In the same year, M. de Plehve, the iron-handed Russian Minister of
the Interior, was blown to pieces by a bomb as he was driving through
St. Petersburg on July 28. Only a month before he had said: “My police
easily control the Nihilists--every one of them is known.” A ragged man
standing in the door of a café threw the De Plehve bomb. “If the police
persists in its present policy M. de Plehve’s successor will meet with
the same doom,” he told the police.
In 1905--on January 19--an extraordinary attempt was made to
assassinate the Czar, Alexander III.--a cannon loaded with case shot
being fired at him during the ceremony of blessing the waters of the
Neva in St. Petersburg. The crime failed in its object, but a policeman
was killed by one of the bullets, while two other persons were injured.
Bullets also broke the windows of the Winter Palace. The astonishing
feature of this attempt was that the loaded cannon--one of a battery
of eight saluting guns--was fired by the Guards corps, who are the
custodians of the Emperor’s person. On February 16, the Russian Grand
Duke Sergius was blown to pieces by a bomb, in revenge for the events
of “Red Sunday” (January 22) when peaceful men, women, and children
were massacred in the streets of St. Petersburg, while exercising
their constitutional right of petitioning their sovereign. Prince
Andronnikoff, also, was stabbed to death in Warsaw for the part he took
in these outrages, and so also was Prince Vasiltchykoff “removed.”
[Illustration: LEON CZOLGOSZ: THE ASSASSIN OF PRESIDENT MCKINLEY, AND
THE PLATFORM IN THE TEMPLE OF MUSIC, BUFFALO EXPOSITION, WHERE HE WAS
SHOT.
_The cross shews the place where he was standing at the moment of the
attack._]
On March 23, 1905, was concluded the sensational trial at Amiens
of the Abbeville gang of forty Anarchist thieves, with the passing
of life-sentences on the leader, Marius Jacob, and Bour. Ferré was
sentenced to ten years’ solitary confinement, and Pelisard to eight
years’ penal servitude. Jacob’s mother, and the woman Lazarine, Roux,
and Ferré each received five years’ imprisonment. Shorter terms were
served out to the lesser members of this unique organisation. They
received their sentences with cries of “Long live Anarchy!”
An attempt to assassinate General Maximovitch, Governor-General of
Warsaw, was frustrated on May 19, by two detectives, who paid with
their lives the penalty of their zeal. On going to arrest the would be
assassin, an Anarchist named Dobrowolski, the bomb exploded, killing
all three. An attempt was also made this year to assassinate the King
of Spain in Paris, a bomb being thrown at the carriage in which His
Majesty and the President of the French Republic were driving after a
visit to the Opera.
At the Old Bailey, two Italian Anarchists, Adolfo Antonelli and
Francesca Barberi, were sentenced to ten months’ and nine months’
imprisonment respectively for publishing in _L’Insurrezione_, a
justification of political assassination, and inciting to the murder of
the sovereigns and rulers of Europe, notably King Victor Emmanuel III.
of Italy.
On March 17, 1906, the notorious Johann Most died in Cincinnatti,
U.S.A., of erysipelas. In 1881 he was sent to prison here for
applauding the assassination of the Czar, and his paper, _Die
Freiheit_, and printing-press, were confiscated.
A bomb was thrown at the carriage in which the King and Queen of
Spain were returning from their wedding on Thursday, May 31, 1906,
fatally injuring twenty-five people and inflicting serious wounds on
thirty-four others. The assassin, an Anarchist named Mateo Moral,
escaped, but was arrested on June 2, fourteen miles from the scene
of the outrage, by a gendarme, whom he shot on the spot, afterwards
turning the weapon on himself.
VIII.
AN ANARCHIST CONFERENCE.
The Anarchist is nothing if not unconventional. At his “conferences”
chairmen, voting on resolutions, and the other necessary conditions for
the preservation of order, are altogether dispensed with, as savouring
of the “authority” he so much detests, with, of course, the consequence
that order is conspicuous by its absence, and, more often than not,
the “conference” ends up in a free fight between the various factions
present.
My first experience at an Anarchist conference was as follows:--An
announcement had appeared in the _Commonweal_ to the effect that a
conference of London and provincial Anarchists would be held on a
certain date at a notorious rendezvous of the cult off Tottenham
Court Road, to which “all comrades were invited.” I decided to accept
the invitation and be present at their deliberations. The subject
down for the “comrades’” discussion was “The Right of Individual
Expropriation,” or, in plain English, “The Right to Thieve.”
Presenting myself to time at the place of meeting, and finding the
door ajar, I walked in, and found myself in a narrow passage which led
into a small hall, where I took a seat among the other “companions”
assembled.
Right here let me explain that, contrary to general belief, among
Anarchists, the various paraphernalia of Freemasonry--signs, passwords,
etc.--are altogether dispensed with, being contrary to Anarchist
“principles,” which allow of no form of authority or organisation
whatsoever. No credentials are required, for the Anarchist does not
admit the possibility of one person representing anyone but himself.
Secretarial work, according to the Anarchist theory, is done by anyone
who feels that way inclined; and if volunteers are not forthcoming the
work remains undone.
But to resume my story. Once inside the hall, a spectacle greeted my
sight I shall not soon forget. Seated about in confusion were a number
of evil-looking men and women of almost every nationality--shouting,
stamping, and gesticulating. On the walls, in gorgeous red, were
painted a number of Anarchistic mottoes in German, and at the end
of the hall a small stage was erected, on the facia of which, in
bold English, appeared the legend--“Anarchy is Order.” Among the
distinguished personages present I noticed Louise Michel, E. Malatesta,
and several Continental Anarchists who later ended their careers on the
gallows or under the guillotine.
[Illustration: A Sketch at the old Autonomie Club.
By permission of _The Daily Graphic_.]
An hour beyond the advertised time had passed, and there were no
signs of the seance commencing. Suddenly, one of the “comrades” was
heard shrieking for order, which, after great trouble, was obtained.
A “comrade” of unmistakably Jewish countenance rose and addressed the
meeting. His sentiments were nothing more or less than incitements to
all kinds of crime. “Pillage and murder the rich,” he shrieked. That
was the sentiment of the whole meeting. Space will not allow of my
reproducing any of the speeches, which were revolting in the extreme.
Suffice it to say that the speakers declaimed hotly anent the injustice
of everything in general, and the necessity for the “removal” of
monarchs and all in authority, who, they claimed, were responsible for
the ills of the world. One speaker held up Ravachol, the Anarchist
scoundrel who lived by thieving, coining, and forgery, and who ended
under the guillotine for brutally murdering an old man in order to get
his money, as a “hero” worth copying. “We want some English Ravachols,”
he shrieked. These sentiments, however, roused the ire of the more
peaceably inclined, who are known as “Christian Anarchists,” and more
potent arguments than words were the outcome of the debate.
During the progress of the conference a thick bordered mourning card
was distributed among those assembled--
“IN LOVING MEMORY
of
MARTIAL BOURDIN;
who was killed by the bursting of a bomb
in Greenwich Park.”
and containing the following piece of alleged poetry:--
“Spurning the name of a slave,
Fearless of gaol or of grave,
Fighting for Freedom, he gave
His life in the Revolution.
Time shall not rob him of fame;
Hating the tyrant, and game
In the spirit that rings in his name,
He died for the Revolution.”
At this conference it was proposed to burn monarchs, lawyers, and
persons in authority in effigy, as a means of calling attention to the
Anarchist propaganda. A discussion arose as to the advisability of a
“No Rent” campaign. One “comrade” formulated a plan of occupying model
dwellings, and a French “comrade” told how they worked the “Anti-Broker
Brigade” in Paris. There, he said, whenever a comrade is in trouble
with his landlord, six or seven Anarchists go to his house in a body
and carry off the furniture. This, he explained, would be easy work
in England, as in Paris every house has a porter, who usually tries
to interfere with the departure of the household goods, and has to
be knocked down before he will be quiet--while in London this is not
the case. He concluded by saying: “Persevere with this propaganda,
comrades; there is none better.”
[Illustration: SIPIDO,
Who fired at King Edward in Brussels.]
Then an ex-editor of _Le Père Peinard_, who had escaped from France
to avoid imprisonment, urged the claims of “Expropriation” (Anarchist
jargon for stealing). He pressed the “comrades” to do their utmost to
persuade the people to seize upon the wealth of the capitalists on
every possible occasion; and, after some discussion it was agreed that
the “principle” was good, and that we should preach and practise it
whenever possible.
The conference was brought to a close by the singing of revolutionary
songs, one of which extolled the virtues of “Petroleum” as the “stuff
which makes the _bourgeois_ fly!” and concluding with the terrible
“Carmagnole,” the last verse of which goes as follows:--
“O what is it the people cry?
Arms! Arms! to make our rulers fly!
Bombs, powder, pikes and lead
Shall bring our brothers bread!
Cold on the earth shall tyrants lie!
Vive le son, du canon!”
IX.
ANARCHIST COMMUNITIES.
There have been many communities founded on Anarchist methods (or
rather, lack of methods), but everyone has resulted in ignominious
failure. From 1890 to 1894 there existed at Palmira, in Brazil, a
community of 300 Italian Anarchists known as the Cecilia Community.
Its object was to illustrate Anarchist teaching by practical example.
The colonists were, indeed, a motley crowd; they included peasants,
mechanics, criminals, professional men, illiterate men, and men highly
trained--men of every shade of personal character, religious faith,
and technical ability. Everyone had in his or her turn been an active
propagandist of Anarchist theories, but yearned to see their practical
application. The Cecilia Community, consequently, was founded that the
unbelieving world might witness the possibility and desirability of
living in a condition of absolute freedom, without laws or restrictions
of any kind whatever. Everybody in Cecilia did as they “darned-well
pleased.” There was no social organisation, no rules, no officials,
and everyone was free to work or not, as he pleased. Anything which
savoured of system was religiously tabooed as being contrary to the
Anarchist evangel; there was no programme, no table of hours, no
standard of efficiency of labour. Laws were relegated to limbo; voting
and the settlement of differences by majority-rule, being contrary
to Anarchist “principles,” were consigned to the same place. Their
village, which they designated “Anarchy,” consisted of log-huts 6 feet
long, 4 feet deep, and 9 feet high; some had a wooden flooring, but
most had only the earth stamped down; a bed constituted the regulation
furniture, but some possessed the luxury of a table. During their four
years’ existence as a community their clothes remained the same, and
presented a sorry picture of patchwork. Their diet consisted mainly
of vegetables, and bacon was looked upon as a great luxury. One of
the balance-sheets shows an item of £263 received from the Brazilian
Government for mending roads, showing that the Anarchists were partly
dependent on the enemy for their livelihood.
Dr. Rossi, one of the colonists, describing his experiences, says:
“Our life was filled with a systematic spirit of contradiction,
which caused us to lose many working hours in endless discussion;
when we met in the evening, the noise of our conversation could be
heard nearly a mile off, though the doors were shut.” Everywhere
was universal mistrust, quarrelling, and back-biting; and of course
Anarchist “principles” admitted of no method of remedying these evils.
The result was soon seen. Acting in accordance with the Anarchist
principle of separating, rather than submit to majority or any other
rule, the larger number went its own way and the minority took up its
position outside the communal land. But later on differences again
sprang up, and, following the same and only permissible policy with
Anarchists, they separated once more, and thus, instead of remaining
one harmoniously-acting body, they became disunited into four. Shortly
again, fresh differences showed themselves, and again they separated
into eight parts, and so on, until, out of the 300 “emancipated”
colonists but a mere handful remained, and the “community” was
surrounded on all sides by minorities larger than itself. This last
handful sold the place to a group of seceders, paid all the debts with
the proceeds, and finally disbanded, having proved conclusively the
impracticability and rank idiocy of Anarchist “principles” in practice.
In England there have been at least two Anarchist colonies. One was
established in 1895 at Clousden Hill Farm, near Newcastle-on-Tyne,
and was conducted on Anarchist-Communist principles. Some Anarchists
resident in the vicinity of Newcastle and Sunderland had become
impressed by an article by the Russian ex-prince Kropotkin (the
leader of London Anarchists) in one of the magazines describing the
“advanced” methods of agriculture in operation in Guernsey and the
Channel Islands, where almost everything is reared under glass. In this
article Kropotkin prophesied that “before long immense vineries would
grow up round the coal-pits of Northumberland, where artificial heat
can be obtained from coals selling at 3s. per ton.” With the financial
assistance of a wealthy London Anarchist, the Newcastle “comrades” were
enabled to purchase the farm before-mentioned, which they converted
into an Anarchist colony. A portion of the land they covered with
glass, and organised a poultry and dairy farm, besides vegetable
gardens and orchards, the produce from which they despatched weekly to
the local co-operative store and the Newcastle market. Their aim was
“to give an object lesson” in Anarchism. The colonists, who comprised
men and women of several nationalities, had large ideas regarding the
regeneration of mankind, but, as is usually the case, forgot to apply
them to themselves. The rule of the colony was no rule, everybody doing
as he or she pleased, and disputes were supposed to be settled on “love
and brotherhood” principles. Even the live stock on the farm approved
the general Anarchist principle of do-as-you-like, for, according
to one of the colonists, the fowls would not lay, the bees refused
to swarm, the rabbits ran away, and the ducks died. One of their
cows proved to be blind, another went mad, whilst a third died when
calving. With horses matters fared no better. One fine-looking young
beast became so infatuated with Anarchist principles of revolt that he
contracted a habit of bolting whenever he was yoked; a second preferred
lying down to pulling a load for tyrant man, and another manifested his
contempt for things communal by kicking the front out of every cart to
which he was harnessed.
Very few of the colonists had had any previous experience of the
work they were undertaking. An amateur built a 30-feet smoke shaft,
and disdained the use of such a simple tool as a plumb-line. The
consequence was that the shaft refused to maintain its tower of
Pisa-like position, and came to earth with a crash.
The colony prospered for a while, but when differences began to show
themselves the members saw at once the impossibility of settling them
amicably without discarding the Anarchist principles upon which the
colony was founded. They flung Anarchy to the winds, and for days spent
their time in framing sets of rules. But gradually the membership of
the colony decreased until but twelve were left, of whom only six were
voters. Will it be believed that among this six there actually were two
parties?
The colony came to grief in a tangle of quarrelling. Two of the
colonists bought their colleagues out, and started a flower business on
their own account. This turned out a failure, and the affairs of the
concern came before the Newcastle Bankruptcy Court in April, 1902.
In 1897 was founded the Whiteway Anarchist colony in Gloucestershire,
which, I believe, exists to this day, but based on different
principles. The colony was founded by Samuel Bracher, a Gloucester
journalist, who, for £450, purchased a farm of 41 acres, provided
implements, seeds, cattle, food, etc., in all spending some £1,200--his
whole capital. At the beginning the colonists numbered only about
eight, but ultimately the number rose to forty. Their first act was to
show their contempt for “conventionality” by burning the title-deeds of
the farm!
The colonists were, indeed, a curious crowd. They comprised a Leipsic
doctor of philosophy, an Oxford tutor of Greek, a son of a wealthy
Birmingham manufacturer, an ex-science lecturer, several artisans, a
farmer, two or three Quakers, and a few women. They had no rules of
any kind, and everyone did as he or she liked. To become a colonist
no application was needed; all that anyone had to do was to take a
seat at the common table. All things were supposed to be held in
common (although how this was possible without some form of rules and
authority passes comprehension), and all the money they possessed was
kept in a small open box upon the mantel shelf. The result was that,
whilst some of the colonists worked hard, the majority sponged idly
upon their labours. Gradually the indolence and licence of some of
the members became more pronounced, until in disgust, Bracher, the
founder, his wife, and others, left the colony. No idea can be given
of the indolence and sheer animalism of this Whiteway Anarchia, with
its lawless licence and its cadging. So disgusted were some of the
colonists that they renounced Anarchy straightway, and on an adjoining
farm started a co-operative colony based on laws and authority, the
chief law being “He that will not work, neither shall he eat.”
Whilst the foregoing, avowedly Anarchist in character, all ended
in failure, there are several instances on record of successful
but unconscious Anarchism. A work published in Paris, in 1888, on
“La Russie Sectaire,” by M. Taskin, gives some curious information
concerning the various sects, religious and political, to be found
throughout the Colossus of the North. One of the most numerous and
widespread is that known as the Doukoborys, presumably the sect
which has now taken up its abode in Canada in order to avoid Russian
compulsory military service, and which is more often called the
Dukobortsi, whose fundamental dogma is the negation of all religious
ceremony and pomp, and the adoration of God “by the spirit and truth
of the Creator, which everybody bears in his own heart.” Man, they
say, carries God in himself when he seeks to attain the ideal of
goodness, simplicity, and honesty. Wealth and poverty are to them an
anomaly and an injustice, and so there are no servants and masters,
no chiefs or subjects. Equality is carried to the extent of denying
the obedience of children to their parents, and consequently parental
authority is _nil_. Women enjoy the same rights as men. All constraint
is prohibited and free-love the order of the day. No authority, whether
in temporal or spiritual affairs, is recognised. Every person obeys
only his own conscience. All the affairs of the community are arranged
in a general assembly. Strange to say, this singular society, although
based on the negation of all authority, according to M. Taskin, works
relatively well. The moral level of it is said to be superior to that
of the neighbouring orthodox population. The members are thriving, more
active, and healthier. Crime is unknown among them; quarrels are rare,
and always end in reconciliation. Mutual assistance is universally
practised. In short, the Doukobory appear to be the very ideal of
society dreamt of by Louise Michel and her acolytes. The _Anarchist_
points to this sect as an example of the results which must follow from
the adoption of Anarchist principles, but where would the society have
been but for the binding influence of religion?[1]
[1] The latest information regarding this sect dates from Winnipeg,
and states that the colony is in danger of being broken up, owing to
its members having been seized with acute religious mania. They have
abandoned the use of horses, cows, and all domestic animals, and turned
them adrift in the hills, as they refuse to keep them in servitude.
Moreover, they will not wear wool or leather because these are the
products of animals, and the men now perform the work of beasts of
burden.
The Anarchist journal _Freedom_ has given what it describes as a
“capital example of practical Anarchy.” It appears that in January,
1857, Mr. A. R. Wallace, travelling among the islands of the Malay
Archipelago, went in a native trading boat to the Aru Islands, and
stayed at Dobbo, the settlement inhabited by the traders of various
nationalities who visit this island every year and live there from four
to six months. Quoting Mr. Wallace (The Malay Archipelago), _Freedom_
continues: “I dare say there are now 500 people in Dobbo of various
races, all met in this remote corner of the East, as they express it,
‘to look for their fortune,’ to get money any way they can. They are
most of them people who have the very worst reputation for honesty,
as well as every other form of morality--Chinese, Bugis, Ceramese,
and half-caste Javanese, with a sprinkling of half-wild Papuans from
Timor, Babber, and other islands--yet all goes on as yet very quietly.
This motley, ignorant, blood-thirsty, thievish population live here
without the shadow of a Government, with no police, no courts, and no
lawyers; yet they do not cut each other’s throats; do not fall into the
disorder such a state of things might be supposed to lead to. It is
very extraordinary!”
“The Dobbo people,” Mr. Wallace continues, “are all traders, and all
know that peace and order are essential to successful trade, and thus
a public opinion is created which puts down all lawlessness. Often in
former years, when strolling along the Campong Glam, in Singapore, I
have thought how wild and ferocious the Bugis sailors looked, and how
little I should like to trust myself among them. But now I find them
to be very decent, well-behaved fellows; I walk daily unarmed in the
jungle, where I meet them continually; I sleep in a palm-leaf hut,
which anyone may enter, with as little fear and as little danger of
thieves or murder as if I were under the protection of the Metropolitan
police.”