The political re-organisation of the people

Front matter

THE LIBRARY

OF

THE UNIVERSITY

Contents

CHAP. I'AGE

I. INTRODUCTION : THE POLITICAL SITUA- TION 9

II. CHARTISM 29

Chapter I Inteoduction : The Political Situation

During the last twenty years several attempts have been made to form a third political party from among the masses of England. This task has been generally held to be an impossible one, and the experience of those who have made efforts in this direction during the period mentioned seems to prove the correctness of this view. The tradition that two parties, and two parties only, have always existed, and therefore, according to a common habit of reasoning, must always exist, has been a powerful means of stifling all tendencies towards a development of political activity independent of either the Liberal or Conservative parties. Thus we find that Radical agitators and reformers of the latter portion of the last century made no strong eflbrfc to form a separate lO THE POLITICAL RE-ORGANISATION

organisation but contented themselves with the position of being the left wing of Liberalism, and trusted to permeation from within to secure the adoption by the party of the reforms they advocated. This policy, as far as the past is concerned, can, to a great extent, be justified. The opportunism of English politicians has been successfully exploited in the interests of democratic progress and reform. Whenever public opinion has been aroused thoroughly upon any question of importance, party leaders have been found ready to make it a party matter and to provide a solution. This method of securing the confidence of the people, and thereby obtaining or retaining power, has been common to Liberal and Conservative statesmen alike in practically all spheres of reform, whether purely political or entirely social. The endeavour that is sometimes made to give to the Liberal party the sole credit of obtaining political rights for the people, and to their opponents that of securing the most valuable pieces of social reform, is not in strict accord with the history of legislation. The first great franchise Reform — that of 1832 — having been carried by the Whigs, and its results proving by no means disastrous to the power of either the rich or privileged classes, both parties have considered it safe to be amenable to popular pressure, and have been readily convinced of the reasonableness of the demands on the part of the masses for further instalments of political and social rights. This has been so characteristic of

OF THE PEOPLE II

the attitude of both parties with regard to nearly all important matters that have been before the country during the last decade, that the distinctions between Liberalism and Conservatism are now difficult to define. The boundaries between the two are blurred and confused. The Liberals placed local government in the areas without the cities and larger towns upon a clear and uniform basis ; their antagonists did the same for the metropolis by sweeping away a complex and corrupt tangle of municipal administration, and substituting the London County Council and the recently created Metropolitan Borough Councils. The workers have secured from both parties employers' liability acts and factory legislation; and if they have to thank the Liberals for a national system of elementary education, the Conservatives can claim their gratitude for freeing them from the irksome method of direct contribution towards its cost. Until 1880 there was an intermittent contest between the two parties as to which should be foremost in widening the franchise, and we find in 1900 that a Conservative Government was so convinced of the value of a democratic electorate in municipal politics that it instituted the broadest existing franchise in England for both the London County Council and the London Borough Councils. These examples of competition in reform, which could be added to considerably, afford some explanation and justification for the absence of a third independent, democratic, or radical section of much influence in English politics.

There has been, however, one striking difference between Liberalism and Conservatism in the past which must be noted. When an active group of advanced politicians have agitated for a reform, and through their agitation interested a certain amount of educated public opinion in its favour, they have generally found help among the Liberal leaders in further propaganda. In a word, the Liberal party has retained for so long its position as the popular or democratic party owing to the fact that it attempted to be, and sometimes was, an educational party, occasionally \m advance of public opinion, and relying for success at the polls chiefly upon its capacity to convince the people of the necessity of reform. Its last great leader, or better, its last leader, for since his death there has been none, was not only a statesman but an agitator in the highest sense of the word. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have, as a rule, waited passively until opinion ripened through the exertions of their opponents ; and when in power have passed the measures the country has most urgently demanded, even when this policy was in direct contradiction to their declared principles.

The capacity on the part of the Liberal party to create an effective demand for democratic progress has been largely dependent upon the personality of its leaders, and their ability to discover and voice those measures of which the people had already, if only vaguely, felt the necessity. This capacity is now no longer confined to it. The Conservatives can no longer be held to deserve the taunt of being the stupid party. They have been leavened to no small extent by the Liberal Unionists, whose leader, no matter how shallow a statesman he may be, has a trained faculty for discerning the drift of popular ideas, and adapting his course of action to it. On the other hand, the Liberals have lost in great measure their talent for reading the signs of the times. They have staked their fates at the polls upon questions in which the people were but little interested, or owing to the absence of well-organised propaganda, took a diametrically opposite view. This was glaringly evident at the election of 1895, when Liberalism suffered the defeat which has left it hopeless and disorganised.

The derelict condition of the party cannot be considered as a temporary phenomenon which will disappear as circumstances readjust themselves. The decay which set in after the retirement of Mr. Gladstone from office has been spreading year by year, and there are no signs that it will be arrested. There is, indeed, vitality in certain of its sections, but this vitality is helping on the work of destruction. The questions above all others upon which the country desired a united democratic pronouncement — the war in South Africa and the Imperial problems which have come to the front through that struggle — have been a further source of division and distrust. The Imperialist and anti- Imperialist groups bid fair to fight each other to the death in order to make a reactionary holiday. Appeals to sink differences, and variations played upon old party phrases such as the urgency of Peace, Retrenchment and Reform, fail to bring unity or obedience to discipline. The party remains an aggregation of contending atoms unable to effectively oppose in Parliament, or to win the confidence of the people outside.

The waning influence of Liberalism upon the masses is to be traced in the main to a growing belief that its leading representatives are not sincere in their expressed desire for reform. The feeling is abroad that they are desirous of marking time not only in social but also in political legislation. For instance, thinking men among the working classes are constantly reminded that their choice of parliamentary representatives is limited owing to the heavy expenses of elections, which must be defrayed by the candidate, and by the absence of payment of members. These two obstacles to the selection of candidates unendowed with long purses renders the House of Commons a preserve for the rich which can be entered by a poor man only under the most exceptional circumstances. He must either be a man of striking individuality or the paid ofiicial of a trade-union chosen not so much on account of his all-round capacity as a politician, but as a representative of, and combatant for, special sectional working-class interests. The Liberal party has made professions in favour of removing these two disabilities, but no effort has followed these professions, even after the House of Commons had declared itself to be converted to the proposal to pay members a reasonable sum for their services. Reform of the present complicated and absurd system of franchise has been promised, but with the exception of the abortive bill that was laid before the House in the last year of office of the party, nothing tangible has resulted. The House of Lords, in spite of threats of mending or ending, remains with all its undemocratic obstructive power, a permanent check to all proposals for reform which are not backed up by earnest, strenuous insistence by those who advocate them. A long-standing item in the programme of some prominent Liberals is that this state of things should be remedied. Nothing definite, however, either in word or act has followed.

In the field of social legislation a record of a very similar nature is to be read. The trail of Manchester laissez-faire is still over official Liberalism in spite of the attempts at socialistic permeation which have been carried on during the past fifteen years. " We are all socialists now," said Sir William Harcourt fifteen years ago, when it seemed as if the Radical element, enthused by the new spirit of that time, had gained a guiding influence in the party counsels. But this declaration has remained practically an empty phrase. The London County Council has been in existence twelve years. During that time it has worked a ijreat change in the minds of the l6 THE POLITICAL RE-ORGANISATION

people of London with regard to their rights and duties as citizens, and has brought into prominence the marvellous development of municipal activity not only in the metropolis but all over the kingdom. It has created a school of municipal statesmen who have made clear the vast opportunities that exist in local self-government for benefiting the community. The left wing of Liberalism has shown sympathy with this activity, and advocated the granting of wider powers for the purpose of grappling with civic problems that remain unsolved. But the leaders on the front bench have taken up a Laodicean attitude on these matters. In power they remained cold and indifferent ; in opposition they have made spasmodic unsustained efforts to display a cordial interest. London, bound hand and foot by monopolies which exploit her unmercifully in all directions, is still waiting for the official Liberal municipal programme. So far are we, however, from receiving such a document that would encourage the collective spirit, which is the most promising sign of modern progress, that we find front bench Liberals supporting the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the scope and methods of municipal trading and enterprise, obviously incited to this action through the fear that county, town, and district councils, through the natural growth of their functions, are trespassing upon the domain hitherto sacred to capitalism. The object of the originators of the Committee, which was to obtain, if possible,

OF THE PEOPLE IJ

sufficient evidence to warrant legislative interference with communal development, did not succeed. On the contrary, a complete armory of facts has been collected which will be of the greatest use to the advocate of municipal socialism. But this does not hide the fact that the Liberal party is divided on this question, as on the others already mentioned.

It has been contended that the sorry condition of Liberalism is due to causes over which its leaders have no control ; that the policy of waiting and hoping, instead of acting, has been forced upon them by the attitude of the people who refuse to show any enthusiasm for reforms of any kind. But it has already been pointed out that the duty of a party claiming to be founded upon a democratic theory of politics must educate and lead the people. The masses know that they suffer ; they have a notion that something wants doing and that rapidly. But they are incapable alone of finding out what are the actual causes of the wrongs they bear, or how they are to be removed. This should be the work, as far as politics is concerned, of the party which associates itself with ideas of democratic reform. Such a party must educate, agitate, and organise if it really desires to carry a reform programme into effect. It must stir up a spirit of enthusiasm and confidence among its followers by laying down clearly and unmistakably the line it intends to follow. It must create issues^ and not wait until some chance cry, which attracts attention for a time, appears to give a clue to the policy which, if advocated, will result in obtaining place and power. Since the culmination of the Home Rule agitation, no attempt has been made on a grand scale by the Liberal party, as such, to arouse the people on any of the many public questions which demand attention. Whatever has been done in this direction has been the work of either a few so-called extreme Radicals or the leaders of the modern labour and socialist movement. It has been left to such men as these to advocate seriously even minor political reforms which are usually considered to be the peculiar stock-in-trade of orthodox Liberalism. Besides the political changes which have been demanded on and off for the last fifty years, and still remain to be accomplished, a quite new series of problems has arisen to which the Liberal party has no solution to offer. These problems are of a social character, and require careful attention in order to master them. To mention one only — the treatment of the aged poor. The present Government has been accused, perhaps rightly, of securing support by a half promise to provide State Old Age pensions, and of then quietly dropping the matter when its electoral purpose had been served. This piece of bad faith has been held up before the electors again and again by the Opposition as a monstrous instance of cruel political trickery at the expense of a class that requires immediate relief ; but we have yet to receive from a responsible Liberal statesman a suggestion of a satisfactory scheme, or even a favourable recognition of those put forward by men

OF THE PEOPLE I9

like Mr. Charles Booth, who have devoted themselves to a thorough study of the problem, and who possess expert knowledge. The same timidity or want of sympathy has been shown towards other urgent reforms where energetic and courageous action is wanted. The educational machinery of the country has been in need of renovation and readjustment for many years. The necessity of taking steps to establish a system, both democratic and organic, has been repeatedly urged from many quarters. But it was not until it appeared likely that the present muddle was to be made worse that we find any attempt being made by the Liberals to rouse the country upon the question. And even the fight made in 1901 in the House of Commons to maintain the present powers and constitution of School Boards, which, whatever may be the demerits of these bodies, was a struggle for democratic control, the motive power came from without, and party leaders had to be almost coerced into action by the people, who, according to the former, cannot be stirred upon any issue.

In the sphere of Imperial politics. Liberalism, through its indefiniteness and neglect, has enabled reaction to associate with the idea of Empire a policy of conquest and domination. Probably there is no being in existence who embodies the ideas of Little Englandism which the Conservative politician holds to be the opinions of the majoritj?- of the Liberal party. But at the same time, it cannot be denied that the want of a proper appreciation of the responsibilities and possibilities of the British Empire, shown by the Liberals, has given their opponents the opportunity of securing the advantage of seeming to be the genuine patriotic party. Too late a section has awakened to the necessity of endeavouring to lay down some sort of Imperial policy, but its weak platitudes, which are nothing more than feeble echoes of Jingoistic utterances, have all the faults of imitation without the virtue of sincerity possessed by the originals.

This faint-heaitedness and despair, which displays itself in a Micawber-like attitude of waiting for something to turn up, or a hopeless wringing of hands over the apathy of the masses ; this absence of educational propaganda of a definite programme ; this want of unity and discipline, all point to the fact that Liberalism as a creed and as a basis for an effective party is rapidly dying. It contains no message for the present or the future. Its representatives appeal to the people for support on account of its past record, but they offer no evidence that they would be able to put that support to good use. The lack of constructive statesmanship shown by the Liberal leaders was undoubtedly one of the main reasons that induced the electorate in 1900 to return the Conservatives once more to power with almost the same majority they previously possessed. It was not so much the liking for Conservatism as the distrust of the capacity of the Liberals to do anything, even to form a government, which brought about that result. The lower middle class and the workers left without guidance, or puzzled and misled by the indefinite and contradictory positions taken up by the Liberals on the main issues of the hour, deserted largely to the other side, with the result that the industrial centres, where the masses are strongest in numbers, seem now to be the greatest strongholds of reaction.

The fundamental cause of the remarkable situation in which Liberalism finds itself is that it has achieved its work and exhausted its mandate. It has wrested the power of government from the hands of the landed aristocracy and transferred it to the aristocracy of capital, who, satisfied with the position they have secured, are desirous of no further change. Hence we find that the wealthy classes as a whole have gone over to the opposite camp, and have placed their riches and influence at its service. This was made evident a short time since, by the declaration of Mr. Herbert Gladstone that for every pound available for Liberal propaganda and organisation, probably a hundreii was at the disposal of the Conservative party for similar purposes. The men of wealth and influence still left to Liberalism have no wish to give it new life by grafting on to the old a new democratic programme that would rally the masses round them. In party politics those who pay the piper usually call the tune, and we have the right to assume that the feeble character of the latest party programme agreed upon at Bradford in

1900, as compared with the more vigorous document drawn up at Newcastle some years ago, is due to the attitude of the holders of the purse-strings. They hope to again attract the middle class by a display of moderation which will allay their fears that the party has been captured by the extreme socialistic Radicals. Should such an improbable contingency arise, we should possibly see another movement across the floor of the House of Commons like the one which took place after the introduction of the first Home Rule proposals. The formation of the Imperialist section gives some ground for the belief that a second exodus is not unlikely should the terms offered by the other side prove sufficiently inviting. In fact, there are several leading Liberals who, on other questions besides that of the war, find themselves more in harmony with their conventional opponents than with their present friends.

Thus, when we make a general survey of the whole political field from a democratic standpoint, the prospect seems cheerless and disheartening. We are not merely standing still, we are fast moving backwards. Ten years ago there was a lively hope abroad that we had entered a new era of reform. Everywhere there was a spirit of confidence in a rapid advance towards a new order. The workers, aroused to a strong sense of the need for organisation, hastened to build up what has been called the New Unionism — a movement which has done much to give a new status to the so-called unskilled labourer, hitherto the despair of his fellowworkers. A revival of interest in the duties of citizenship was displayed by reformers who, imbued with an enthusiasm for the welfare of the cities in which they lived, devoted themselves to the work of uplifting and brightening the lives of the people by collective effort. Labour appeared to have secured a position, through its organisations, strong enough to enable it to meet capital on a more equal footing. The possibility of forming a powerful and definite Labour party which should in political action supplement the work done for the masses by the trade unions and the co-operative movements was considered to be hopeful. But since that time there has been an almost overwhelming wave of reaction. Temporary prosperity gradually sapped the zeal for progress which had been awakened among the working classes. Their leaders, who had believed that educational agitation could be safely dropped in order that practical work might be undertaken, found that they had been mistaken in the estimate of the influence they had obtained over their followers, and of the capacity of the masses to remain constant to new ideas. A firm, sound method of political organisation was lacking, and only here and there throughout the country have the working classes remained steadfast to the new ideals of democratic progress.

One of the most striking results of this reaction has been the loss of practically all the power to use effectively the force of trade combination which has been one of the chief means whereby the workers have improved their social position. It is more than a coincidence that now capital as a political and economic force is organising itself with a thoroughness that is impossible for the masses to emulate, a series of legal decisions totally at variance with past judgments has rendered trade unionism almost impotent. The House of Lords has decided that, under certain circumstances, strikes and the methods usually adopted by workmen engaged in them are illegal ; and further, that the unions which up till now have been held to be without the legal standing of a corporation can be declared financially responsible for such illegalities. Mr. Frederic Harrison, whose knowledge of the subject is unrivalled, and to whom the workers of this country owe much on account of his efforts to secure for them the right of combination, has emphatically expressed the view that the workers are now completely at the mercy of the employers ; that all means to active resistance against attempts to reduce wages or otherwise to take away the improvements that have been secured by much self-sacrifice and self-discipline have vanished. There are differences of opinion as to the exact value of trade unions from a universal standpoint. There are many modern political economists, however, who will not only allow that the existence of trade unions has benefited the working classes, but will also acknowledge that they have rendered valuable service to the community by helping towards the solution of grave social problems. They have aided in the work of bringing into industrial anarchy some semblance of order, and have latterly shown signs of making peace in industry more permanent. Therefore their reduction to helplessness is a matter of grave national concern. What steps should be taken to give them a new strength will be discussed later. It is clear that their old status cannot be revived. The only way that some measure of their former effectiveness can be secured to them is through political action, and such action, if it is to be of real service, must be undertaken on independent lines. The Liberal party has no solution to offer. Its ranks contain no man of prominence who will take up the problem and force the party to undertake to solve it.

It is this absence of strong personalities in the Liberal party — a matter constantly lamented by its press — that makes it all the more possible and imperative that a new party should be formed which shall stand for a democratic ideal. To try to carry on the policy of permeation any longer is useless. The outcome would be to permeate the party into further sections, each anxious to secure the recognition of its little piece of proposed reform, and with no man powerful enough to enforce unity on any of them. The result of the permeation policy can be seen clearly enough in connection with the recent disputes over the settlement of the official platform with regard to the war in South Africa. Add to the present difficulties by agitating within the party for further powers to be given to municipalities to own and control monopolies in the interest of the community, and the enemies of collective enterprise will be found actively opposing such proposals, and prophesying the break-up of Liberalism altogether if it is committed to collectivism, however mild the type may be. Franchise reforms are not likely to meet with any sympathy, for the country displays no interest in them ; social reforms will receive scant attention, because they will mean heavy expenditure, and we are aware that the war will leave us with a depleted exchequer, a heavy debt and largly increased permanent charges, that will render it impossible for the ordinary politician to suggest a means of defraying the cost, say, of Old Age pensions. Indeed, to endeavour to get the party to take up definitely any of the points of a programme which would represent the need of the time, and to carry out a campaign of education and agitation for the purpose of creating a popular movement behind them, would be wasting valuable energy that should be devoted to making the masses conscious of those needs, and organising them in such a manner that they could rely upon their own strength to secure the required reforms.

The argument which has been often used, and with success, against such an enterprise, that it will tend to give reaction a still firmer hold upon the reins of power by weakening an existing check upon it without securing a counterbalancing advantage in return, is without weight at this juncture of our history. We have seen that the Liberals are utterly powerless as an opposition ; their feebleness and futility have disgusted the people to such an extent that their return to power within a measurable period is, even under ordinary circumstances, exceedingly doubtful. The suggestion emanating from the Imperialist section that the party should not take office unless it obtains a majority in the House of Commons, apart from the Irish members, may be regarded as a kind of selfdenying ordinance put forward for the purpose of showing a lively anticipation of the barren prospect of electoral success that lies in front. If it were possible, therefore, to create sufficient support by the next election to enable the return of several independent candidates to be secured even at the expense of the Liberals, no harm would be done, for they would oppose reaction with probably greater effect than the men they would displace.

But the work of a new party would be for a considerable period of an organising and educational rather than of a strictly electoral character. The failure of past efforts in politically organising the masses warn us of the danger of neglecting to build up a body of convinced and organised opinion before steps are taken to gain a place in legislative or administrative bodies. That side of the work must be considered, but to concentrate all efforts into the capture of a few seats in Parliament after a short term of active propaganda would be fatal to permanent growth. The programme and basis having been agreed upon, well equipped propagandists must devote themselves, in season and out of season, to spreading them abroad. The task of the organiser will be to gather together the adherents made through this missionary woik so as to prevent the energy thus expended from being wasted. To consider how this work may be accomplished is the object of the following pages. Before dealing with the future, however, it will be of value to recall the history of similar movements in the past century, commencing with the Chartist ascitation.

Chapter II Chartism

The rise and fall of the Chartist Movement, which was the first definitely organised attempt in the last century to form a workinjo^-class party in politics, has yet to be described in such a manner as the subject deserves. It is full of lessons of the difficulties that lie in the way of those who endeavour to bring the masses into line on political principles ; it is also full of warnings of what to avoid and to reject in the basis and method of any new effort which may be undertaken for tlie same purpose.

The passing of the Reform Bill marked the first victory of the middle class over the aristocracy. The outcome of many causes, it gave the working classes some idea of the influence that could be exerted by organisation and perseverance. The measure had been carried through as the result of a long period of active agitation in which nearly all sections of society had taken part. The workers gave their time, and sometimes, as at Peterloo, their lives ; the rich and educated their money and brains. The expectations as to what was to follow the success of the Reformers were widely different. The enemies of the Bill expected that the new electorate would use its power for the purpose of carrying through revolutionary and confiscatory legislation ; its friends awaited a regime of prosperity and social peace. Both these views proved to be illusory. No violent changes were introduced ; no attacks upon property were made by the parliament elected on the new franchise ; on the other hand, the masses found that their position showed no signs of improvement. It soon became plain that the power of government had not been transferred to the people; it had passed out of the hands of the landed aristocracy into those of the capitalist class. According to Francis Place, the bulk of the working-class supporters of Reform were actuated chiefly by the hope that it would prepare the way for an era of socialistic legislation which would lead ultimately to a redistribution of property. Probably;- only the leaders were really conscious of this motive, but without doubt the basis of the popular enthusiasm for Reform was the desire for economic and social improvement. Thus we find that in 1831 the National Union of the working classes was founded, having for its object the realisation, through political enfranchisement, of the ideas of Robert Owen. This society declared its dissatisfaction with the proposals of the Whigs, but at the same time its advocacy of more democratic doctrines helped to swell the general demand for democratic change. It kept before the people the necessity of a much wider programme, and as a basis circulated the following manifesto, which contains the chief points of what afterwards became known as the Charter. The socialist note was struck in the statement that " Labour is the source of all wealth." It then stated —