who live by their labour 1 Others it may and does benefit. To them its triumph is a matter of absolute indifference.

While competition reigns, as you all know, the cheaper people can live, the cheaper they will work. Water does not



24

rise to its own level, with any more certainty, or accuracy then does the lowest price paid for labour, under the compe¬ tition system correspond with the lowest price at which

food, clothing and shelter are attainable, proportionate effects also being produced all the way up the scale, with decreasing speed but equal certainty.

If a loaf which cost four-pence is reduced to two-pence, and the same cause leaves you with two-pence instead of

four-pence in your pocket you have not much to thank the free trader for.

To the Capitalist a free breakfast table means a reduction in the cost of production, resulting in handsome additions to his income, to be reduced presently, no doubt, by increased

competition among those of his own class. To the labouring man a free breakfast table, means a

shrunken purse, he is as well off as he was before, and no better.

As long as the present system of competition goes on, the

cheaper a man can work, the cheaper a great number of men will have to work, and therefore free trade can never touch the fringe of destitution, or help the working man against his worst foe, which is his neighbour.

Precisely the same leak in the bucket, checkmates the efforts of those who attempt to remove the fringe of destitu¬ tion, with all its attendant evils, by social legislation. Take for instance, the popular cry of the day for the better housing of the working classes.

The only effect of reducing the cost of house rent, or room rent, is to decrease the amount, for which competition will



25

soon after compel people to work. If one man will not re¬ duce the terms, on which he will dispose of his time and

toil, another can and will. It may be suggested that the status of the worker would,

at all events, be raised by his being compelled to live in more roomy apartments and under better sanitary reg¬ ulations.

It remains yet to be proved, however, that any power which could possibly be exercised, would be strong enough to prevent sub-letting, and overcrowding among certain

classes, even if they had abandoned palaces to live in, as

has, indeed, been the case in some of our older cities. On the contrary, it is well known to many, that no power

would be strong enough, and it is also known, that in order that sanitary houses should remain sanitary houses, the labour of some portion of the family, should be diverted from wage-getting to merely domestic matters, a piece of

extravagance utterly beyond the means of those, who live on the border land of the fringe of destitution.

Even if a better state of things could be enforced for a

while, the effect it would have in increasing the cost of home labour would soon compel the country, either to revert to the old state of affairs, or else to lose its place in the grand march of universal competition for trade supremacy, thereby pro¬ ducing a greater amount of destitution than ever.

The better housing of the working classes may remove the fringe of destitution, a little further out of sight, but it can do nothing towards reducing its numbers.

As to legislation against crime I fear it is but too true, that



26

if a book could be prepared, showing in one column the in¬ tentions of the legislature, in a second the laws it passed to

carry such intentions into effect, and, in a third, the results that actually followed the carrying out of the laws, as far as

they were carried out, it would form, for the light minded the most laughable, and for the seriously minded, the most

startling piece of reading that could well be put into their hands.

It is little use for instance, legislating for the protection of

girls who don't want to be protected, or to whom, poor souls, the few pounds, or more probably shillings, offered are of

greater value, than that which in their present circumstances, it matters little whether they lose or retain.

In fact, until they lose it, they are handicapped in the labour market.

People who want to live on the present system by their own exertions, must do something that others will pay for, and it is not easy to subsist on the proceeds of making ties, or sewing shirt fronts unless you also " do as others do."

It is the existence of the vices and miseries caused by this poverty, which makes it a profitable speculation for the

mercenary and coarse minded to collect statistics thereof, and therewith to wring money out of the kind-hearted and

simple, or the calculating and pharisaical giver, under the

utterly false pretence, that they are in possession of some

plans for mitigating the evils, which they so graphically depict. The cause must be removed before the effects will vanish, and the cause is utterly beyond their quack diagnosis. Far be it from me, to impute false motives to



27

the better class of men, and the better class of societies

employed in devoting their attention to the alleviation of distress. I know there are some, though I believe very few, who really think they can do some good by charity, and who

really try to do that good. With the single exception of those who are engaged in

keeping youngsters out of temptation, and giving them a fair start along the highway of life, everyone engaged in

calling forth, and directing the huge stream of charitable donations arising from private generosity, or levied by the law of the land, is engaged, unwittingly no doubt, in doing the utmost mischief, it is possible for human beings to ac¬

complish, for they are eating into the natural healthy growth of society, and producing festering sores most diffi¬ cult to eradicate.

You, of the working classes know this, you know what the professional pauper and the cadger are alike, and how

they breed up others like unto themselves. You know how assistance, which in hard times you might

not blush to take yourself, feeling that you would somehow be able to return a quid pro quo, is for ever debarred from

you, by the dread lest you should be mistaken for one of these.

You know too, how the man, part of whose domestic

expenses are defrayed by charity, competes in the labour market against the more independent spirits, who try to

get along for themselves. You know all this, but, because you cannot see the

growth of the social organization as a whole, you don't



28

know how the taint thus occasioned, spreads far and wide, fostering arrogance on the one hand, and hypocrisy and

subserviency on the other, weakening moral fibre, scoffing at independent feeling, promoting smug satisfaction, and

thereby stifling inqiiiries which would otherwise have forced themselves long ago upon public attention.

Of all the evils, which surround the lot of the working classes, next to the competition system, the greatest of all is charity.

From this censure I have already especially exempted the charitable education of children.

The education of the unit, indeed, is of such vital

importance for the healthy growth of the social whole, that I

fully agree with those who consider that education should be absolutely free, as well as compulsory.

I know, of course, that under the present system it is absurd to offer education to a large number of children of a certain class, unless you offer them food and clothing too, thereby putting a premium upon parental laziness and vice ; but it is to the present system which I object, at least, until it has been subjected to a certain fundamental alteration. Under the present system, however, those are your friends who advocate the spread of all knowledge, anything that will set the brain working, and assist it in arriving at correct conclusions, especially the knowledge of natural facts. School-board cram, even, is better than allowing the field to remain fallow, though, of course, the child's brain might easily be cultivated in a more intelligent manner than that.



29

To return to our subject, however, we have seen that neither trades unions, land nationalisation, emigration, " Bezantism," fair trade, free trade, legislation or charity, can serve to better the condition of the working classes by lessening the competition among them, or removing the

fringe of destitution from which they are all struggling desperately to escape.

This list pretty well exhausts the measures that are likely to be brought forward by party politicians, the truth being that in so far as the condition of the working classes is concerned, party politics are to use an Americanism "PLAYED OUT."

There is one measure we have not considered, and that is universal trades-unionism.

The Internationalists want to spread trades-unionism

through all the working communities of the globe at once, and their aspirations are perfectly legitimate, as long as they confine themselves to legitimate means.

Unfortunately, the length of time which must plainly elapse, before such a combination could be brought about by ordinary means has driven some of them to seek for extra¬

ordinary and violent methods. The Nihilists and Anarchists think that any change must

bo for the better, and are content to devise schemes for dis¬ traction without troubling their heads in the least about reconstruction.

You need only read or inquire a little to find that the effects of the most violent up roofings of society are only

temporary, and that as soon as the storm-blast has passed



30

over, growth recommences at once, on exactly the old main lines. Some are better, some worse off but, looking upon the community as a whole, no real changes have been effected that the continuous flow of the increase of population will not rapidly efface.

If you abolished Queen, Lords, Commons, Land-holders, Capitalists and all who now sympathise with any of them at one swoop, you would very soon again have some sort of Government, most likely a despotism, and new landholders and capitalists on the one side, with the rest of the popula¬ tion on the other, just as you have now, while the fringe of destitution would still exist compelling you to fall into the old grooves and build up a new civilisation on the ruins of the old one.

A new civilisation too having the same inherent defect as the present one, namely that the share which the working man gets in the proceeds of the general production of any community cannot be increased beyond a certain low figure without throwing back that community in the competition race, and thereby once more reducing the worker's share to the former level if not below it.

There is also Socialism to be considered, but here we have no longer facts to guide us.

We are met by an eager class of folk, with varied and

contradictory theories, who assert that if certain measures were taken certain effects would follow.

As far as facts do bear upon the subject, we must allow that no attempt at socalistic life has ever succeeded except where religious fanaticism allowed some person or persons



31

to play the roll of irresponsible Dictator, which, on the

present competition for wages system, is filled by the

capitalist. We must own, if we look to facts, that the competition

system is the only one which has proved powerful enough in the past universally to overcome individual inertia and

sloth, and that there is no sign yet that we shall be able to do without it in the future.

When socialists tell you that work will be performed by ordinary people, without the ordinary stumulus of im¬ mediate personal advantage, or in many cases without absolute compulsion, they are only speaking truly, if they add that they are talking about a happy state of future

progress which we have not reached yet by several centuries We may now sum up our conclusions under the following

six headings —

(1.) It is a fact that the strength and stability of the

present system of universal competition in all things, labour

included, lies in this only—that the large majority of

thinkers, even independently of those interested in so

thinking, is of the opinion that this system is the only stable one, that changes made from it would merely last for a while, and that things would soon return to the old

grooves. If this opinion were changed the present system would

not last an hour.

(2.) It is a fact that under the present system there must exist in every progressive community a fringe of

destitution, that is to say, a certain, or rather a continually



32

fluctuating, number of willing workers must be suffering the

greatest amount of physical evils which human nature will bear, short of giving way altogether and seeking refuge in

pauperism or suicide.

(3.) It is a fact that all the social evils at present dis¬

gracing our own, as well as other modem communities, arise, directly or indirectly, from the existence of this fringe of destitution.

(4.) It is a fact that political economists are right in

asserting that no substitute for the present system has ever been suggested, which affords any hope of success among human beings actuated by ordinary motives and con¬ siderations.

(5.) It is a fact that the only choice for progressive communities lies between discovering some system, hitherto

unknown, progressing elements which would be likely to

give it the required stability to supplant or supplement the

system now existing, or, failing that, to resign themselves to the present system, under which, a certain, or uncertain, number of unoffending victims are continually being cruelly tormented, or actually crushed out of existence under the wheels of the car of progress.

(6.) It is a fact that charitable efforts to alleviate the

sufferings of the martyrs to progress are utterly unavailing. You may, of course, take a particular man or woman off the

rack, but, do what you will, while the present system lasts, you cannot reduce the number of sufferers stretched

upon it. It follows, therefore, that, as things are at present,



33 «

however the nation may flourish, and however the number of well-to-do people in it may increase, the competition system will always keep a considerable section of the working classes at the point of hard struggle for existence. The competition system must have a basis to work upon, and that basis will be found to bo the lowest possible price at which human labour is purchasable —the smallest share of the necessaries of life upon which the least fortunate labourers will consent to exist.

The attempt to establish an artifical point at which charity, public or private, shall step in and say " Thus far shalt thou suffer and no farther " is rendered nugatory by the weakness of human nature itself. Charitable aid, especially public charitable aid, must be fenced round with conditions so irksome that people will prefer very severe privations to

enduring them, or else the demoralisation which any charity occasions would soon become so wide spread as completely to undermine all healthy national growth.

If existence on public charity were made endurable the nation would rush to destruction and decay at headlong .speed.

The lowest point must bo that at which the least fortun¬

ately circumstanced can support himself hi/ his own labour, and the question for us to solve is whether that lowest point need be as low as it is now.

A lowest point there must be and that lowest point as well as every step above it must be gained and maintained

by individual exertion or else good bye to all hopes of pro¬ gress.



34

To remove the compulsion which says to so many of you "working men " labour hard for long hours and small wages or die," if we can manage it by the plan I am about to

propose, or by any other will be no doubt a great cheek

upon the present rail road speed at which the car of progress is rushing along over its victim-strewn path, and, so far, may be regarded from some points of view as an evil,- those points of view, however, not being the ones from which you are

likely to regard it. If my plan proposed to remove the spur of competition as well as the rod of compulsion, judicious critics might, indeed, put me down with those dreamers whose socialistic schemes have invariably come to utter grief except in those cases only where as I have just said some

individual, or set of individuals, has, by the ascendancy of some form of fanaticism assumed the position of irresponsible despot which, in ordinary life, is given to the capitalist by the action of the struggle for employment system.

The fact is, that the humanity of this nineteenth century, of which you British working people are not the most favorable specimens, is too under-toned, shortsighted, narrow-minded, self-sufficient, apathetic and ignorant to solve the difficulties which bar the door to long vistas of further progress yet before it.

You working people of to-day have virtues which your fathers had not. You are magnificent in your endurance of periods of industrial depression—practice makes perfect, I suppose — and you can learn to help each other and sympathise with one another in such times, but, let you once get your heads above water into the



35

sunshine of prosperity and outblossom all your mean little vices again, and you are about as well fitted to com¬ bine together for any object requiring unprejudiced con¬ sideration as so many oysters.

If it were not for this you could not have been kept in

subjection so long, and it is this, and this only, which puts any serious difficulty in the way of carrying out the advice I am about to offer.

You are accustomed to slavery and it is doubtful whether

you will be able at once to accustom yourselves to freedom. You will probably abuse it at first, led away by the

fascinations of indolent ease. It is to be reasonably hoped, however, that the spirit of

competition, acting at the new point of leverage, may set the wheels of progress running on again, as rapidly as ever, their path being all the smoother, as they will not be

crushing the lives out of human beings at every turn. What I would suggest then is, that those upon whom

the present system presses too harshly should free them¬ selves from it by arranging to become the purchasers of their own labour. Any given body of men and women

requires certain products of labour to enable each indi¬ vidual to maintain his existence, and as long as those individuals live, they, and after them, their successors, will

go on wanting similar products, why should they not go on

producing them as well There is no reason why they should not, except that they

have not the brains to organise the necessary preliminaries, the patience to make the necessary savings, nor the mutual



36

confidence and power of combination required for the carry¬ ing out of the humblest scheme of productive co-operation.

All that would be required for success would be that a. certain body of labourers containing within itself in the

requisite proportions, persons of the varied capacities which would enable them to produce, each in his, or her own line, all the absolute necessaries for decent existence, should

agree to become the joint owners of suitable dwelling houses, factories, and land. Each could then produce as much of his own specialty as there was a market for within the

amalgamated society itself, being paid in kind by the pro¬ ductions of the others, the total result being that every one in exchange for a certain amount of labour would be always sure of being supplied with all the absolute necessaries of existence. In what way, you may ask, does this proposition differ from a thousand communistic schemes. In this, T

reply that, further than that the members would add

opportunities for social intercourse and enlightenment to a semi-rural existence, the fact of their belonging to the

society need form little more than an episode in their lives. We have brought to such a pitch the art of conducting the

energy supplied by nature through machines, many of which are more skilful, and certainly more expeditious, in

performing their allotted tasks than human beings could ever hope to become, that the time which each individual in such a society as I allude to, would take to produce his share of the total amount of necessaries required would bo reckoned by hours instead of days in the year.

At the most extravagant calculation a few weeks time out



37

of the twelve months would be all members need devote to

discharge in full their obligations to the society, and member¬

ship, would in fact amount to little more than a sort of self supporting insurance against the pressure of actual

want, which now compels the labourer to accept on the

instant, whatever terms are offered for his services. He or she would have ample time at their disposal still to

work for private employers, or, their living being secure, to

acquire skill in some art or profession at which they could work for themselves, and, everything beyond bare necessaries

being loft to be obtained by individual enterprise, the stimulus of competition would go on acting precisely as if does now, the only difference being that the basis it would have to work upon, in other words the lowest state to which the willing labourer could bo reduced, would consist of

Spartan fare in place of absolute starvation. If some enthusiast for, let us say, the study of Astronomy

chose to be content with such fare and to devote his ample leisure to the pursuit of his favourite hobby, or if another whose delight it was to attain the art, for it is an art, of

lying contentedly on his back in the sunshine followed hi'-

example, that need be no one else's business so long as the small quota of work due by each was accomplished, and the

general comfort and convenience not interfered with by any unpleasing eccentricities, the penalty for which latter would of course have to be expulsion by the vote of a

majority. Those willing fo work for others could, if necessary, go

and live near their work, retaining the right of asylum by



38

returning to perform the quota due to the society, or by feeing others to perform it for them. Probably, however, employers would be attracted to come and extend the

operations of the society for their own profit. For instance, the building and machinery in which was

produced, say the woollen goods used by the society, might be leased to a private owner, who might, by agree¬ ment, be allowed to extend them as he pleased, provided the amount of woollen goods necessary to render each member of the society independent was duly produced and handed over.

By adhering strictly to this basis, the living of each member of the society would be absolutely secured. No one could be turned adrift on account of a master's mis¬

fortune, or a master's displeasure. Opportunity, at the same time, would be afforded to any

with sufficient energy or talent to raise themselves into such a position that they might no longer desire to remain a member of the society, and it would be always open to

any member to leave, whenever he chose. It may be

objected that the time which some of the members, at all events, would have to devote to the service of the society would be longer than I have estimated, as the animals, for

instance, which would have to be kept would require constant attention.

It must not be forgotten, however, that the children of the members might be brought up in a common sense

manner, in which a large amount of their training, instead of useless verbal cram, might be made to consist of such



39

daily recurrent employments as the above, without any necessity for imposing upon any growing person, more than the labour necessary for the proper development of their full physical faculties.

The number of members might be large or small, as was found in practice, most convenient, but would always have to comprise a sufficient diversity of occupations, to produce all the articles necessary for decent existence.

Is there anything in the above suggestions so complicated, that you working men cannot carry them out, without the

supervision of a capitalist task-master The scheme once started, you see for your selves that

there could be no risk incurred, for an absolutely secure

market, removes the last element of speculation from any business undertaking, consequently you need not fear to fail for lack of directional skill, the extinguisher upon so

many co-operative hopes. Supply and demand, instead of

being allowed to play fast and loose with your means of

existence, would be coirpled together and made to run

evenly, side by side, like hounds in a leash. At very small exertion you could secure to yourselves, and

to your children, the necessaries of existence, and what more—minus the security—do most of you get now in ex¬

change for your most unremitting toil

But, you may say, how are we to get the land, stock, machinery and houses to set us going 1 If possible, I say, save the capital to buy them, or to make such a bargain as shall soon make them your own right out, before you begin.

Let each save his share. It is marvellous what savings



40

can be effected, even among the most unlikely circum¬ stances, where the motive power is strong enough.

In this case it means emancipation from the sternest, and otherwise most hopeless, slavery to which human beings have ever been subjected.

If you are worked to death, it matters little whether the

constraining power be the master's lash, or the empty belly and the winter's cold.

But fear not, ohow that you are willing to help your¬ selves, and there are whole-souled men and women to be found able and willing to see you through.

Not that you need money help. The absolutely secure basis on which such societies would

rest once established, and the fact that the members, after providing for their own immediate wants, would have ample; time at their disposal, which could be turned into money value, proved, as it at once would be by a single experi¬ ment, would loe sufficient to make the providing of capital for the carrying out of such enterprises, on easy terms, quite an ordinary legitimate speculation. Under this arrangement members would, until the mortgages were paid off, devote their spare time to the production of some specialty, which should be characterised by two qualities, one that it should keep, and the other that it should be an article of common requirement. - Thus, no great business skill would be required to dispose of it to advantage, for business skill is something to which no society will ever attain. That's what you want the capitalist for, and that is what we shall still continue to



11

want him for more than ever in the future, as the baser sort of employers won't have mere slaves to ride rough-shod over. Business skill enough to pay off, in the manner

proposed, such mortgages as would exist, you might, how¬

ever, fairly claim; and you'd have to be honest, as the

property, of course, would not be yours until you had paid for it.

All this is within your grasp if you have but determin¬ ation enough to seize upon it. It is the only revolution that will ever change your lot, and the time during which it will be possible to effect it is slipping away. In France, for instance, it has passed apparently for ever.

The reason of this, is that one of the most absolute necessities for the existence of such amalgamated societies as the above is, that fairly sized tracts of moderately fertile land should be purchasable for the use of the community as a body, none of that land being under exclusive individual

rule, but devoted, as a whole, to the production of raw materials iu precisely the required quantities, simple ex¬

perience taking the place of directional skill. In France, if you wont to negotiate for a moderately sized

estate for such a purpose, you would have to deal with quite a number of crafty, narrow-minded, suspicious, small pro¬ prietors, unable to act liberally, even if they had the desire, instead of with a single wealthy owner, who might see that his own best interests lay in affording what encouragement he could to the new development.

This is the only consideration I can call to mind which should make you working men care one straw which way



42

the elections go next November. If Hodge once gets hold of the land, then you will have to remain in slavery until the far off days of the Socialist's millenium.

His chance is not so bad either. In the words of that heroic lover of the Right who, if he

were commencing instead of ending his stainless career, might prove the best friend you could trust to but who, in the course of nature, cannot long remanin to keep party politics from falling into utter degradation : in the phrase of Mr. Gladstone, I say, we are " within measurable distance ""

of the overthrow of the landed aristocracy. Hodge does not think so and no one could persuade him to think so. He is going to vote conservative right enough, ballot or no ballot. If he did not he " could not sleep proper o'nights

"

but, if you think so too, you'll follow his example, if you take, my advice, and vote conservative as well, as your best chance of escaping the always growing tyranny of the

capitalist. Remember the liberal-radical party, in spite of disclaimers

from my Lord Hartington and other of his class who will soon have to shift over to the other side, is pledged by its real future leader no longer, to consider the claims of the owners of land superior to the comfort and happiness of the

people, and, as the comfort and happiness of the people is supposed by the same party largely to depend upon the

people, or as many of them as can be conveniently accom¬

modated, becoming petty proprietors of land vice the present holders got rid of in some way not specified, the programme itself is so plain that the only question lies in the ability of



43

the proposers to carry it out. The overruling of private rights for supposed public benefits is one of those things which, once to be seriously mentioned by persons in posi¬ tions of responsibility is to be already half accomplished. The power wielded by the English landed aristocracy is of course enormous, but it is founded chiefly on prestige and

precedent, their numbers are not large, and, if it were

seriously proposed to treat them in any particular fashion, they could do nothing but submit. Out of the thirty-six millions in all Great Britain not much more than a quarter of a million own over an acre of land.

To you working classes it does not matter, as I say, one

straw, which party is in power. Neither cares at all in reality about helping you, and

would not know how to set about the task if it did, unless

you show the way. Nothing can help you, until you carry out some such arrangements as those I have spoken of. When you make your labour no longer a drug in the

market, by making it useful to yourselves, then you may hope for better times—not before.

Land however is a necessary basis to make such indus¬ trial organizations, self-supporting, and you will get land on better terms from the existing large holders, than from

peasant proprietors, who would be certain to turn out dogs in the manger, neither making a comfortable living them¬

selves, nor showing the least inclination to jeopardise their

rights of proprietorship by joining with you on any terms whatsoever.



44

For this reason, if you take my advice, the advice of one who has been put in a strangely advantageous position for

taking a glance ahead, you will use your votes to return the Conservative party, by such a majority as shall put its more sober leaders above any necessity for truckling to Irish

ignorance or radical unrest.

Try if they will help you to freedom, for you will want some legislative help.

I think they will, in spite of capitalist opposition, once

they see a way before them. If they don't you can turn them out again. Unless you give this plan a trial, things will go on

something in the way foreshadowed in the annexed speech, supposed to be delivered twenty years hence, by the next outbidder for popularity at any price, who may at that date still be trying to beguile you with false hopes, after your chances of emancipation have gone to join the snows of last winter.

His speech is full of vulgar clap-trap, but, believe me, bad as it is, it is a very favourable specimen of vvhat party eloquence will be in twenty years to come.



TWENTY YEARS AFTER:

OK,

"Hoist with his own Petard."

JSeimj the Report of a Speech delivered in Bu'min<ihaiiir

August, 1905, by the

HON. NECKSTOUT BIDDER, M.P.



TWENTY YEARS AFTER:

HOIST WITH HIS OWN PETARD.

" Fbiends and Fellow Citizens " On the eve of changes so momentous as those which

the elections of this autumn, the first ever held in England under manhood suffrage, undoubtedly foreshadow, you will

not, perhaps, think it out of place for me to bring before

you some slight sketch of the work which the Radical party has accomplished for the working man during the past fifteen or twenty years, if only for the purpose of calling attention the more forcibly to that which still remains to he done.

" If we go back as far as the year 1885—it is but twenty years ago—and yet what do we find to have been the state of the United Kingdom then

" Why the land was in the possession of a small clique of territorial magnates, as they were called, ancestral land-

grabbers, who actually claimed the right to turn it to any purpose which suited their convenience or amusement, arguing that the community gained most, even in material



48

benefits, when each man was allowed to do what he liked with his own, and that the chief reason why they did not turn more of their land to the purpose of food-

producing, was that they were undersold by produce from

foreign and colonial sources, self-interest being the guide which would induce them to produce more food stuffs for the town markets, as soon as they wore really required.

" Such flimsy pretences, of course, availed them little, and Lord Orchid, who was then known as the Right Hon.

Joseph Chamberlain, introduced a bill, framed in accordance with the proposals of a Mr. George, who, in consequence, became for a short time, quite a celebrity, taxing to its full value all land which was not used for strictly food-

producing or mining purposes. " It was found after a while that this meant that only

land within a certain radius of, or in very easy communica¬ tion with industrial centres remained of any value at all, and the taxation had to bo remitted, not, however, before it had done good work in extirpating the old landed

aristocracy, who were utterly ruined by having to dispose of their estates for anything they would fetch in an over-

glutted market. " We now find a portion of the land in the hands of

market gardeners, and other food^ producers, whose competi¬ tion with their foreign rivals does not, perhaps, allow them to keep their heads very far above water, but which, at all

events, enables us, who dwell in the cities, to enjoy country luxuries at extremely low prices. Land less favourably situ¬

ated, as it still remains illegal to use it for any but food pro-



49

ducing purposes, and as the small proprietor cannot, or will not utilise it, on account of the miserable life it entails upon him, has now fallen into the hands of large capitalists, who, through the use of machinery, and by the employment of

large gangs of labourers, which the deplorable low state of the agricultural labour market puts at their disposal, manage to grow whatever specialty they devote themselves to, at such rates as shall secure an advantageous market.

" The brutal sports of hunting and shooting which once flourished unchecked, have been eradicated from our midst, and are now American institutions.

(" Here the.speaker was interrupted by a violent uproar, which, it was discovered, was occasioned by the forcible

expulsion of an old man, formerly huntsman to a Leicester¬ shire pack, who vociferously informed the meeting that it was composed of a ' set of white-livered skunks, who could not sit a hoss over a handrail.')

" The family influence, continued the speaker, which was once wielded to such unjust effect, is now vested in the hands of the delegates of the people, and if the friends of the Hon. John Jobber, M.P.,* are likely to get on none the worse, on that account, in the public service, it will not be because they are the scions of haughty aristocracy.

(Cheers). "The standing army, once the hot-bed of high placed

favoritism, has been transformed into the city militia;

* Note.—In 1905 all members of the lower house are entitled to the style of Honourable, members of the upper are peers with fancy titles, territorial designations having; gone out.



50

whilst the navy, owing to intelligent expenditure on scientific improvements, by practical business heads, is now so far in advance of that of any other nation, that there is little doubt, were we obliged to put our compli¬ cated fighting machines into motion, that we could sweep everything before us. (Loud cheers).

" So far our advance has been towards material progress. We are ruled by an intelligent hardworking President, elected by the people. He, assisted by a similarly elected, and well paid upper and lower chamber, attends to

imperial and rural matters, while the large centres of in¬

dustry are under the immediate control of local bodies, who conduct the municipal legislation.

" All revenue is_jraised by direct taxation. " This taxation is also proportionate : the scale omitting

altogether those in receipt of less than fifty pounds per annum, and only increasing rapidly, when it arrives at the enormous incomes, which head the scale.

" Thus the labourer pays nothing whatever for the benefits accruing from the expenditure of the public revenues, and his food and clothing reach him without

any artificial enhancement of price whatsoever, free com¬

petition reducing the cost of these necessaries to the lowest possible figure.

(" A voice yes, but free competition reduces his wages just as much.)

"Education as you know is free, and, if it has ceased to be compulsory, it is only because it has been found impos¬ sible to educate the children of our less fortunate fellow



51

citizens, without undertaking to feed, clothe and house them too.

(" A voice And why not V) " Yes friends, why not 1 That is the question at issue, or

at least a part of it, and I am coming to it as quickly as I can.

" We have, as I have just reminded you, put in practice all the most radical suggestions that have been made for the

proposed benefit of the working man, and what I want to know from you now is, whether you consider his position much improved.

(" Loud cries of " Not a bit " " Worse than ever "

"No more capitalists'! "No more labour slaves!") "You are right, friends, his position is worse than ever.

Careful statistics show us that there never was a time when, of the total wealth produced by the nation, the share which reaches the pockets of the workers was as small as it is now.

The more the nation advances the better it seems to be for one extremity of the social scale and the worse for the

other, but it has been said, and said truly, that this is a critical time. It is the turning point in our political history and if the people are content with the old formulte and with the watchwords which satisfied a limited electorate then I think some of us might have been better employed than we were when we joined the agitation of last Autumn and secured the triumph of manhood suffrage.

" I do not conceal from you my own opinion that the pace will be a little foster in the future, than it has been in the

past, but let us go forward and fear not for, be assured, if



52

we can do anything to raise the condition of the poor in

this country, to elevate the masses of the people, and give them the means of enjoyment and recreation, to afford them

opportunities for improvement, we should do more for the

prosperity, aye, and for the morality of this country than

anything we can do by laws however stringent for the limitation of excess or the prevention of crime. (Loud cheers). Now I want you to make this the first object in the radical programme for the reformed Parliament.

" It is not our duty, it is not our wish, to pull down and abase the rich, although I do not think that the excessive

aggregation of wealth in a few hands is of any advantage to anybody. (Cheers.) But our object is to raise the general condition of the people, (renewed cheers.) Well, now the other day I was present at a meeting, when a labourer was called upon suddenly to speak, and he got up and in his rude

dialect, without any rhetorical flourish, said something to this effect. He said " Neighbors and friends you have known me for forty year. I have lived among you and worked among you, I am not a drunkard, I am a steady man I am an industrious man, I am not a spending man. I have worked and laboured for forty years, it has been a weary task, and I aint any forwarder now than I was when I began (Cheers).

" Our ideal I think, should be that in this country, where everything seems to be in profusion, an honest, a decent, and an industrious man should be able to earn a livelihood for himself and his family, should have access to some means of self improvement and enjoyment, and should



53

be able to lay aside something for sickness and old age. (Cheers.)

" Let us consider what are the practical means by which we can accomplish such an object. I am not a Communist, although some people will have it that I am. (Laughter.) I do not believe that, considering the difference in the char¬

acter, and the capacity of men, there can ever be an absolute equality of conditions, and I think nothing would be more undesirable than that we should remove the stimulus to industry, and thrift, and exertion, which is

given by property in the shape of enjoyment of the fruits of

every man's individual exertions, and I am opposed to confis¬ cation in every shape or form, because I believe that it would

destroy that security, and lessen that stimulus. Then, on the other hand, I am in favour of accompanying the pro¬ tection which I would afford to property with a large and

stringent interpretation of the obligations of property. "In fact, although the sanctity of private property is no

doubt an important principle, yet the public good is a

greater and higher object than any private interest, and the

comfort and happiness of the people, and the prosperity of

the country must never be sacrificed to the exaggerated claims of a privileged class, who are now the exclusive

possessors of all those luxuries and enjoyments which are the

great gifts of the Almighty to the human race. (Tremendous

cheering.) " Being of this opinion then my friends, I should be

failing in my duty to myself as well to you if I were to

delay any longer in declaring my belief, that the party led



54

by my lord Orchid—the party of capital—the party which insists that a cheap labour market is necessary, in order to enable us to meet foreign competition, this party, I say, should be no longer allowed to swell its ill-got gains, at the

expense of the toiler and the slave (Loud cheers.) " I have been asked how is this to be done, and I have

replied, as I reply now, simply by making a generous and

enlightened use of the enormous funds which taxation, increased if necessary, puts at our disposal.

"In 1888 we taxed the landholder, for the benefit of the

community, but we let the capitalist escape. We are wiser now.

" The landed aristocracy has vanished, but the bloated

money-bags of the capitalist are still within our reach. " Let them be taxed so that the people—the wealth pro¬

ducers—the honest workers, may have a fair share of the hoards hitherto consumed by the idlers and the drones!

(Loud cheers). " My lord Orchid and his friends may declare, that if the

working classes are enabled to live on public bounty, no more work will be done, and that the country will be

rapidly ruined. " Let me tell you, my friends, it takes a long time to

ruin a country as rich as this, and if the poor were to ask to be allowed to live without labou it would be only fair that they should have their turn—the rich have enjoyed the privilege long enough (Loud cheers).

" Now that the whole body of the people have at last been granted political enfranchisement, we shall no longer



55

see legislation conducted for the benefit of the few, against the interests of the many.

" We shall, on the contrary, see the revenues of this great country devoted to easing the condition of the oppressed labourer and securing to all who need them free shelter, free

clothing, and free food (Roars of Applause.) " My Lord Orchid may remind us with sarcastic suavity

that the workhouse of the Victorian era is still an existing institution, and that there we may obtain all that we demand. To add insult to injury, however, is hardly a safe way of

arguing with determined men who know their own minds. " What we require is that State aid in the shape of annual

grants should be devoted to increasing the means of sub¬

sistence, of those whose wages do not reach the level of

decency and comfort. If the existing circumstances are such that a man cannot earn enough to enable to enable him to lead a satisfactory and enjoyable existence, then let

public aid supply the deficiency, without stigmatising as

degradation, that which is nothing more than the accident of birth and position.

" What valid arguments can possibly be brought against so plain, a proposition as this? But why trouble about

arguments, or the supposed rights of those who never re¬

cognise the existence of any rights of ours 1 "We have only ourselves to consider now, remember, and

if we remain without our rights, any longer, it will not be the faults of parties or individuals, it will be our own ignorance, indifference, or folly that will be to blame.



56

We have got rid of the land-tyrant, shall we not rid our¬ selves of the far worse tyranny of the grinding capitalist 1

" Yes, friends We have endured it too long already, and, with the blush of conscious shame upon our brows for such unmanly forbearance in the past, let us here register a vow that, for the future, we will no longer submit to toil at the oar as patient slaves, while the capitalist reclines at ease on the silk-shrouded deck of the golden galley of

.progress

(Enthusiastic cheering, amid which the honourable

gentleman resumed his seat.)



POSTSCRIPT.

There is just one other reason why you working folk should vote Conservative if you take the trouble to vote at

all, and that is that the Radicals are discussing measures of Home Policy, which are quite certain to result in a severe

shaking and contraction of the national growth, while their

Foreign Policy is likely to be marked by more disastrous

ignorance and inaptitude than ever, once they have thrown

off Whig control and scorned the shadow of the old um¬

brella. Now you are directly interested in the expansion of the national growth, because that expansion always gives some of you a chance of hopping up among the capitalist classes.

No such great leap either. You have only to save up

enough to purchase shares in any sound jointstock enter¬

prise—tramways for instance—and then you can rob the

poor devils that have to work for your company on just the

same scale, proportionate to your investment, as any bigger

capitalist.

UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL

LIBRARY



Party politics and the social question: a word to the workers

Documents

Transcript of Party politics and the social question: a word to the workers