might yet redeem its mistakes and become a dominant force in politics.
If not, if we go on as we have been going on in the past,--if
the S.D.F. goes on pelting the “class-conscious proletariat” with
multi-syllabled German metaphysics, if the I.L.P. continues to give
altruistic and humanitarian commonplaces to those who ask for bread,
if some of the brilliant _intellectuels_ of middle class Socialism
continue to treat the working classes as if they did not matter and
could be trapped into Socialism against their will,--if in a word
we go on insulting and bewildering those whom we wish to convert,
addressing them in all the unintelligible tongues of Babel and forcing
down their throats doctrines which they detest, then we shall never
lead the workers. And if we do not lead them someone else will. Yes
someday we shall be faced in this country by the appearance of a man
who understands the working classes and can make them follow him. All
parties will look at him askance the Labour party most of all. He will
be called “Jingo,” “Reactionist,” “Taker of Tory Gold.” But he will
have the people of England behind him, because he will comprehend them
and believe in them, desire what they desire, feel as they feel. And if
he does what such a man did once in this country, when the “Girondin”
Vanes and Sydneys were babbling about “democratic ideals” as we are
babbling now, if he drives our talkative and incompetent Commons from
their House and establishes a popular Caesarism on the ruins of our
polity,--the blame will not be his. The blame will be ours. It will be
ours because we, whose mission it was to lead the people could only
find time to despise the people,--because we could not and would not
understand!
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Note for example the action of the Irish Members in securing the
exclusion of Convent Laundries from the operation of the Factory
Acts--action of which every enlightened Roman Catholic, to whom I have
spoken of it, has expressed strong disapproval.
[2] Social Democracy and the Armed Nation, Twentieth Century Press, 37a
Clerkenwell Green, E.C. 1d.
[3] Fabianism and the Empire, edited by Bernard Shaw, the Fabian
Society, 3, Clements Inn, W.C. 3d.
[4] There is one of Mr. Blatchford’s proposals to which I feel the
strongest possible objection; that is the suggestion that those who do
not volunteer for his citizen force should pay extra taxation. This
sounds fair enough, no doubt, but its effect would clearly be that
the rich could escape service and the poor could not--which is hardly
a Socialist ideal. Surely it is sounder policy to make such citizen
training as you give compulsory for all able-bodied citizens.
[5] Since these pages were sent to the press a striking confirmation
of my view has been furnished by recent occurrences in Russia. There,
it will be remembered, the populace (acting on strictly Tolstoian
principles) marched _unarmed_ to lay their grievances before their
Sovereign. We all know what happened. They were shot down and cut to
pieces by Cossacks. One hopes that the survivors will be less faithful
to Count Tolstoi’s gospel in the future, and will perhaps realise that
“moral force” is an exceedingly poor protection against bullets and
bayonets.
[6] Lest I should be accused of “sitting on the fence” (a phrase much
beloved by those who always want to have judgment first and evidence
afterwards) I may as well state definitely that in my opinion a
protective tariff, if framed by genuine reformers solely in the public
interest, would be decidedly advantageous to Labour.
[7] I omit mention of the proviso whereby certain Non-County Boroughs
and Urban District Councils have authority over Elementary but not over
Higher Education. The concession was a most unfortunate one, but it
does not affect the general drift of my argument.
[8] The gentleman in question announced, if I remember rightly that he
proposed to avoid this misunderstanding by showing in his front garden
a placard with the inscription--
“MY GOODS ARE BEING SOLD TO PROMOTE RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.”
--a remarkably candid confession!
[9] _The Case for Municipal Drink_ by E. R. Pease (King & Son).
[10] The Labour Party might also take up the question of the
development of Crown Lands (especially those containing minerals), to
which Mr. Sheridan Jones has lately been drawing public attention.
[11] A good illustration of this may be obtained by comparing the two
by-elections which have taken place since the present parliament was
elected, in North-East Lanarkshire. In both cases a typical orthodox
Unionist and a typical orthodox Labourite were in the field. But the
Liberal candidates were of a very different type in the two cases. In
September 1901 (while the South African War was still in progress)
the Liberal candidate was Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, of the “Daily Mail,”
an Imperialist of so pronounced a kind that all the organs of the
Anti-Imperialist press and many of the Leaders of Anti-Imperialist
Liberalism advised the electors to vote for the Labour candidate. This
year on the other hand the Liberal candidate was a strictly orthodox
Liberal who succeeded in uniting all sections of the party. I give the
figures for both elections.
By-election 26/9/01.
Sir W. Rattigan (U) 5673
Mr. C. Harmsworth (L) 4769
Mr. R. Smillie (Lab) 2900
By-election 10/5/04.
Mr. Finlay (L) 5619
Mr. Touch (U) 4677
Mr. Robertson (Lab) 3984
The noticeable thing about these figures is the enormous increase in
the Labour poll. It may reasonably be supposed that the fulminations
of a large section of representative Liberal opinion against Mr.
Harmsworth produced some effect on the voting, and one may therefore
take it that a fair number of electors, who voted for Mr. Smillie in
1901, voted for Mr. Finlay in 1904. Yet Mr. Robertson’s gain is far
greater than Mr. Finlay’s. This can only mean that a large number
of working men, who, in time of war voted for the Tory Imperialist
candidate, voted for the Labour candidate in time of peace.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
This eBook makes the following corrections to the original text:
Pg 23 “pratically” changed to “practically”
Pg 47 comma added after “origin”
Pg 53 comma added after “leave”
Pg 57 “Ultramonanism” changed to “Ultramontanism”
Pg 63 “inpossible” changed to “impossible”
Pg 64 period added after “divisions”
Pg 70 “ebulition” changed to “ebullition”
Pg 72 comma added after “attacked”
Pg 77 period added after “unconscious”
Pg 84 comma changed to period after “system”
Pg 95 period added to “Mr Chamberlain”
Pg 107 period removed before colon
Pg 116 “repudition” changed to “repudiation”
Pg 119 period added after “Voluntary School”
Pg 124 period added after “ad hoc”
Pg 124 comma added after “foreign affairs”
Pg 131 “nausious” changed to “nauseous”
Pg 144 “shold” changed to “should”
Pg 147 “couse” changed to “course”
Pg 149 “abandon the the” changed to “abandons the”
Pg 150 period added after “for it”
Pg 152 period added after “statesmanship”
Pg 156 period added after “surroundings”
Pg 167 “inadmissable” changed to “inadmissible”
Pg 168 “attentuated” changed to “attenuated”
Pg 182 comma added after “a priori logic”
Pg 183 “economic of political” changed to “economic or political”
Pg 198 “socialogical” changed to “sociological”
Pg 199 “develope” changed to “develop”
Pg 209 period added after “kind”
Pg 218 “to-wards” changed to “towards”
Pg 202 “employées” changed to “employés”
Pg 225 “artizans” changed to “artisans”
Pg 230 comma changed to period after “Gold”