A Look Round. (1907)

From the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

John E. Williams has been elected a member of the West Ham Board of Guardians. Whilst avoiding in his election address many of the pitfalls usually associated with S.D.F. candidatures, he could not refrain from promising that which he knew he could not perform. “I say frankly,” he declared, ”that if elected I go to the Board to force my former colleague in the Dock, the Rt. Hon. John Burns, M.P., to do his duty to the countless poor of Canning Town.” Fiddlesticks ! J. B’s “duty” is to the folks who gave him his present job.

—++—

On the day following his election, Williams was congratulated at Tower Hill, and informed his hearers that one of his first steps would be to call a conference of all the Poor Law authorities with the object of pressing the Government to nationalise the Poor Rate. But if the working class do not pay the rates, and if, to quote Mr. W. Thome, M.P., it would make no difference to the working class if the rates went up to 20/- in the £, what concern is it to men who “have nothing to lose but their chains” whether the Poor Law is nationalised or not ?

—++—

There is one thing the advocates of this “reform” never mention—the question of control. If the central government will consent to the abolition of local rates, to the raising of all charges for the Poor Law, Education, etc., out of national funds, is it to be expected that they will permit such funds to be administered locally ? Not a bit of it. And so with the nationalisation of the Poor Rate must come the withdrawal of all local spending powers and the extension of the L.G.B. to deal with the funds. Is this what Mr. Williams is aiming at ?

—++—

Even if the Liberals have discharged men from Woolwich, say Liberal papers, the Tories were as bad and worse. What are the facts ? Between June 1st, 1902, and November 30th, 1905, 4,567 men were discharged, an average of about 108 per month. Between December 1st, 1906, and June 22nd, 1907, the discharges numbered 2.473, equal to about 370 per month ! There is no doubt that Codlin’s the friend, not Short.

—++—

In a statement issued by the committee “formed to protect the holders of Debentures secured upon Breweries and licensed properties,” Sir John. Ellerman, chairman of a large London Brewery Co. is reported to have said: “Capital is a shy bird and, if unduly oppressed, it has a knack of seeking employment in other countries where the capitalist is more fairly treated, to the benefit of the country where it is employed.” Now, why can’t the people whose security is threatened by the introduction of a time limit present their case without twaddle of this sort?

—++—

Imagine a Brewery Company, for example, shifting its Brewery and plant to, say, Germany, where the people are quite satisfied with the German brew. Of course the thing is impossible. Before they could withdraw their capital they would have to sell out and they could only sell out, at ruinous prices, to others, on whose behalf the businsss would be continued as before.

—++—

Mr. Lever, says “P.W.W.” in the Parliamentary column of the Daily News, “makes no pretence that the building of Port Sunlight was an act of benevolence or philanthropy. ‘A successful business,’ he explains, ‘must have physically efficient workpeople.'” Quite so, Mr. Lever is a cute capitalist.

—++—

A Blue Book has been issued giving the report of the Textile Factories (India) Labour Committee appointed in December, 1906. The Committee recommend that the hours of labour should be reduced to 72 per week !

—++—

The Liberal Press in particular is still booming our growing trade and alleged unprecedented prosperity, due to Free Trade. It is, therefore, somewhat unkind for Sir James Crichton Browne to declare that “except as an occasional luxury, meat is beyond the reach of the working class of this country and it is therefore necessary that they should be taught what is the best substitute for it.” He declared himself, at the Mansion House on June 26th, a firm believer in the value of the mutton chop, and would like to see a sirloin on the Sunday dinner table of every family in the land.

—++—

After this it is easy to understand why a movement to improve the health of the people by abolishing luxuries from the table is to be started in Bethnal Green. The Simple Life is somewhat of a chestnut there.

—++—

And now a par from London Opinion will not be amiss : —

“I see it stated that the keepers of City restaurants find their meat bills decreasing owing to the lighter luncheons which are being taken by the clerks and other office workers. The fashion for commercial men to take only the lightest of meals is alleged to be increasing. I do not believe a word of it. Whenever an Englishman has money in his pocket he is prepared to eat meat, and if City workers abandon it, that is simply because of the want of money. How some of the toilers manage to buy a lunch at all is a mystery to me.”

—++—

Sir Jas. Crichton Browne also said that he would like to see all proved adulterators of food electrocuted. One of these days the working class may remember his words. But if a Socialist were to advise that those who are battening and fattening upon the misery of the poor should be shot, or hanged, or electrocuted, he would be charged with inciting to murder and sedition.

—++—

As a property-owner, writes Mr. George Cadbury in the Daily News for July 16th, I have no fear whatever of the success of Labour men . . . I believe that so far as this country is concerned the stability of the Throne and of the institutions of our country will be secured, not by resistance to ameliorative measures, but by doing justice to those who produce its wealth.

—++—

In these sentiments Mr. Cadbury, who is a member of the I.L.P., expresses the feelings of many of the members of that body. The “institutions of our country” are the State, the Church, the Law, etc. These capitalist institutions are not to be abolished, but secured, if only the other capitalists will become as cute as Mr. Cadbury and Mr. Lever and introduce “ameliorative measures.” Instead of working for the establishment of a community of free citizens, co-operating as social equals, contributing, according to their ability, to the necessary work and enjoying, according to their needs, the good things of life, many of those posing as Socialists are merely striving after the establishment of the rule of a benevolent plutocracy, under which the workers may be well-fed, well-housed, and well-clothed, but will still be wage-slaves, subject to a master class.

—++—

That such a state of affairs may develope out of existing capitalist conditions is not at all improbable. The persistent advocacy of palliatives by the S.D.F., I.L.P., and other reform parties, the growth of the Garden City movement, the increasing number of capitalists who recognise that it pays to take “an interest” in their wage-slaves, the establishment of “model” factories, “model” villages, etc., all tend in this direction, and unless the issue is kept clear, the workers will be side-tracked again. Hence the need for the S.P.G.B.

—++—

The merchant princes of the Cardiff Docks, says the Evening News correspondent, have decided to inaugurate a fund for the purchase of an annuity for the “Labour” Knight, and have subscribed £1000. Mr Clifford Cory, M.P., being at the head of the movement, which is certain to succeed, Sir William Crossman being a most popular man by reason of his moderation as an advocate of labour. . . . The idea now is to get sufficient money invested to ensure him a reasonable annuity. The new knight does not fear going back to work, but, naturally, he would prefer an annuity. What ho!

—++—

"The great political struggle of the future will be a struggle in which the Radical party will have no place. The issues will be fought out between the principles of Socialism on the one hand and Imperialism on the other."—Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Campbell, K.C., M.P., at United Club banquet.

—++—

Mr. Churchill, replying to Mr. Myer in the House of Commons, said in April last there were in the Transvaal mines 17,886 whites, 114,470 coloured labourers, and 53,114 Chinese. For April, 1906, the figures were 18,035 whites, 93,793 coloured, and 49,832 Chinese, showing a decrease of 149 whites, an increase of 20,731 coloured labourers, and of 3,282 Chinese.

And this is eighteen mouths since Sir H. C. Bannerman declared “we have abolished Chinese labour” !

—++—

The industrious, steady working man, who works hard through a long life, and brings up his family with affection and care, is a real national asset, he is, indeed, among the most valued possessions of any country, and since it is almost impossible for him to put by enough money to ensure his livelihood when work is no longer possible, he has a moral right to demand from the community comfort and sustenance in the evening of his days.

—++—

Thus the Pearson Paralyser. But what becomes of their argument that the Post Office, Building Society, Co-operative Society and other deposits represent working-class thrift, if it is almost impossible for the industrious, steady working man, who works hard through a long life, to put by etc. ?

—++—

A few months ago capitalist politicians and writers were holding up their hands in pious horror at the revelations with regard to “graft” in America, declaring that English politics were so pure, you know.

—++—

Yet the letter of Mr. C. H. Lea, Liberal member for East St. Pancras, compelled some of them to make admissions. Mr. Lea accused the Government of selling peerages and other “honours” for contributions to the Party war chest. This war chest was used to help poor candidates whose votes, if elected, are looked upon as secure, “no matter what the issue, or what pledges may have been given to the constituents.” To us it was no wonder that these practices of the Liberals should have been defended by the Tories, whose mouthpiece was Lord Robert Cecil.

—++—

Commenting on the debate the Daily Graphic said : it is an open secret that those who want titles must contribute to the Party funds. . . Any respectable citizen who contributes handsomely to the fundsof one or other of the political parties may, in the fulness of time, claim a title and get it. … We have established what we call democratic institutions, and we can only keep the machine running by the sale of aristocratic titles.

—++—

The Daily News also said: The practice of rewarding those who pay heavily to the party funds by giving them honours is not confined to one party. It is a recognised and rather squalid phase of the normal political game.