THE ENGLISH LABOR PARTY
I
We come now to the land of the industrial revolution--that colossal
upheaval which changed the face of society, as the vast continental
uplifts of past geological epochs changed the face of the earth. And
just as the continents were centuries in settling themselves to their
new conditions, so human society is now slowly adjusting itself to the
conditions wrought by this violent change. One of the evidences of
this gradual readjustment is Socialism. For to Socialism machine
industry is a condition precedent. In this sense England has produced
modern Socialism.
There is no blacker picture than the England of 1780 to 1840, and no
drearier contrast than the quaint villages and their household
industries of the earlier period and the "spreading of the hideous
town," after Arkwright and Hargreaves and Watt. These inhuman
conditions are faithfully and dispassionately revealed in the reports
of the various Royal Commissions of Inquiry: statistical mines where
Marx and Engels found abundant material for their philosophy of gloom.
And from these dull and depressing government folios Charles Kingsley
drew his indignant invectives, and Carlyle his trenchant indictments
against a society that would imprison its eight-year-old children,
its mothers, and its grandmothers in dingy factories fourteen hours a
day for the sake of profits, and then release them at night only to
find lodgings in the most miserable hovels and rickety tenements. It
is almost surprising to one familiar with the details of this gruesome
record that a social revolution did not follow immediately in the wake
of the industrial revolution.
There were riots at first, and machines were smashed. But the hand of
the worker was impotent against the arm of steel. The workman soon
resigned himself to his fate and his misery. The poor laws did not
help, they only multiplied the burdens upon the state without taking
the load from the poor. The laborer was too helpless to help himself,
and the state and society were apathetic. The rapid expansion of
industry found an ample outlet in the growing commerce to every corner
of the world. England was making money. She was gradually shifting
control from the traditional landowner to the new factory owner. The
landed gentry had inherited a fine sense of patriarchal
responsibility. The factory owner had no traditions. He was a parvenu.
His interests were machinery and ships, not politics and humanity. He
acquiesced in the poor laws as the easiest way out of a miserable
mess; he let private charity take its feeble and intermittent course,
paying his rates and giving his donations with self-satisfied
sanctity.
All this time labor was abundant. The markets of the world were hungry
for the goods of English mills. Then came suddenly the Chartist
Movement.[1] The flame of discontent spread and a revolution seemed
impending. This first great outbreak of English labor was a political
movement, fed by economic causes. The repeal of the corn laws and the
passage of the factory acts modified economic conditions and mollified
labor for the time. The repeal of the corn laws brought cheaper food;
the factory acts brought better conditions of labor.
Meanwhile individualism was evolving an economic creed. The Manchester
doctrine was the logical outcome of England's insular position and her
driving individualistic manufactures. But it was _laissez-faire_ in
industrialism, not in unionism. The laboring men were now beginning to
organize, and Cobden himself proposed the act that made unionism
ineffective as a political force. However, indirectly, free trade
stimulated labor, because it brought great prosperity, made work
abundant, and employers sanguine. Unions now rapidly multiplied, but
they were local, isolated. Their federation into a great national body
came later.
Socialism, or unionism, or any other general movement cannot develop
in England with the rapidity and enthusiasm that is shown for
"movements" on the Continent. The traditions of the English people are
constitutional. Socialism can thrive among them only if it is
"constitutional," and the Fabians are to-day talking about
"constitutional Socialism" with judicial solemnity. All the training
of the English people is contrary to the theory of progress through
violence. They have had few revolutions accompanied by bloodshed, they
have had a great many accompanied by prayers and Parliamentary
oratory--"constitutional" methods. They have, moreover, a real
reverence for property. The poor who have none are taught to respect
the rich who have. The Church, the common law, the statute law, the
customs, all the sources of tradition and habit, have emphasized the
sanctity of property. Only within the last few decades, as will be
seen presently, has a radical change, a veritable revolution, come
over the people in this respect.
The British temperament is not given to nerves. This stolid,
phlegmatic, self-contained individualist has no inflammable material
in his heart. Ruskin failed to arouse him, he wove too much artistry
into his appeal; and Carlyle could not move him, his epigrams were too
rhapsodical. Such temperaments are not given to rapid propagandism.
And finally, the Englishman is too practical to be a utopist. He
concerns himself with the duties of to-day rather than the vagaries of
to-morrow. Utopianism made no impression on him. Owen, the great
Utopian, was a Welshman. The Celt has imagination. Nor do intricate
theories or involved philosophies touch the mind of the Briton. The
splendor that enraptures the Frenchman, the abstruse reasoning that
delights the German, are alike boredom to this practical inventor of
machinery and builder of ships.
In spite of these characteristics there is no country in Europe where
there is more agitation about Socialism than there is in England
to-day. It is discussed everywhere. Almost the entire time of
Parliament during the past few years has been taken up with more or
less "Socialistic" legislation. The public mind is steeped in it.
There is more actually being done in England toward the
"socialization" of property, and the state, than in any other European
country. And less being said about the theory of value, the class
war, capitalistic production, proletariat and bourgeois, and the
other Continental pet phrases of Socialism.
Marx, who lived among the English for many years, but whose heart was
never with them, would not call this rapid social movement
Socialistic, because it does not avowedly "aim" at "socializing
capitalistic production." The doings of the English are certainly not
accomplished in the spirit of his orthodoxy. But the current toward
state control, toward pure democracy, land nationalization,
nationalization of railways and mines, has set in with the swiftness
of a mill-race and is grinding grist with an amazing rapidity.
As I write these words, London and the whole country are wrought up
over Lloyd George's Insurance Bill and the projected ballot reform
bill. Meetings everywhere, fervid Parliamentary debate, the papers
filled with letters from everybody; every organization, debating
society, and board of directors of great industries passing
resolutions. Even the Labor Party is divided over the paternalistic
measure that aims to bring relief to the sick and disabled working man
and woman. Amidst all this discussion, noise, and party zeal is
discerned the drift of the nation toward a new and unexpected goal.
Nowhere is it so difficult to define a Socialist, or to mark
boundaries to the movement. But why mark shore-lines? The flood is on.
I will here take the position that whatever extends the functions of
the state (community) over property, or into activities formerly left
to individuals or to the home, is an indication of the Socialistic
trend. Old-fashioned Socialists like Keir Hardie are constantly
warning the people that what is now going on in England is only social
reform, not Socialism. The Fabians, on the other hand, are exerting
every effort to add to the swiftness of the present movement.
To a student of democracy things now passing into law, and events now
shaping into history, in England, are of peculiar significance. Such
events, transpiring in a country so long abandoned to a rampant
individualism, are portents of a newer time. They are signals of
approaching changes to America, to us who have inherited the common
law, the governmental traditions, the democratic ideals of liberty, if
not the substantial stolidity of temperament and self-complacent
egoism of the Briton.
All parties, Socialists and Conservatives, will admit this: that all
this turmoil, these rapidly succeeding general elections, these public
discussions, these new laws, indicate that a new social ideal is being
formed. That in itself is worthy of consideration. For the ideal will
shape the destiny.
II
Present-day Socialism in England seems to have risen to sudden
magnitude from vacuity, to have permeated this cautious island over
night. For over a generation all Socialism had disappeared from view.
The elaborate schemes of Owen, the altruistic propaganda under the
gentle Kingsley and his noble companion Maurice, the artistic revolt
against the ugliness of commercialism led by Ruskin, who even shared
the toil of the breakers of stones to prove his sincerity--all these
movements seem suddenly to have disappeared from the face of the
island, like a glacial current dropping suddenly, without warning,
into the depths of the Moulin.
England was given over to a highly prosperous industrialism. The
Manchester doctrine was enthroned. Commercialism and a glittering
pseudo-humanitarian internationalism found expression in the
alternating victories of the astute Disraeli and the grandiloquent
Gladstone.
Meanwhile poverty and misery infested the underplaces of the land, a
poverty and misery that was appalling. Every protester was proudly
pointed to the repeal of the corn laws, the revision of the poor laws,
the reform act of 1832, and the factory acts.
When Sir Henry Vane had ascended the scaffold which his sacrifice made
historic, he said: "The people of England have long been asleep; when
they awake they will be hungry." When the England of to-day awoke it
was to a greater hunger than the politically starved Roundhead or
Cavalier ever endured.
It is no figure of speech to speak of hungry England. Its brilliant
industrialism has always had a drab background of want. Chiozza Money
says of the present position of labor: "The aggregate income of the
44,500,000 people in the United Kingdom in 1908-9 was approximately
L1,844,000,000; 1,400,000 persons took L634,000,000; 4,100,000 persons
took L275,000,000; 39,000,000 persons took L935,000,000."[2] And he
sums up the condition as follows: "The position of the manual workers
in relation to the general wealth of the country has not improved.
They formed, with those dependent upon them, the greater part of the
nation in 1867, and they enjoyed but about forty per cent. of the
national income, according to the careful estimate of Dudley Baxter.
To-day, with their army of dependents, they still form the greater
part of the nation, although not quite so great a part, and, according
to the best information available, they take less than forty per cent.
of the entire income of the nation." Although during this time the
national income had increased much faster than the rate of population,
"the Board of Trade, after a careful examination of the question of
unemployment in 1904, arrived at the general conclusion that 'the
average level of employment during the last 4 years has been almost
exactly the same as the average of the preceding 40 years.'"[3]
While the general level of wage-earners has been maintained, and while
wealth has greatly increased, the poverty of the kingdom has shown
little tendency to diminish. "As for pauperism, it is difficult to
congratulate ourselves upon improvement since 1867, when we remember
that in England and Wales alone 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 persons are in
receipt of relief in the course of a single year. This means _one
person in every 20_ has recourse to the poor-law guardians during a
single year."
"If our national income had but increased at the same rate as our
population since 1867, it would in 1908 have amounted to but about
L1,200,000,000. As we have seen, it is now about L1,840,000,000. Yet
the Error in Distribution remains so great, that, while the total
population in 1867 was 30,000,000, we have to-day a nation of
30,000,000 poor people in our rich country, and many millions of these
are living under conditions of degrading poverty. Of those above the
line of primary poverty, millions are tied down by the conditions of
their labor to live in surroundings which preclude the proper
enjoyment of life or the proper raising of children."[4]
An event occurred in 1889 that aroused public opinion on the question
of labor conditions. The dockers along the great wharves in London
went out on strike, and forced public attention upon the misery of
these most wretched of British workmen,[5] whose wages were so low
that they could not buy bread for their families and their employment
was so irregular that they were idle half of the time. John Burns came
into prominence first during this strike. He raised over $200,000 by
public appeals to support the strikers. General sympathy was with the
men; and the arbitrators to whom their grievances were submitted
awarded most of their demands.
The effect of this strike was far-reaching. All over the kingdom
unskilled labor was roused to its power, and a new era in labor
organization began.
III
In no country has the labor-union movement achieved a greater degree
of organization than in England.[6] The movement has been economic,
turning to politics only in recent years; it concerned itself with
wages and conditions of labor, not with party programs and
Parliamentary candidates.
The characteristic feature of English trade-unionism is collective
bargaining, long since introduced into America, but unknown in most
European countries. The English unions also organized insurance
societies called "Friendly Societies."[7]
For many years the laws regulating labor unions had been liberally
construed by the courts, and the unions had done very much as they
pleased. Two decisions have been rendered during the last decade that
threatened the unions' existence both as a political and economic
force.
In 1900 the Taff Vale Railway Company brought suit against the
Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, charging the men with
conspiring to induce the workmen to break their contracts with the
company. The court enjoined the union from picketing and from
interfering with the men in their contractual relations with the
employing company, and assessed the damages at $100,000 against the
offending union. The House of Lords, sitting in final appeal, affirmed
the judgment of the trial court. This virtually meant the stopping of
strikes, for strikes without pickets and vigilance would usually be
unavailing. It also meant financial bankruptcy.
A second far-reaching decision was made by the House of Lords in
December, 1909, when the "Osborne Judgment" was affirmed, granting to
one Osborne, a member of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants,
an injunction restraining the union from making a levy on its members,
and from using any of its funds for the purpose of maintaining any of
its members, or any other person, in Parliament. The unions had taken
it for granted that they had the legal right to contribute out of
their funds to political campaigns, and to pay the labor members of
Parliament a salary out of the union treasury.[8] The court held such
payments were illegal, on the ground that they were _ultra vires_. The
charter of the unions did not sanction it.[9]
The English workman has not only had the trade union for a training
school in practical affairs, but the co-operative movement began here;
and here it flourishes, not as widely spread among the poorer workmen
as in Belgium, but among the better-paid workers it is very popular.
It is singular that the only practical result left of Owen's
stupendous plans was the little co-operative shop, opened in 1844 at
Rochdale, with a capital of $140 and a gross weekly income of $10.
Owen did not start this shop, but a handful of his followers were the
promoters of the tiny enterprise. The co-operative union to-day
embraces wholesale, retail, productive, and special societies, with
nearly 3,000,000 members, increasing at the rate of 70,000 a year, and
doing $550,000,000 worth of business annually.
There is also a rapidly growing co-partnership movement, especially in
the building of "garden suburbs" and tenements. In 1903 there were two
such companies, with $200,000 worth of property. In 1909 they had
increased to 15 associations, with over $3,085,000 worth of property.
The membership is not confined to workingmen, but they form the
bulk.[10]
From the beginning of the modern labor movement we see that the
British workmen have shown a strong tendency to organize. Their
organizations included at first only the skilled workers. There was a
gulf between the trained worker and the unskilled worker. The latter,
forming the substratum of poverty, were too abject for organizing.
These two great bodies of workers, skilled and unskilled, have been
gradually brought together and their interests united. The Taff Vale
and Osborne judgments have forced them into politics. The unskilled
have been given the benefit of the experience of the skilled, and a
fair degree of homogeneity and group ambition has been reached.
To enter politics a new form of organization was necessary. We will
see how one was prepared for them.
IV
We will now turn to the Socialist organizations. They are more
numerous than in the other countries we have studied, and more varied
in color. But not any of them are as strong as the French or German
organizations.
In 1880 William Morris and H.M. Hyndman, a personal friend of Marx,
organized the "Democratic Federation." For a few years it was the only
Socialist organization. It split on the question of revolution. Morris
and his friends, many of them inclined toward Anarchy, founded the
"Socialist League." This league has long since vanished. Hyndman and
his followers renamed their society the "Social Democratic
Federation." It still persists, under the name Social Democratic Party
(popularly "S.D.P."), and remains the only organized trace of
militant, reactionary Marxianism in England. For a long time it
refrained from politics, advocated violence, and was the faithful
imitator of the Guesdist party in France. These are doctrines and
methods that repel the English mind, and the Federation never has been
strong. It has a weekly paper, _Justice_, and a monthly paper, _The
Social Democrat_; claims one member in Parliament, elected however by
the Labor Party, and (in 1907) 124 members of various local governing
bodies. Its aged leader, Hyndman, clings tenaciously to the dogmas of
Marx, and all the changes that have come over the Socialist movement
during the last decades have not altered his views or methods.[11] The
Federation's affiliations and sympathy have been with the
International rather than the British movement, and until a few years
ago it monopolized British representation on the International
Executive Committee.
Soon after Morris left the Federation a new and novel Socialist
society was formed in London. Two Americans gave the impulse that
started the movement--Henry George, through his works on Single Tax,
and Thomas Davidson of New York, a gentle dreamer of the New
To-morrow. Henry George's books had been read by a group of young men
in London, and when Dr. Davidson went there to lecture he found these
young men ready to listen to his utopian generalizations. Soon these
men organized the Fabian Society. They were not sure of their ground,
and took for their motto: "For the right moment you must wait as
Fabius did when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his
delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did,
or your waiting will be in vain and fruitless."
A number of brilliant young men soon joined the Fabians, and their
"tracts" have become famous. Among their members they include Sidney
Webb, the sociologist; George Bernard Shaw, the playwright and cynic;
Chiozza Money, statistician and member of Parliament; Rev. R.J.
Campbell of the City Temple; Rev. Stewart Headlam, leader in the
Church Socialist Movement; and a horde of others, famous in letters,
the professions, and the arts.
It is difficult to estimate the influence of this unique group of
personages, and it is very easy to underestimate it. From the first
they committed themselves to the policy of "permeation," instead of
aggressive propaganda. They would transform the world by intellectual
osmosis. They have, thus, not only contributed by far the most
brilliant literature to modern Socialism, but have touched some of the
inner springs of political and social power. Prime ministers and
borough councilmen, poor-law guardians and chancellors of the
exchequer, have been influenced by the propulsion of their ideas. But
it has all been done so noiselessly and so well disguised, that to the
Social Democratic Federation the Fabians are "mere academicians," and
to the Independent Labor Party they are forerunners of "tyrannical
bureaucracy."
Eleven Fabians are in Parliament, and they are not silent onlookers.
For years the Fabians have dominated the London County Council. Its
brilliant "missionaries" attract large audiences, and "Fabian Essays"
have passed through many editions. Each member of this society is the
creator of his own dogma. The Marxian formulas, especially the theory
of surplus value, are not reverenced by them.
England is the only country in Europe where there is a strong Church
Socialist Movement. In 1889 the Christian Social Union was formed by
members of the Church of England. It is not a Socialist organization,
but it has enlisted a wide practical interest in the labor movement.
It was the outgrowth of the Pan-Anglican Congress, which met at
Lambeth in 1888. At this conference a committee on Socialism made a
noteworthy report, recommending the bringing together of capital and
labor through the agency of co-operation and association.[12]
In 1906 "The Church Socialist League" was organized. "It seeks to
convert the christened people of England to Socialism. Its members are
committed to the definite economic Socialism of accredited Socialist
bodies. The League is growing rapidly. Branches are springing up all
over the country. Its members have addressed thousands of meetings on
behalf of both Socialist and labor candidates at Parliamentary and
principal elections.... The members of the League are Socialists. They
seek to establish a commonwealth in which the people shall own the
land and industrial capital collectively and administer the same
collectively."[13]
The influence of the Church Socialist League and the Fabians has
spread to the universities, especially to Oxford and Cambridge. A
number of distinguished professors are active Socialists.
The movement thus gained ground more rapidly among the intellectuals
than among the workingmen. It was not until 1893 that a Socialist
Labor Party was organized. The Social Democratic Federation was too
dogmatic, hard, and bitter to draw the English laboring man; the
Fabians and the Church Socialists were avowedly not partisan. In 1893
a group of labor delegates met at Bradford and, under the leadership
of Keir Hardie, organized the Independent Labor Party (I.L.P.). This
definite step had been preceded by many local political organizations
among labor unionists. The necessity for political activity had been
felt in many places. The Bradford convention was merely the coalescing
of many local movements. The I.L.P. is a Socialist body, but it is not
dogmatically, not obnoxiously so. It forms, rather, a connecting link
between Socialism and labor unions.
It entered politics at once, but with discouraging results. Its 29
candidates polled only 63,000 votes; only 5 were elected. A closer
alliance with the labor unions was necessary. This was accomplished
when the unions, in 1899, appointed a Labor Representative Committee,
whose duty it was, as the name implies, to increase labor's
representation in Parliament.[14] This committee had first to
determine its relation to the other political parties. The Liberals
and Conservatives among the laborites were outvoted, and the committee
determined upon a new course. Representatives from the Socialist
bodies--the I.L.P., S.D.F., and Fabians--were asked to join the unions
in an alliance that should use its united strength in electing members
to Parliament. All agreed, but the S.D.F. soon withdrew.
In 1906 the name of the committee was changed to the Labor Party. It
is founded upon the broadest basis of co-operation, so that neither
Socialist, no matter how radical, nor non-Socialist should find it
impossible to work with the party. Its constitution defines this
coalition: "The Labor Party is a federation consisting of Trade
Unions, Trade Councils, Socialist Societies, and Local Labor Parties."
"Co-operative Societies are also eligible," as are "national
organizations of women accepting the basis of this constitution and
the policy of the party."
The object of the party is "to secure the election of candidates to
Parliament and to organize and maintain a Labor Party with its own
whips and policy."
Party rigor is carefully prescribed: "Candidates and members must
accept this constitution and agree to abide by the decisions of the
Parliamentary party in carrying out the aims of this constitution;
appear before their constituents under the title of labor candidates;
abstain strictly from identifying themselves with or promoting the
interests of any Parliamentary party not affiliated, or its
candidates; and they must not oppose any candidate recognized by the
national executive of the party." "Before a candidate can be regarded
as adopted for a constituency, his candidature must be sanctioned by
the national executive."
The party, thus centrally controlled, is well organized in every part
of the kingdom. It maintains a fund for paying the election expenses
of its members.[15] The Osborne judgment has been a serious setback to
the party, especially in local elections. The payment of members was
voted in 1911 by Parliament as a partial remedy, and the government
has promised a reform election bill that will impose the burden of all
necessary election expenses upon the state.
The party membership has grown from 375,000 in 1900 to nearly
1,500,000 in 1912. Such leading members of the party as J. Ramsay
MacDonald, Keir Hardie, Philip Snowden, and over one-half of the
Parliamentary group, are Socialists. The party refused to commit
itself to Socialistic principles until 1907, when it declared itself
in favor of the following resolution: "The socialization of the means
of production, distribution, and exchange to be controlled in a
democratic state in the interests of the entire community, and the
complete emancipation of labor from the domination of capitalism and
landlordism, with the establishment of social and economic equality
between the sexes."[16]
In 1908 the party had 26 members in county councils, 262 in town
councils, 168 in urban district councils, 27 in rural district
councils, 124 in parish councils, 145 on poor-law boards, 23 on school
boards. There are (1910) about 1,500 labor men and Socialist members
on the various local governing bodies in Great Britain.[17]
V
We see, then, that Socialism and trades-unionism in England coalesced.
But a more important confluence of political ideals was soon to occur.
The elections of 1906 indicated to the people of England that a new
force had entered the domain of political power, which had so long
been assigned to the gentry and men of wealth. A careful observer of
political events, and a member of Parliament, described the results as
follows: "When the present House of Commons (1907) was completed in
January last, and it was discerned that 50 labor members had been
elected, a cry of wonder went up from press and public. People wrote
and spoke as if these 50 members were the forerunners of a political
and social revolution; as if the old party divisions were completely
worn out, and as if power were about to pass to a new political party
that would represent the masses as opposed to the classes. These fears
or hopes were reflected in the House of Commons itself. During the
early months of the session the Labor Party received from all quarters
of the House an amount of deference that would have been described as
sycophantic if it had been directed towards an aristocratic instead of
towards a democratic group."[18] The tidal wave of reaction following
the Boer war had swept the Liberal Party into power, and had given
fifty seats to the Labor Party. The effect was nothing short of
revolutionary.
Disraeli, in his _Sibyl_, spoke of "two nations," two Englands, the
England of the gentry and the England of the working classes. The
elections since the Boer war have given this "other England" its
chance. The gentry, the Whigs and Tories, will never again fight their
political jousts with the "other England" looking contentedly on. This
"mass mind of organized labor" has become the "new controlling force
in progressive politics."[19]
The "transformed England" began to see evidences of the change. The
first bill brought in by the Labor Party provided for the feeding of
school children, from the homes of the poor, out of public funds. "The
business in life of my colleagues and myself is to impress upon this
House the importance of the poverty problem," said the spokesman of
the Labor Party in an important debate.[20]
England had awakened hungry.
Now occurred the most significant political event in the history of
modern England. The Liberal Party took over the immediate program of
the Labor Party. This is significant because it swept England away
from her industrial moorings of individualistic _laissez-faire_, and
extended the functions of the state into activities that had hitherto
been left to individual initiative. A complete revolution had taken
place since Cobden's day. The state acknowledged new social and
economic obligations. In the Parliamentary struggle that followed
hereditary prerogative in property was undermined and hereditary
prerogative in government virtually destroyed, and the principles of
democracy enormously extended.[21]
In England the question of co-operation between Socialists and other
parties has been more important than in any other European country:
because in a democratic parliament concessions are always made to
large portions of the electorate by the parties in power, and because
the practical temperamental qualities of the British discard the
fine-drawn distinctions between groups and sub-groups that are so
assiduously maintained in France and Germany.
In the Amsterdam Congress of The International the question was
discussed whether Socialists should act with other parties. Jaures and
his _bloc_ were the occasion of the debate. Kautsky said that in times
of national crises like war it might be necessary for Socialists to
co-operate with the government to insure national safety. No such
extraordinary standard has ever existed among practical Englishmen,
who usually know what they want, and are not particular about the
means of getting it.
William Morris, uncompromising dogmatist, inveighed against the Whigs
in 1886 as "the Harlequins of Reaction." Democracy was his ideal of
government, and he was not entirely averse to political action on the
part of Socialists. "To capture Parliament, and turn it into a popular
but constitutional assembly, is, I must conclude, the aspiration of
the genuine democrats wherever they may be found."
But he was wary of compromise. "Some democrats take up actual pieces
of Socialism, the nationalization of land, or of railways, or
cumulative taxation of incomes, or limiting the right of inheritance,
or new patent laws, or the restriction by law of the day's labor....
All this I admit and say is a hopeful sign, and yet once again I say
there is a snare in it.... A snake lies lurking in the grass." "Those
who think they can deal with our present system in this piecemeal way
very much underrate the strength of the tremendous organization under
which we live, and which appoints to each of us his place, and, if we
do not choose to fit it, grinds us down until we do."[22]
Morris' advice, "Beware the Whigs," was uttered at a time when the
leader of that party, Gladstone, was beginning to see that the chief
event of the century would be the merging of the social question with
politics. The "piecemeal" method that Morris decried became the actual
method of Parliamentary activity as soon as a new party, a third
party, arose and drew its inspiration from the working classes.
Such a party was anticipated. Lord Rosebery said in 1894: "I am
certain there is a party in this country, unnamed as yet, that is
disconnected with any existing political organization--a party that is
inclined to say, 'A plague on both your houses, a plague on all your
politics, a plague on all your unending discussions that yield so
little fruit.'"[23] And the same year John (now Lord) Morley
prophesied: "Now I dare say the time may come, it may come sooner than
some think, when the Liberal Party will be transformed or superseded
by some new party."[24] And Professor Dicey, over a decade ago, spoke
of the waning orthodoxy of Liberalism and its rapid merging into
Socialism.
The "piecemeal" party of Morris, the "transformed" party of Morley,
the radicalized party of Dicey, is the Liberal Party of to-day. The
"unnamed" party of Rosebery is the Labor Party, which not only says,
"A plague upon all your discussions," but, "A plague upon all your
fine-spun theories of class war--it's results we want."
Before detailing some of the significant acts of this new democratic
coalition, it should be added that the motive of the Liberal Party has
not been unmixed with politics. The Labor Party possesses not only the
30 or 40 votes in the House of Commons; there are hundreds of
thousands of labor votes outside. This background of silent, vigilant
voters forms the greatest force of the Labor Party. Many Liberal
members hold their seats by its favor.
There are in both the great parties men with strong sympathies for the
labor ideal. In fact, a number of Socialists are sitting with the
Liberals. There is no clear demarcation. It is only a difference of
the degree of infusion.
The Labor Party has had a strong influence upon the House of Commons.
For many years the "Government" has ruled quite arbitrarily. When
there are only two parties this is possible. But when an influential
third party appears on the scene, government by the "front benchers"
must be moderated.[25]
The "cross benchers" have wrested a good deal of power from the
leaders. This is necessary in a democracy which is kept alive only by
contact with the people. There is more government by the Commons, and
less government by the ministry. This _entente_ can degenerate into
Parliamentary tyranny if it wishes. It can demand the cloture, as well
as open the valves of useless debate. But an arbitrary act
unsanctioned by the cross benchers would be likely to bring
destruction upon the government that perpetrated it.
VI
A review of the Acts of Parliament since the Liberal-Labor coalition
and a perusal of the debates are convincing proof of the character of
the new legislation and the opinions that prompt it. We must confine
ourselves to a few types of this legislation, enough to show the
actual changes now in process.
The first bill introduced by the Labor Party, and enacted into law,
authorized the providing of meals for poor children in the schools. It
does not make this compulsory, but under its sanction in 1909 over
$670,000 were spent in providing over 16,000,000 meals. Nearly half of
these were in London.[26] This law is especially assailed by the
anti-Socialists. They claim its administration has been too lenient,
not discriminating between the needy and those capable of self-help.
It is only the entering wedge of Socialism, they say; it is only a
step from feeding the child to clothing him, and from feeding and
clothing the child to caring for the parent. They recall that Sidney
Webb has often said that if the city furnishes water free to its
citizens it should be able to furnish milk as well.
The second bill introduced by the Labor Party was the Trades Dispute
Act. This was framed to annul the Taff Vale decision, making the
unions immune from suits for tortious acts and providing an elaborate
system of arbitrating labor disputes. The provisions of this act were
tested by two railway crises. In 1907 the railway employees threatened
to go out on strike. Lloyd George, then president of the Board of
Trade, averted the strike by enlisting all the power of the government
in persuading the companies and the men to agree to a scheme of
arbitration. This was to last a stipulated term of years, but before
the time had elapsed the men actually struck (1911), and for a week
the country was in a panic. Lloyd George, then Chancellor of the
Exchequer, again used all the power of the government to bring peace,
and a commission was appointed to investigate the grievances of the
men, who had agreed to abide by its decision. In this way the
government has become the most active force in settling labor
disputes--a subject that was formerly left to the two parties of the
labor contract.
A Workman's Compensation Act and an Old-Age Pension Act soon followed.
The latter provides a pension for all workmen who are 70 years old.
Unlike the German act, the government provides all the funds. In 1909
the Labor Exchange Act empowered the Board of Trade to establish labor
exchanges. These have been established in every city. At first there
was some friction with the unions because "blacklegs" were assigned to
places. But since union men have been invited to sit on the local
governing committees, things are running smoother.
There are three laws which show the trend of the changing relation of
the state to property.
The Development Act of 1909 provides for the appointment of five
commissioners, upon whose recommendation the Treasury advances money
to any governmental department or public authority or university or
association of persons for the purpose of aiding agriculture and rural
industries of all sorts; the reclamation of drainage lands and of
forests; the general improvement of rural transportation, including
the building of "light railways"; the construction and improvement of
harbors; the improvement of inland navigation, including the building
of canals; and the development and improvement of fisheries. This law
endows the government with the necessary authority for the absorption
of virtually all the internal means of communication except the trunk
railways, and extends the paternal arm of the government over
agriculture and the fisheries and subsidiary industries.[27] The
first report of the commission, 1910-11, indicates that work under
this law has begun in earnest. A comprehensive plan of regeneration,
embracing the entire kingdom and based on adequate surveys, is
outlined. One of the interesting features of the plan is the proposal
to do as much of the work as possible by direct labor rather than by
competitive bidding. The commission wants to make sure "that the funds
shall not go into the pockets of private individuals."[28] Under an
enthusiastic commission there will be practically no limit to the
influence of this law.
Two other acts are closely allied with this scheme: the Small Holdings
Act of 1908, and the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909. The Small
Holdings Act gives authority to county councils to "provide small
holdings for persons who desire to buy or lease and will themselves
cultivate the holdings." This provision is extended to borough, urban,
district, and parish councils. These authorities may purchase such
lands "whether situate within or without their county."
The Town Planning Act gives cities and towns the power to purchase
land and allot it, to tear down undesirable buildings, to co-operate
with any workingman's association for improving and erecting
dwellings, and to buy the necessary land for making improvements of
all kinds. John Burns, who stood sponsor for this bill, explained that
it gave complete authority to local governing bodies "to make a city
healthful and a city beautiful."
Following the British habit, work has very cautiously begun under
these acts. Up to December, 1910, about 28,000 acres were purchased or
leased under the allotment act, and sublet to 100,498 individual
tenants. "Town planning" has progressed rapidly, and the regeneration
of the British slums, the most dismal in the world, may be not far
distant.[29]
Under the Small Holdings Act there were, up to December, 1910, nearly
31,000 applicants, asking for over 500,000 acres. Only one-fifth of
this amount was acquired, for 7,000 holders. Thirty per cent. of the
applicants are agricultural laborers, and the majority of the others
are drawn from the rural population who have some small business or
trade in the villages and wish a plot of land for a garden. This
"often makes the difference between a bare subsistence and comparative
prosperity."[30]
These laws show the drift of the current. The question of the
nationalization of railways has been the subject of Parliamentary
inquiry, and the great railway strike of 1911 emphasized the matter
profoundly. The state in 1911 completed the taking over of all the
telephone lines; it conducts an extensive postal savings bank and a
parcels post.
In local affairs some British cities are models of municipal
enterprise. Even London, that amorphous mass of human misery and
opulence, is changing its aspect. Since the granting of municipal home
rule it has built a vast system of street railways, cleaned out acres
of slums, opened breathing spaces, built tenements, and in many other
ways displayed evidences of an awakening civic consciousness.
Three other pieces of legislation must be described more in detail,
because they are more revolutionary, far-reaching, and democratic than
anything attempted by the British nation since the days of the Reform
Bill.
First is the famous "Budget" of Lloyd George. When this virile
Welshman became Chancellor of the Exchequer he cast his budget in the
mold of his social theories. He said: "Personally, I look on the
Budget as a part only of a comprehensive scheme of fiscal and social
reform: the setting up of a great insurance scheme for the unemployed
and for the sick and infirm, and the creation, through the development
bill, of the machinery for the regeneration of rural life."[31]
The land system of England is feudal. Tenure still legally exists.
There still clings the flavor of social and political distinction to
fee simple. This the landowners have fortified against all the changes
that industrialism has wrought. There has been no general land
appraisement since the Pilgrims landed at the new Plymouth. The "land
monopoly" successfully resisted every attack until the famous budget
of 1908. Chiozza Money quotes John Bateman's analysis of the "New
Domesday Book," fixing the ownership of land in England and Wales as
follows:[32]
In 1883, in the United Kingdom, there was a total area of 77,000,000
acres; of this 40,426,000 acres were owned by 2,500 persons. "While
the total income of the nation is L1,840,000,000, the landowners take
L106,000,000 as land rent."[33] England is a great industrial and
commercial nation living on leased land.
The development of the industrial towns has enormously multiplied the
value of some of these vast estates.[34]
The new budget proposed, first, to tax the land values; not a
fictitious sum, or the value of the land with improvements, but the
site value--the increment value with which the land is endowed because
of its favorable location. Second, to this was added a 10 per cent.
reversion duty. Third, a tax was levied on undeveloped land held for
speculative purposes. And, fourth, a 5 per cent. tax on mineral rights
was assessed on the owners of the land that contained the mines.
These proposals raised a storm. They aimed at the traditional
stronghold of English aristocracy. The budget passed the House of
Commons by a large majority; the Lords rejected it. The government
promptly prorogued Parliament and went before the people. And what was
at first only an attack upon hereditary rights in land became an
attack also upon hereditary rights in politics. The House of Lords
became an issue as well as the budget. After a fiery and furious
campaign, in which Socialists and Laborites joined Radicals and
Liberals, the budget won by a safe majority.[35] The Lords passed the
measure. But this resistance cost them dear. One of the first
prerogatives established by the House of Commons was the right to
control the purse-strings of the kingdom. Custom has given the
sanction of constitutionality to this prerogative. And the Lords, in
first denying and then delaying the budget, laid themselves open to
the charge of "hereditary arrogance" and "unconstitutionalism."
After the passage of the budget there followed six months of
conference between the two front benches, to find a basis of reform
for the House of Lords upon which all could unite. When it became
evident that this was impossible, the government again prorogued
Parliament and went to the people for a mandate on the question of
"reforming the Lords." The Liberals and their allies were, for a third
time, returned to power, and in February, 1911, the Prime Minister,
Mr. Asquith, introduced his "Parliament Bill," taking from the House
of Lords the power to amend a money bill so as to change its
character. If any other bill passed by the Commons is rejected by the
Lords, the Commons can pass it over their veto; and if this is done in
three consecutive sessions of the same Parliament--provided two years
elapse between the introduction of the bill and its third rejection by
the Lords--it becomes a law. The law is intended as a preliminary
measure. The preamble states that it is the intention of the
government to provide for a second chamber "constituted on a popular
instead of hereditary basis." The bill was so amended by the Lords as
to change its character and returned to the Commons. The Prime
Minister then informed the leaders of the opposition that the King,
"upon the advice of his ministers," had consented to create enough
peers to insure the passage of the bill in its original form. Rather
than have their house encumbered by 400 new peers, the Lords gave a
reluctant consent to the measure that virtually destroyed the
bicameral system in England.
This profound constitutional change, that practically makes England a
representative democracy pure and simple, was unaccompanied by any of
those popular and spectacular demonstrations one naturally expects to
see on such occasions. The debate in both houses rarely touched the
pinnacle of excitement, its fervor was partisan rather than
patriotic.[36]
In 1832, when the hereditary peers stood in the way of the Reform
Bill, which had passed the Commons by only one majority, the populace
rose _en masse_, surged through the streets of the capital, and
threatened the King and his Iron Duke,--whose statue now adorns every
available square in the city,--and made it known that their wishes
must be respected. To-day the people, secure in the knowledge of their
supremacy, scarcely notice the efforts of the opposition, in its
attempts to bolster the falling walls of hereditary prerogative in
representative government. So far has England assumed the air of
democracy.
The third piece of legislation, to which allusion has been made,
indicates the direction that this democracy is taking. It is the
Insurance Bill, also introduced by Lloyd George, and passed in
December, 1911. It insures the working population against "sickness
and breakdown." It is planned to follow up the law with insurance
against non-employment. The law is of especial interest to Americans,
because it adapts the principle of the German system to the
Anglo-Saxon's traditional aversion to state bureaucracy. It commands a
compulsory contribution from employer and employee, supplemented by
state grants. These funds are not administered by the state, but by
"Friendly Societies" (insurance orders organized by the unions) and
other benevolent organizations of workingmen now in existence. These
are democratic, voluntary organizations. Where no such organizations
exist, the post-office administers the fund.
The keynote of this law is the prevention of invalidity. Its details
are largely based upon the reports of the Royal Poor Law
Commissioners, 1905-9. The commission made two voluminous reports;
Mrs. Sidney Webb, a member of the commission, prepared the minority
report.[37]
The Labor Party, in all of these measures, voted with the Liberals.
The Insurance Bill was denounced by the most radical Laborites on the
ground that labor was charged with contributing to the fund, and that
the bill was inadequate. But the majority of the delegation voted for
the measure.
VII
Enough has now been said to indicate the changes in economic and
social legislation that are being brought about in England by the
coalition of Socialists and Liberals.[38] The causes for this change
cannot be laid to Socialism alone. Socialism is an effect quite as
much as a cause; it is the result of industrial conditions, as well as
the prompter of changes. The permeation of the working classes with
the principles of state aid; the spread of discontent; the lure of
better days; all deepened and emphasized by the poverty of the Island,
are the sources of this Social Democratic current. This has led,
first, to the unification of the several Socialist groups; secondly,
to the coalescing of labor union and Socialist ambitions into the
Labor Party; thirdly, to an effective co-operation between the Labor
Party and the Liberal-Radicals.
Sagacious Socialists saw this trend long ago. In 1888 Sidney Webb
appealed to the Liberals to espouse the cause of labor. He pointed out
the inevitable, and it has happened.[39]
Two questions naturally arise: First, how far will this movement
toward Social Democracy go? Second, how long will the Labor Party hold
together and prompt the action of the Liberals and Radicals in social
legislation?
The first question is not merely conjectural. The Reform Bill now
(1912) prepared by the government will destroy the last vestige of
property qualifications for voting. It will destroy plural voting,
which now allows a freeholder to vote in every district where he holds
land. In some districts the absentee voters hold the balance of
power.[40] Votes for women are also promised. This increased
electorate will not be conservative in its convictions. Along with
this will come the abolishing of the custom that compels candidates to
bear the election expenses; the payment of members of Parliament has
already begun; the lure of office is no longer a will-o'-the-wisp to
the poor with ambition.
The new Liberalism is, then, devoted first of all to real democracy,
in which the King's prerogatives retain their sickly place. As to the
functions of the state, it will "probably retain its distinction from
Socialism in taking for its chief test of policy the freedom of the
individual citizen rather than the strength of the state, though the
antagonism of the two standpoints may tend to disappear in the light
of progressive experience."[41]
As to property, it will probably continue to make unearned increments
and incomes bear the burden of social reform; create a business
democracy for running the public utilities, leaving more or less
unhampered the fields of legitimate industrial opportunity. "Property
is not an absolute right of the individual owner which the state is
bound to maintain at his behest. On the contrary, the state on its
side is justified in examining the rights which he may claim, and
criticising them; seeing it is by the force of the state and at its
expense that all such rights are maintained."[42] This, the
well-considered opinion of a well-known scholar, may be properly taken
as the gauge of present-day English Radical sentiment on the
inviolability of property rights.
As to the second question: How long will the coalition hang together?
the Socialists are now (1912) showing signs of restiveness. The old
question, that has rent all Socialists in all countries, and always
will, because Socialism is a wide-spreading and vague generalization,
has arisen among these practical Englishmen. In the convention of the
I.L.P., 1910, there was a prolonged discussion on the policy of the
party in its relation to other parties. "The Labor Party should stand
for labor, not for Liberalism," was the complaint. Keir Hardie
suggested that they were not in Parliament to keep governments in
office or to turn them out, but "to organize the working classes into
a great independent political power, to fight for the coming of
Socialism."[43] A resolution objecting to members of the party
"appearing on platforms alongside Liberal and Tory capitalists and
landlords," was defeated by a large majority.[44]
In the House of Commons clashes are not infrequent between the
Laborites and the Liberals. Annually the labor members move an
amendment to the Address of the Crown, asking for a bill "to establish
the right to work by placing upon the state the responsibility of
directly providing employment or maintenance for the genuinely
unemployed."[45] John Burns opposed their amendment in 1911, in a
brilliant and vehement speech, not so much because the government was
opposed to the principle, but for the political reason that the
government was not ready to bring in a bill of its own, which should
be a part of its comprehensive system of social reform.[46]
The great strike of transportation workers, in the summer of 1911,
widened the breach between Laborites and Liberals, and between the
extreme and moderate Socialists. This strike spread from the dockers
of Liverpool to London, from the dockers to the railway workers, and
then to the teamsters and drivers of the larger cities, until a
general tie-up of transportation was threatened. It came very near
being a model general strike. Its violence was met with a call for the
troops. The labor members in Parliament protested earnestly against
the use of soldiers. But the government was prompt and firm in its
suppression of disorder. A bitter debate took place between the
government and the labor leaders.[47]
How much of this give and take must be attributed to the play of
politics, it is impossible to declare. But this great strike clearly
revealed the difference between violent Socialism and moderate
radicalism. The one is willing to effect revolutions through law and
order, the other to effect them through violence and disruption.
The moderate Socialists seem willing to take a middle course between
these extremes. The following quotation from a speech delivered by
Ramsay MacDonald, leader of the Labor Party, at a convention of the
I.L.P., clearly illustrates the moderate view:
"We can cut off kings' heads after a few battles, we can change a
monarchy into a republic, we can deprive people of their titles, and
we can make similar superficial alterations by force; but nobody who
understands the power of habit and of custom in human conduct, who
appreciates the fact that by far and away the greater amount of an
action is begun, controlled, and specified by the system of social
interrelationship in which we live, move, and have our being; and
still more, nobody who understands the delicate and intricate
complexity of production and exchange which keeps modern society
going, will dream for a single moment of changing it by any act of
violence. As soon as that act is committed, every vital force in
society will tend to re-establish the relationship which we have been
trying to end, and what is more, these vital forces will conquer us in
the form of a violent reaction, a counter revolution. When we cut off
a newt's tail, a newt's tail will grow on again.
"I want the" I.L.P.'s action "to be determined by our numbers, our
relative strength, the state of public opinion, the character of the
question before the country. I appeal to it that it take into account
all the facts and circumstances, and not, for the sake of satisfying
its soul and sentiment, go gaily on, listening to the enunciation of
policies and cheering phrases which obviously do not take into account
some of the most important and at the same time most difficult
problems which representation in Parliament presents to it."[48] In
another place MacDonald has detailed the steps in the progress of
Parliamentary Socialism. He begins with "palliatives," such as factory
inspection, old-age pensions, feeding of school children; next, the
state engages in constructive legislation, "municipalization and
nationalization in every shape and form, from milk supplies to
telephones," and finally insists on the taxing of unearned increment
and a general redistribution of the burdens of the state.[49]
Not all the members of the I.L.P. are agreed upon this moderate
statement. Keir Hardie and his immediate followers still cling to the
"larger hope" of a socialized society, to which commonplace
legislation is only a crude preliminary.
Bernard Shaw has confessed the orthodoxy of the new Social Democracy.
"Nobody now considers Socialism as a destructive insurrection ending,
if successful, in millennial absurdities," and of the budget he said:
"If not a surrender of the capitalist citadel, it is at all events
letting down the drawbridge."[50] The public utterances of the Radical
leaders are often less restrained than those of the Socialists,[51] so
that it becomes increasingly difficult to tell the difference.
Professor Hobhouse, in his analysis of the difference between
Liberal-Radicalism and Socialism, says: "I venture to conclude that
the differences between a true and consistent public-spirited
liberalism and a rational collectivism, ought, with a genuine effort
at mutual understanding, to disappear. The two parties are called on
to make common cause against the growing power of wealth, which, by
its control of the press and of the means of political organization,
is more and more a menace to the healthy working of popular
government."[52]
And Brougham Villiers stated, a year before the Liberals gained
control of the government, that the hope of the country lay in an
"alliance, won by persistent, intelligent helpfulness on the part of
the Liberals, with the alienated artisans, for the betterment of the
conditions of the poorest, so as to give at once hope and life and
better leisure for thought."[53]
So we see Socialism and Liberalism united in accomplishing changes in
legislation and ancient institutions--changes that are revolutionary
in character and will be far-reaching in results. It is not the red
revolutionary Socialism of Marx; it is the practical British Socialism
of amelioration. "This practical, constitutional, evolutionary
Socialism," a chronicler of the Fabians calls it.[54] It would have to
be practical to appeal to the British voter, constitutional to lure
the British statesman, and evolutionary to satisfy the British
philosopher.
In the troublous days of 1888-90 there were a great many young
Socialists who believed the social revolution was waiting around the
next corner and would soon sweep over London in gory reality. Many of
these young men are sober Fabians now, or staid Conservatives or
Liberals. To-day they think they were mistaken. They were not. There
was a revolution around the next corner. It has already captured the
high places. Society, government, is rapidly encroaching upon private
property through the powers of taxation, of police supervision, and
all manner of constitutional instrumentalities. Ownership, even in
land, is now only an incident, the rights of the community are in the
ascendant. Democracy has conquered hereditary privilege. And the
revolution is still advancing. England is showing the world that "The
way to make Socialism safe is to make democracy real."[55]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See _supra_, p. 51.
[2] See CHIOZZA MONEY, _Riches and Poverty_, first page, edition 1911.
[3] _Op. cit._, p. 337.
[4] _Op. cit._, pp. 337-8.
[5] See V. NASH and H.L. SMITH, _The Story of the Dockers' Strike_,
London, 1890.
[6] See SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB, _History of Trades Unionism_,
London, 1911.
[7] There are about 650,000 members in those unions that pay
out-of-work benefits. The following table gives some conception of the
magnitude of the out-of-work problem in England. It shows the sums
expended by the unions for out-of-work relief:
Year Amount
1898 L234,000
1899 185,000
1900 261,000
1901 325,000
1902 429,000
1903 516,000
1904 655,000
1905 523,000
1906 424,000
1907 466,000
Out of a body of 15,000,000 workmen, Chiozza Money estimates that
500,000 are always out of work. _Opus cit._, p. 122.
[8] Members of Parliament received no pay until 1911, when the
Radical-Liberal government passed a law giving each member a salary of
$2,000 a year.
[9] A discussion of this case from the Fabian point of view is found
in the Preface to WEBB'S _History of Trades Unionism_, edition of
1911. The labor unions and the Labor Party have issued pamphlets on
these two decisions. The legal points are fully discussed in the
official reports of the cases.
[10] There are 15,000,000 working men and women in Great Britain;
3,000,000 belong to co-operative enterprises, 2,500,000 to trade
unions.
[11] See H.M. HYNDMAN, _Autobiography_, London, 1911.
[12] Dr. Wescott, Bishop of Durham, was the founder of the Christian
Social Union. His pamphlet, _Socialism_, is a real contribution to the
literature on the Church and its relation to labor. The present
attitude of the Union may be gleaned from the following quotation
taken from the letter written by Dr. Gore, Bishop of Birmingham, to
his diocese, on the occasion of his transfer to the bishopric of
Oxford. The letter was written during the railway and dockers' strike,
in September, 1911: "There is a profound sense of unrest and
dissatisfaction among workers recently. I cannot but believe that this
profound discontent is justified, though some particular exhibitions
of it are not. As Christians we are not justified in tolerating the
conditions of life and labor under which the vast mass of our
population is living. We have no right to say that these conditions
are not remediable. Preventable lack of equipment for life among
young, and later the insecurity of employment and inadequacy of
remuneration, and consequent destitution and semi-destitution among so
many people, ought to inspire in all Christians a determination to
reform our industrial system."
[13] From _Statement of Principles of the League_.
[14] Even at this time the conservatism of the unions was hard to
break. The vote to take this step was 546,000 to 434,000 in favor of
appointing the committee.
[15] Election expenses are borne by the candidates, not by the state.
They frequently are over $3,000, and it obviously is impossible for a
workingman to conduct such a campaign at his own expense.
[16] Proceedings of Labor Party, Annual Congress, 1907.
[17] See _Socialists in Great Britain_, a compilation published by the
London _Times_, p. 24.
The following table shows the membership of the Labor Party since its
formation in 1900, from the annual report of the party executive,
1911:
Trades Councils
and Local Labor
Trade Unions Parties Socialist Societies
No. Membership No. No. Membership Total
1900-1 41 353,070 7 3 22,861 375,931
1901-2 65 455,450 21 2 13,861 469,311
1902-3 127 847,315 49 2 13,835 861,150
1903-4 165 956,025 76 2 13,775 969,800
1904-5 158 885,270 73 2 14,730 900,000
1905-6 158 904,496 73 2 16,784 921,280
1906-7 176 975,182 83 2 20,885 998,338{1}
1907 181 1,049,673 92 2 22,267 1,072,413{2}
1908 176 1,127,035 133 2 27,465 1,158,565{3}
1909 172 1,450,648 155 2 30,982 1,486,308{4}
1910 137 1,306,473 125 2 31,377 1,342,610{5}
{1} This total includes 2,271 Co-operators. {2} Includes 472
Co-operators. {3} Includes 565 Co-operators, and 3,500 members of the
Women's Labor League. {4} Includes 678 Co-operators, and 4,000 members
of the Women's Labor League. {5} Includes 760 Co-operators, and 4,000
members of the Women's Labor League.
The decrease in membership during the last year is ascribed to the
Osborne judgment.
[18] HAROLD COX, _Socialism in the House of Commons_, p. 1.
[19] See J.A. HOBSON, _The Crisis of Liberalism_, for a discussion of
the new party alignments.
EMILE BOUTMY, philosophical critic of the English, says that England,
"transformed in all outward seeming, ... has just begun a new
history." See his _The English People: A Study in Their Political
Psychology_, London, 1904, for a keen analysis of English political
proclivities.
[20] _Parliamentary Debates_, 5th series, vol. 21, p. 649. Speech by
G. Lansbury.
[21] The new Liberal government invited John Burns into the cabinet.
He is the first workingman in English history to occupy a cabinet
position. The more restless Socialists are inclined to call him a
Liberal because responsibility has taught him caution. But he still
persists that he is a Socialist. He is a Fabian, and boasts of the
three times that he was imprisoned for participating in labor
agitations. About twenty years before his elevation he said in the Old
Bailey, where he had been arraigned for "sedition and conspiracy" in
conducting a strike: "I may tell you, my lord, that I went to work in
a factory at the early age of ten years and toiled there until five
months ago, when I left my workshop to stand as Parliamentary
candidate for the western division of Nottingham."
It must be kept in mind that many of the Conservatives are committed
to social legislation. They are not, however, in favor of the
indefinite expansion of democracy, and are opposed to the adult
suffrage bill as proposed by the Liberals.
[22] WILLIAM MORRIS, _Signs of Change_, p. 4.
[23] Speech delivered in St. James' Hall, March 21, 1894.
[24] Speech delivered at Newcastle, May 21, 1894.
[25] In the British House of Commons the ministry and the opposition
leaders sit in the front benches on opposite sides of the House facing
each other. A "front bencher" always commands a hearing, owing to his
high position in the party. The members of the party sit behind their
leaders and are called "back benchers." The minor groups, the Labor
Party and the Irish Party, sit in the cross benches at the lower end
of the chamber and are called "cross benchers."
[26] See _Annual Report Board of Education_, 1909-1910.
[27] Keir Hardie, the dean of the Socialist group in Parliament,
fathered this law. Sidney Webb, the distinguished Fabian, was made a
member of the commission.
[28] See First Annual Report of the Commission.
[29] See _Annual Report Home Office_, 1909-1910.
[30] _Ibid._
[31] The money for these things he proposed to raise by taxes, and
especially by a tax on land values.
[32] CHIOZZA MONEY, _Riches and Poverty_, p. 82.
No. of Owners Class of Owners Acres owned
400 Peers and peeresses 5,729,927
1,288 Great landowners 8,497,699
2,529 Squires{1} 4,319,271
9,589 Greater yeomen{1} 4,782,627
24,412 Lesser yeomen{1} 4,144,272
217,049 Small proprietors 3,931,806
703,289 Cottagers 151,148
14,459 Public bodies 1,443,548
Waste lands 1,524,624
------- ---------
973,015 34,524,922
{1} This classification is purely arbitrary.
[33] _Op. cit._, p. 91.
[34] The leaseholder is burdened with "rack-rent" and "premiums"; when
the lease expires the improvements revert to the landlord. There has
been, for years, a well-organized Single-Tax movement in England that
points to the evils of this land system as conclusive proof of the
validity of Henry George's theory.
[35] One of the choruses popular with the great throngs that paraded
the streets in that eager campaign is full of significance. It was
sung to the tune of "Marching through Georgia."
"The land, the land, 'twas God who gave the land;
The land, the land, the ground on which we stand;
Why should we be beggars, with the ballot in our hand?
God gave the land to the people."
[36] During the debate on the second reading in the House of Commons,
the writer one day counted twenty members on the benches, and a labor
member called the attention of the Speaker to the fact that "in this
hour of constitutional crisis only twenty brave men are found willing
to defend the prerogatives of the realm!"
[37] Some of the Fabians, nevertheless, fought the bill, and their
champion, Bernard Shaw, called Lloyd George's effort "The premature
attempt of a sentimental amateur."
[38] In 1909 the Labor Party claimed credit for the following measures
passed during the Parliamentary session of that year:
"(1) The grant of an additional L200,000 ($1,000,000) for the
unemployed, and the extraction of a promise that, if it was
insufficient, 'more would be forthcoming.'
"(2) The passing of the Trades Boards Bill--the first effective step
against 'sweating.'
"(3) The smashing of the bill authorizing the amalgamation of three
great railways.
"(4) A discussion, protest, and vote against the visit of Bloody
Nicholas, the Tsar. The Labor Party's amendments secured 70
supporters, whilst only 187 members of the British Parliament were
dirty enough to support the Tsar's visit.
"(5) The introduction of the Shop Hours Bill and the extortion of a
promise that it shall be adopted by the government and passed."--From
a campaign pamphlet, _The Labor Party in Parliament_, p. 20.
[39] See _Wanted--A Program: An Appeal to the Liberal Party_. S. WEBB,
London, 1888.
[40] See article by PROFESSOR HOBHOUSE, on "Democracy in England,"
_Atlantic Monthly_, February, 1912.
[41] J.A. HOBSON, _The Crisis of Liberalism_, p. 93.
[42] L.T. HOBHOUSE, _Democracy and Reaction_, p. 230.
[43] See "Report Eighteenth Annual Conference, I.L.P.," 1910, p. 59.
[44] _Supra cit._, p. 71.
Some of the I.L.P. members are Continental in their views. The
president of the party used these words in his address, 1910: "All
this jiggery-pokery of party government played like a game for
ascendency and power is no use to us" (_supra cit._, p. 35). The
discipline of the Labor Party was unable to keep half a dozen of its
ablest debaters from fighting the Insurance Bill. The reversion of the
radical Socialist element to the I.L.P. is by some observers
considered not unlikely. Then the liberal or _reformiste_ element will
become either a faction of the Liberal-Radical party or melt entirely
away as the Chartists did in 1844.
[45] This was the language used in the amendment moved in January,
1911.
[46] See _Parliamentary Debates_, 5th series, vol. 21, February 10,
1911.
[47] The Socialist workmen always resent the activity of the police
and soldiers during strikes. In 1888 F. Engels wrote to an American
friend: "The police brutalities in Trafalgar Square have done wonders
in helping to widen the gap between the workingmen Radicals and the
middle-class Liberals and Radicals." (See _Briefe und Auszuege aus
Briefen von Fr. Engels u. A._, Stuttgart, 1906.)
One of the incidents of the debate over the railway strike in the
House of Commons was a clash between Lloyd George, the Liberal leader,
and Keir Hardie, the Socialist. Keir Hardie had made inflammatory
speeches to striking workmen, and for this the Chancellor of the
Exchequer gave him a terrific and unmerciful flaying. (See
_Parliamentary Debates_, 5th series, vol. 29, Aug. 22, 1911.)
[48] J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: speech delivered at Edinburgh, 1909.
[49] See J. RAMSAY MACDONALD, _The Socialist Movement_, pp. 150-7.
[50] G.B. SHAW, Preface to "Fabian Tracts."
[51] See LLOYD GEORGE'S famous "Limehouse Speech."
[52] L.T. HOBHOUSE, _Democracy and Reaction_, p. 237.
[53] BROUGHAM VILLIERS, _The Opportunity of Liberalism_, Preface.
[54] See article by Secretary PEASE, of the Fabians, on the Fabian
Society, _T.P.'s Magazine_, February, 1911.
[55] J.A. HOBSON, _The Crisis of Liberalism_, p. 156.