Pauperism versus Poverty. (1906)

From the March 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Rt. Hon. John Burns, in the picturesque language characteristic of him, once said ”Figures never lie, but liars sometimes figure.” During the late election, however, in contradicting the figures of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, Mr. Burns did a little figuring of his own.

He said

“In 1849, when the country had just emerged from Protection, there were 1,088,000 paupers, or 62 per thousand of the population, in 1900 there were 25 per thousand. In 1849 the able-bodied poor numbered 13 per thousand of the population, but to-day only 2 per thousand of the paupers were able-bodied.

“As to the cost of the Poor Law Administration, the increase was due to the fact that as under Protection the standard of comfort of the whole community was low, so under Free Trade it was correspondingly better. They had better workhouses, many of them almost palatial whereas formerly they were almost a cross between a penitentiary and a prison.” (The italics are ours.)

That the standard of comfort of a section of the community has improved is, of course, true ; but this cannot be said of the mass of the workers. They toil harder and can buy no more with their wages. Their employment is less secure and their out-of-work spells are longer. The average worker’s wage is barely sufficient to enable him to continue in working condition and reproduce his kind; whilst there are 12 to 13 millions of the working class who cannot obtain even that bare sufficiency. This too, in face of the fact that the labour of the people has increased the wealth of the “country” by leaps and bounds.

We have, it is true, if we have the misfortune to outlive our usefulness to our masters, permission to end our days in those palatial residences which Mr. Burns said are due to Free Trade.

But what of Mr. Burns’ figures ?

They only show an increase in well-being if the Poor Law administration has not been made more severe. Let us see whether the Poor Law regulations have been made stricter, for if they have, the veriest tyro would know that the value of the figures is thereby destroyed.

The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 abolished the grant of relief in aid of wages, and considerably modified the Act of Settlement, it also laid down the principle of the Workhouse Test. Parliament, however, left the gradual introduction of the principle in the hands of the Central Department. Nevertheless the refusal of relief in aid of wages and the partial imposition of the workhouse test in order to discourage applicants for relief caused a continuous decline in pauperism from 1834—twelve years before the inauguration of Free Trade.

The Poor Law was further strengthened by the Amendment Act of 1844 ; but it was not (says the “Encyclopaedia Britannica”) until 1867 that the local administrative bodies took the matter up with much enthusiasm. The Pauper Inmate Act of 1871, and the Casual Poor Act of 1882 made conditions of relief more onerous by increasing the compulsory stay of vagrants and by other means.

Regarding this, Ashcrott and Preston Thomas say in their work, ”The English Poor Law System,” p. 285,

“The marked increase of indoor paupers (accompanied, of course, by a still more marked decrease of out-door paupers until recently is due to the movement beginning about 1865 in favour of the workhouse principle.”

Again, p. 288,

“It is clear that in the case of this class of paupers (able-bodied adults) it was mainly by the rigid enforcement of the workhouse test that this improvement was secured.”

The facts clearly show that the statistics of pauperism for the past 70 years are in themselves no guide to the condition of the working class, but they illustrate that poverty is inseparable from capitalism, be it Free Trade or Protectionist. Indeed, in defiance of tests and restrictions there has been a marked increase in pauperism during the past decade.

In spite of Mr. Burns, decreasing pauperism has not been due to diminishing poverty, but to the application of the golden rule of capitalist poor “relief,” to give the poor exactly what they don’t want, so that they would rather starve than come again.

It is, indeed, in consistent application of this golden rule that Mr. Burns himself is being used. The fact that he provides an excellent means of decoying some with vague labour aspirations into the toils of Liberalism, is not the only merit he posesses in capitalist eyes. Few have made it more peculiarly their business to dilate upon those virtues which the capitalist desires in his wage-slaves that they may work cheaper and harder, and none have so vehemently championed the capitalist view of the poor as the new “Labour” minister.

No course moreover, leads so easily to popularity and patronage as the flagellation of working class vices, provided always the fact is blinked that these are the product of a vicious system. Nothing wins the applause of the interested and the superficial more easily than the loud-mouthed opprobrium of the loafer, the outcast and the unfortunate, so long as attention is diverted from the condition of things that created them. Mr. Burns has repeatedly disclaimed any sympathy for these victims of the capitalist juggernaut. He has “none to spare” for these. Even the “Pall Mall Gazette” was led to exclaim that he might be trusted to deal with the “whining wastrelism” known as the unemployed.

In the “Charity Organization Review” he said in 1894 and repeats it in varying phrases,

“Every man who has been out of work cheers the man who is in favour of out-door relief. Every loafer at the street corner who lives on it says: ‘Three cheers for a pound a week out-relief.’ I have always been against it except when administered with the greatest rigidity.”

No wonder, therefore, that the capitalist press proclaim him as the “Right man in the right place,” for as President of the Local Government Board he has found his vocation in the administration of the Poor Law in the interests of the master class.

We who know the utter futility of charity, know also that the only hope of the working class lies in Socialism, and, therefore, concentrate our efforts on that, necessarily in hostility to the capitalist class and all who become its willing tools. The interests of the master class demand that the Poor Law shall be administered with the “greatest rigidity,” so that the poor may be compelled to submit to the most inhuman conditions rather than accept its “shelter,” and the ruling class have found a man after their own heart, one also who does not shrink, when juggling with their statistics, from concealing awkward facts.

F. C. Watts

Socialism. What it is and the Conditions for its Realisation. (1906)

From the March 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

In spite of the arduous years of propaganda—or perhaps because of them—of Socialist ideas and Socialist thought there exists an immense amount of ignorance of what Socialism really implies. Constantly during the last few weeks of political strife I have met with “Socialists” who have had not even the remotest idea of what really constituted Socialism; “Socialists” whose entire end and aim was the taxation of ground values ; “Socialists” who saw in Tariff Reform and a general support of Tory candidates, the surest method of furthering their ends ; “Socialists” who recognised that politics was all a farce, but must need canvass for Liberal Candidates; members of “Socialist” organisations who ran as “Labour” candidates, and members of “Socialist” organisations who ran as Liberal candidates ; “Socialists” of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P., of the Fabian Society and the Guild of St. Matthew : such were and are some of the causes of the confusion of what Socialism really is which exists among the working class to-day.

What these men cannot see is that for a rapid acceptance of Socialist principles a clear expression of those principles is required. The believer in Socialism must go to the working class and tell them the underlying ideas of Socialism ; must show them that Socialism is a distinct political and economic aspiration, capable of being explained in a manner at once brief, clear, and lucid, and remarkably fitted for practical adaptation to present-day needs ; must show that as the Liberal works for Liberalism, the Tory for Toryism, and the capitalist for his own individual gain, so too must the Socialist work only for Socialism, must support those candidates only who are pledged to Socialism and run as avowed Socialists on a Socialist platform, and so must the working class work in its own class interest.

To do this, however, clear thinking is expedient and, alas ! the gentry who form the membership of such bodies as the S.D.F., I.L.P., and the Fabian Society are seldom guilty of thinking clearly where the subject matter of their thought is Socialism.

I am forced to these remarks by the astounding spectacle which has been witnessed during the recent change in the personnel of our government bureaucracy. Men of all shades of “Socialist” opinion have been carried off their feet, and have been found openly and avowedly supporting the candidature of members of that party “which is in no sense more likely to do anything for the working class than is the Tory Party.”

One thing stands out clearly in the mind of the average worker, and that is that any “Socialist” who works for Liberalism or Toryism or in aid of the candidature of any member of either of the capitalist parties, might as well not be a Socialist for all the practical good he is to The Socialist movement. To those of us who are members of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, who have never in any measure compromised our Socialism, they stand condemned as not merely useless to the Socialist movement, but a constant and increasing danger to it.

With every fresh day comes a furthering of the industrial development of capitalism, comes the hastening of that perfection of the capitalist system which means its downfall. It therefore behoves each and all of us who have the cause of Socialism at heart to avoid any confusing of the issues in the minds of those whose suffrage we seek. And this can only be done by keeping aloof from any party, movement, or tendency which is not, clearly Socialist.

The real reason why the members of the S.D.F. and the similarly constituted I.L.P. are not clear as to their methods of realising their avowed ideal is that they have never clearly grasped the meaning of what constitutes the class struggle. A lip homage they have given, and nothing more. A nominal adherence to the teaching of Marx they give, but a clear knowledge of Marx’s teaching they have not. Having failed to base their political policy upon the sound principle of the class struggle they have been at the mercy of every political current and thus, failing to understand their own position, they have failed to make others understand it.

We are all agreed that the ultimate end of Socialist propaganda must be the establishment of a Socialist regime through the common holding and common control of all the products of labour. This is to be secured by wresting the means and instruments of production and distribution from the possession of the present holders and utilising them for the common good.

To secure this end it is, of course, necessary that a very large proportion of the people must be in favour of the change, whereas to-day a very minute proportion of the people of this country are thus favourable. Hence it is necessary to propagate our principles in such a manner as to induce their acceptance by those who are now hostile or indifferent to them.

To ensure such a change of opinion it is essential that the differences between the Socialist position and every other position should be emphasised rather than minimised. We are something more than merely advanced Radicals, something more than Co-operators seeking cooperation in distribution. These latter are seeking to palliate present day conditions while conserving the present industrial basis of Society, whereas we strive to revolutionise the entire structure of Society by changing its economic basis. We are qualitatively as well as quantitatively diverse from every other political organisation.

At the same time that the preaching of our ideal is necessary we are fully aware that we have the economic forces of industrial capitalism ranged on our side, helping us to fight our battle for Socialism. The enforced introduction of improved machinery, through the operation of free competition ; the development of a complicated credit system ; the lessening of distance between manufactory and market owing to ’the betterment of means of communication ; the internationalisation of industry and trade : these among other causes lead directly to the throwing of men and women out of employment; more frequently occurring trade crises; and monopolies with their control of wages, prices, and the government of the nations.

All these economic changes, while making life more insecure as wealth increases, generate a seething mass of discontent which the Socialist must organise and educate. So, too, the changes towards monopoly are changes in the direction of greater social co-operation among the workers—a co-operation which leads to a constant interchange of ideas. Again, under the monopoly an entire industry is often worked by one organisation for the capitalist’s private gain, whereas the worker is being taught to see that it might as easily be worked in. the interests of the entire community.

It is needful, then, to understand that Socialism is a change from capitalist individual ownership to common social ownership, that the believers in this change must combine in an organisation for educational and political purposes so as to engineer the capture of the political machinery as a preliminary to taking over the economic.

Unfortunately the acceptance of the principle of common holding and common control of the instruments of wealth making does not involve the recognition of the necessity of forming a political organisation absolutely independent of every other. It is so very tempting to think that perhaps something may be done now by utilising the present political parties. Many men, indeed, have thought that they could permeate one or the other of the two political parties with Socialistic ideas. Bernard Shaw and his Fabian Society have endeavoured to secure the Liberals while Maltman Barry has made a similar attempt with the Tories. All such endeavours have failed as they were bound to fail. The political divisions are along class lines. The reason why to-day the lines of demarcation between Liberal and Tory are fading is because the two elements of the capitalist class are fast merging. The aristocratic landed class no longer exist as a separate class from the moneyed capitalist class. Money weds with title and divisions are blotted out. Not so with the working class. Here the line of demarcation is exceedingly clear and the economic division of class must evolve and be reflected in the capitalist division of party.

Marx, in his famous “Communist Manifesto,” contends—and rightly so—that all history is a history of class struggles. Not only this, but the political power in modern nations is being constantly wrested from the hands of prerogative by a class economically inferior which absorbs the class economically higher.

Thus in this country the last century saw the political power taken possession of by the moneyed capitalist class, and the dispossession of the titled landed aristocracy who formerly held it. This new class, with its pride of position, drew towards it the former ruling class, with whom it has gradually merged its identity. They twain have become as one flesh.

Over against this new composite ruling class is the working class, which is slowly asserting itself as an economic and political class. The struggle of to-morrow is between capitalist class and working class, and as the latter is numerically much stronger than the former, and being more in touch with the realities of production possess men of stronger brains and brighter intellects, there is no doubt as to who will ultimately prove the victor in the struggle.

The worker must win, and in his winning wall absorb the capitalist class in his ranks, thus procuring by his political emancipation the final abolition of all class. But this abolition of class can only arise through the removing of all class advantage and class privilege. And the removal of these mean the identification of all wealth as social wealth—the abolition of all private holding of commodities. Thus it is plain, that the final political and economic emancipation of the working class can only arise from the establishing of a Socialist Society.

The deduction I wish to draw from this is that an independent working-class party may start with whatever views it likes, but it must ultimately adopt and fight its battles on a Socialist platform. Its destiny must be to work along the same lines as The Socialist Party of Great Britain—lines of uncompromising Socialism.

Economicus.

God’s Refuge for Poor People. (1906)

From the March 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

In view of the attempts to “monkey with the thermometer” of the labour market by the transportation (for life as it is hoped) of a selected few of the unemployed and their dependents to the 160 acres of man-less land which a benevolent Canadian Government (of capitalists in need of a larger surplus of labour themselves) have set apart for each landless man who can conform to the conditions of the 10 dollar gift, the following extracts from a letter received by a comrade from a friend “in our great self-governing colony” will prove of considerable interest. Their publication may do something to counteract the work of the emigration touts (religious and secular) and the great-hearted philanthropists who are ready and even anxious to sink their hard-earned savings in a fund designed to provide for some of the deserving poor a way out of their unfortunate condition, (and out of the country) to a home beyond the sea pending translation to “the home beyond-the sky” also arranged, we understand, mainly for the reception of the deserving poor. On the evidence we incline to the belief that the latter is very little, if any, more intangible than the former.

Winnipeg.

Jan. 30th, ’06.

Dear Comrade,—I feel that I must give you my views of Canada as this country is just now receiving so much attention in England. . . . The conditions of labour are cruel. The workman is exploited if anything even worse than in England. At the present time there are hundreds of unemployed in this town. Every morning great numbers of men unable to purchase a paper, can be seen making for the “Free Press” office (outside which particulars of situations vacant are displayed) in the hope that something may be going. The cold is very intense and plenty of people are without the clothes necessary to keep them warm, while, although there are large tracts of forest, fires for them are out of the question owing to the high price of wood. Six dollars (£1 4s. 0d.) is the cost of a single case of wood, which is accounted for by the fact that there is only one way of getting it here, viz., by the Canadian Pacific Railway, who have, therefore, a complete hold of the place and charge very high rates of carriage.

The price of most other things is proportionally high—five cents for a 1½ loaf (12 ozs. to the 1b.) ; housing accommodation that would cost 6 or 7 shillings in England costs 4½ dollars (18s.); the lowest tram fare is 5 cents (2½d.); clothing is very much dearer and altogether I estimate that I have to pay a dollar for what could be bought at home for a shilling.

The winter here begins in September and has often not broken up until April, and as the majority of men are thrown out of work during that time, they have to face poverty pretty bare. Just for the few summer months there is plenty of work, but as I say it does not last long. I have met men who have been in the Colony for 20 years and are as far from that big fortune the emigration monger is always talking about as they ever were. Even men with money find the struggle against the large companies too hard and only recently four fairly large business houses went smash in less than a fortnight.

To-day I was at the station when a large number of immigrants arrived from England and it was enough to make one’s heart bleed. What chance do these poor wretches stand in a strange land when so many knowing all the ins and outs of the place cannot get anything to do? The Home Missions have been fined for over-crowding their doss-houses. They charge the out-of-works 10 cents for a bed—such as it is.

All “pubs” and hotel bars close at 8 o’clock and on Saturdays at 6 o’clock remaining shut until 10 a.m. Monday, so that the opportunities for the workers to spend their money (when they have any) in drink are not very extensive.

As a further instance of the state of the labor market, I may say that I was in conversation to-night with a contractor who is putting up a large building by the City Hall and he told me he had 75 men, some of them with the very best references, call to-day looking for work. He could give them nothing being full up. Of course the employers encourage immigration schemes. They want plenty of men in the labour market during the busy summer months so that they may not have to pay the comparatively high prices for labour which were necessary in the past when labour was scarce.

Immigration is good business for Shipping and Railway Companies and the Employers, but the poor propertyless immigrant finds himself between the devil and the deep sea. Those 160 acres may be all right for the man with capital, but when one has no money to buy implements and seed and the oxen for ploughing and the other things necessary, and when one remembers that the land (for which the Government charge 10 dollars) may be, and frequently is, located 40 or 50 miles back from a railway or even a small town where crops can be marketed, it is no great capture.

It is not surprising, therefore, that according to the figures published by the “Free Press” the other night, only 27 in every hundred homesteads taken are held long enough, to secure the patent. This patent is the title deed which the Government gives after the individual has been living on and cultivating his land for 3 years. But in order to get it he has to cultivate 10 acres at least every year or the plot is taken away from him and sold to the next comer at 20 dollars—the price advancing 10 dollars for every new-comer.

The foolishness of some of the immigrants is surprising. They expect to find a house and everything necessary awaiting them. But they soon discover their mistake and many of them beat a hasty retreat very quickly. Numbers of the men who are walking about Winnipeg without a cent in the world have returned from Homesteads up West. Many of them would gladly go back to England if they could, for however hard their lot was there it was not so hard as it is here. But as they can’t raise the money they have to stop and make the best of it. You should read some of the complimentary remarks about General Booth and his organisation which these miserable folk have written on the walls of the Salvation Army Immigration Hall. You would be amused but you would also be able to see that the writers were far from content.

I hope to be back again in England soon myself. This “Heaven for the poor” is more like Hell with the fire out !

Yours truly,

E.F.

Labour at the Polls. A Victory for Confusion. (1906)

From the March 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the General Election much twaddle has been uttered concerning the result thereof. It has been a “Great Victory for Labour,” the “Triumph of Socialism,” and the like. Let us examine some of the polls, with a view to seeing how far Labour has won a victory and Socialism has triumphed.

The Social Democratic Federation were enabled by the Countess of Warwick and a mysterious “rich sympathiser” down Cornwall way, to contest six constituencies, and allowed some members to run under Trade Union auspices, permitting the breaking of the rules of the S.D.F. where necessary to secure Trade Union and L.R.C. support. It is a significant and satirical fact that this body, claiming to be of and for the working class, could not have sent at least three of its seven candidates to the poll had it not been for the gold of Lady Warwick and the mysterious friend referred to above.

The S.D.F. candidates and constituencies contested, with the polls, were the following : —

The solid vote for Gribble and Williams was 2,214, so the total S.D.F. vote was 17,131. This is rather over the mark, because the S.D.F. Executive only gave the Accrington Branch permission to put forward Irving “subject to the approval of the local Trades Council,” so that Irving’s was really a joint candidature, not an S.D.F. one alone.

Other members of the S.D.F. who contested seats were Quelch at Southampton and Belt at Hammersmith, both of whom ran as “Labour” candidates under the auspices of local Trades Councils, and Thorne at South West Ham, who was originally the candidate of the West Ham Trades Council, but who, on the instructions of the Gas Workers’ Union, signed the L.R.C. Declaration and ran as a “Labour” candidate under its auspices. At Rochdale the S.D.F. supported S. G. Hobson (I.L.P.), who ran as a Socialist. The polls were :—

Only 1,155 of Mr. Quelch’s poll were “plumpers.”

It will be noticed that, with two exceptions, all the constituencies for which an S.D.F. member stood returned Liberals, and in one of the exceptions there was no Liberal candidate. This result is instructive in view of what appeared “Justice” for Jan. 13. Said the editor (H. Quelch), “We have, as the phrase goes, ‘smashed up’ the Liberals in all those constituencies in which, in spite of hypocritical eleventh-hour appeals, they did not leave us a clear field to try the issue direct with the Tories.” Of course, this was sheer brag, and can only bring a Body indulging in it into ridicule. As Mr. Hyndman remarks, “The S.D.F. has stood, and can stand, a lot of ridicule, But ridicule is apt to kill.” Mr. Hyndman is right.

Strenuous efforts were made by the S.D.F. to get the Liberal candidate out of the way and thus leave the S.D.F. “a clear field to try the issue direct with the Tories.” But if the S.D.F. candidates are only concerned to get into Parliament by the votes of the Socialist working class, it should make no difference to them how many capitalist factions put up candidates, excepting in so far as the more candidates to divide the non-Socialist vote, the better chance of the Socialist electors putting their candidate at the top of the poll. And why all this passing of resolutions, breaking up Liberal meetings, and wire-pulling to keep a Liberal out of the field ? Why not move heaven and earth to get the Conservative out of the way and try the issue direct with the Liberals ?

At Burnley, Mr. Hyndman, of course, ran as a Social-Democrat, but was quite willing to get elected by non-Socialist votes. In his election address he appealed to them to elect him so that he might “plead in Parliament for the sad and suffering millions of India.” The prospect of effecting the Social Revolution by pleading to the capitalist class to relieve to some slight degree the “sad and suffering millions” is a very remote one. British policy in India, said Mr. Hyndman, is “destroying, with inconceivable imbecility, the greatest market in the world for Lancashire cotton goods.” Now, this was an appeal to the interests of a section of the working class and their masters, which any non-Socialist could make quite as effectively, if not more so. A drastic change in the direction referred to would tend, if it provided an extended market for Lancashire cotton goods, to give a new lease of life to British Textile Industries, and thus defer the final collapse of Capitalism. Strenuous efforts, also were made to secure the Irish vote. In fact, Mr. Hyndman’s friends and also Mr. Hartley’s at Bradford assert that they lost the election because “the Irish vote was awarded to the Liberals.” We have yet to learn why the Irish should be expected to vote for Socialists, unless they are themselves Socialists. It has also been suggested that Mr. Hyndman would have won had there been a second ballot. But we claim that a vote that will be cast for a capitalist candidate at the first ballot and for a Socialist at the second is in no sense a class-conscious Socialist vote and could not be relied upon to back up revolutionary action taken by Socialists in Parliament.

In his election address, Mr. H. Quelch said, ”Having been selected as their candidate by the Trades and Labour Council, and other working class organisations in the Borough,” and “I and the Party for which I speak, the Labour Party of Southampton,” etc. A leaflet issued contained a cartoon shewing three men, “The Landlord” on the back of “Rates and Taxes,” who in turn was on the back of “Ratepayer.” “Vote for Quelch and get them off your back” ! Another leaflet was headed “A Bad Day for Liberalism,” and probably had some reference to the day when the Liberals of Southampton decided to break their agreement with Mr. Quelch’s “Labour Party,” and run a second candidate. This leaflet urged the establishment of a “Labour Party,” and called upon its readers to “Put the candidates of the Labour Representation Committee into Parliament” ! No mention is made in this literature of the S.D.F., although, according to “Justice,” Mr. Quelch was an S.D.F. candidate. Time was when Mr. Quelch wrote: “We want our men elected as Social Democrats, for the greater glory of Social Democracy. If they cannot be elected as Social Democrats, they had much better remain outside. We want our men elected as Social Democrats, independent of all other factions.”

Mr. J. Jones said he was “defeated ignominiously because he was the victim of lying misrepresentation,” and that “if they knew all the circumstances in connection with that fight they would say he had done a lot better than they expected.” Well, Mr. Jones has been repeatedly asked to tell all the circumstances but he has preferred to be “the victim of lying and misrepresentation” to doing so. He has, however, admitted that he himself did not know all the circumstances as the name and address of the “rich sympathiser” whose money was being so lavishly spent were unknown to him. Not only so, but the members of S.D.F. Executive were equally in the dark concerning this spook-like being, for at their meeting on Nov. 29th, 1904, “The Secretary reported that he had been introduced to, and had had an interview with the gentleman who was prepared to find the money for a Socialist candidate in the mining division of Cornwall ; he had revealed himself to him on the strict understanding that his identity should go no further.” After this one and only “materialization,” the E.C., at their next meeting, decided to run Mr. Jones.

At Hammersmith Mr. Belt, described in Justice as “London’s Socialist Candidate,” though he was careful to keep the word “Socialist” out of his election address, issued a special handbill pointing out that it was not the fault of the “Labour” Party that the “forces of progress” were divided, as they had brought out their candidate on the promise of the Liberal Association to support him, and that the Labour Party were “most anxious to arbitrate” as to which of the “forces of progress,” Liberal or Labour, should nominate the candidate. Thus did Mr. Belt present a clear issue to the working-class of Hammersmith. He, like Mr. Irving at Accrington, signed the L.R.C. Declaration, but neither was adopted by the L.R.C.

The Independent Labour Party “played the game” by running nearly all their candidates under the auspices of the L.R.C. In several cases they contested double-member constituences, and not only got in by Liberal votes, but made arrangements with the Liberals to work and vote together. Here are some of the polls :

Writing in the Clarion after the election, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald said, “We shall remain an Independent Labour Party, absolutely.” We have italicised “remain” because we deny that Mr. MacDonald won Leicester on independent lines.

After the poll was declared a meeting was held at the Liberal Club, at which Ald. Wood congratulated them upon their magnificent victory. He was proud of the Liberals of Leicester, proud of the Labour Party of Leicester and of the unity of action which had brought about that great triumph. Mr. Henry Broadhurst said that Labour and Liberalism had known no difference, an shown by the extraordinary equality of votes between Mr. MacDonald and himself. That is what they did when they had trust in each other. There was one man who had made that grand result possible, and that was Alderman Wood, but for whose years of devotion to unity they might have been a divided people again. Three cheers were given for Ald. Wood.

At the same time a meeting was being held by the Labour Party. Councillor Banton, in opening, said the Liberals had polled with them (cheers) and they reciprocated the fight side by side (loud cheers). Mr. MacDonald said there had been one very significant fact about the contest. Practically every voter of the 14,000 had polled Broadhurst and MacDonald (cheers). The plumping had been insignificant, and consequently—(Voices: “Three cheers for MacDonald and Broadhurst.”)—he wanted to read the following message to them : “I wish you to give my hearty congratulations to the Labour Party on the Progressive victory at Leicester to-day. (Signed) Ald. Wood.” (Voices: “Three cheers for Ald. Wood,” which were heartily given). The Alderman had told him that he would be 67 years of age to-morrow. They had given him a magnificent birthday present (cheers). Let them be perfectly clear. The Mercury had said that the two parties—Liberal and Labour—had been occupying quite independent positions during the whole of the contest, but owing to the great crises that the late government had brought upon this country—the crisis to Trade Unionism and the crisis to industry they had, upon those specific and definite points, co-operated for the purpose of killing the late government, and preventing things from going from bad to worse.

At Halifax Mr. Parker openly advised his supporters to give one vote to the Liberal. The defeat of the Tory, said the Halifax Guardian, was entirely due to the alliance between the Liberal and Socialist Parties, which had occurred for the first time in the political history of Halifax. The figures showed unmistakably that the combination had held good, that Liberal votes by the thousand went for Socialism, and that Socialism reciprocated this support to the fullest extent of its power.

The Guardian, however, is a bit out in calling it a victory for Socialism. Even Mr. Parker only claimed “that the result had shown that Halifax at heart was in favour of progress.” At the Oddfellows’ Hall Mr. M. J. Blatchford said, after speeches from Mr. Parker and others, the result showed that the arrangement made by the Liberals had been honestly carried out by both parties. It had been a magnificent display of confidence. Nothing could be more splendid than the confidence each party had shown in the other. He was entirely satisfied that the Labour Party and the Liberal Party had done what they had undertaken to do and he thought both sides might be proud of it (cheers).

Mr. F. W. Jowett contested W. Bradford and won the seat against both Liberal and Conservative, but according to Mr. Hartley, the S.D.F candidate for the adjoining division, he ran as a Labour candidate because “he believes in getting your man in.”

Amongst L.R.C. candidates who contested two-member constituencies were the following :

After the declaration of the poll at Norwich Mr. Roberts said there were local political factors which had been used to their advantage and the certain promises by the other party had evidently been carried out. He wished to add that they were quite willing to work hand-in-hand with any other section or party of the State who were willing to labour for the realisation of industrial reform.

At York, when it became known that Mr. Stuart was not elected, some strong remarks were passed by his supporters at the Labour Committee Rooms. Because the Liberals had given Mr. Greenwood 2,082 plumpers and Mr. Stuart’s only numbered 421, Mr. Hawkin declared that, it was “the last time that he would ever agree to any compromise with any party whatever.”

It is quite evident that these gentlemen, when they found the election upon them, threw over all the “independence” they had been insisting upon and signing declarations upon previously. It was much more important to most of them that they should he M.P’s than that a clear lead should be given to the working class. Reynold’s asserts that Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald had interviews with one or more representatives of the Liberal Party with a view to an arrangement. We cannot say whether this is so, but it, certainly is given colour by a letter from a Wakefield Liberal which appeared in the Daily News of Jan. 3rd. The writer asserted that the official Liberals would not help the local Liberals to find a candidate because of a compact which the official Liberals had made with the Labour Party.

Mr. Crooks (Woolwich) and Mr. Steadman (East Finsbury) are members of the National Democratic League. We believe, they are both vice-presidents. The N.D.L. exists, “not to oppose, but to help the Liberal Party.” Mr. Crooks was an L.R.C. candidate, and has signed the Declaration of Independence ! Mr. Steadman refused to sign this, and ran as a Liberal-Labour candidate. But Mr. Steadman was put forward by the London Trades Council, which is affiliated to the L.R.C., and whose S.D.F. chairman (Mr. H. Quelch) has referred to Mr. Steadman as “our” (L.R.C.) candidate since his refusal to sign the L.R.C. Declaration. Over the nom de plume TATTLER, Mr. Queleh writes in Justice:

“The London Trades Council is pledged to independent political action, and is affiliated to the L.R.C. John Burns demonstrates his hostility to an independent working-class party by joining the Liberal Government. The London Trades Council endorses the candidature of a number of independent candidates, including, I believe, Quelch at Southampton and Stranks at Croydon. John Burns, as he was in duty bound to do, supported the Liberal candidates at Croydon and Southampton; and then the Trades Council, by 75 votes to 35, congratulates John Burns on accepting an office which made it incumbent upon him to oppose the candidates whom the Council supported, and the policy to which the Council is pledged. It really is very funny !”

Why doesn’t Mr. Quelch complete the paragraph ? Would it be too funny ?

Another L.R.C. candidate has been showing how “independent” he is of the L.R.C. Declaration which he has signed. On Monday, Feb. 12th, at the Liberal Club, Elm Grove, the Peckham Liberals celebrated their victory at the election by entertaining the new member (Mr. Goddard Clarke) at a Dinner and Concert. After a number of congratulatory speeches Mr. C. W. Bowerman, M.P., said he made no apology though a Labour member for being present. As a Labour man he was very much indebted to the Liberals of Deptford for the position he occupied. The best Liberals in Deptford came and supported him. For the first time in political history the workmen had been alive to their own interests. And as long as the Liberal Party will be loyal to them they will be loyal in return.

Mr. Percy Alden, Liberal and Progressive candidate for Tottenham, issued a pamphlet on “His Public and Civic Life,” written by Mr. Will Crooks. At the end are letters from “Labour Leaders,” including Messrs. Will Crooks, Will Thorne, W. C. Steadman, J. Passmore Edwards and George Cadbury. The two first have signed the L.R.C. Declaration of Independence. Mr. W. Thorne is a member of the S.D.F., and in his letter he says, “I come into conflict with many of my comrades for backing up men like yourself, but that I cannot help.” There’s independence for you ! Other supporters who sent letters were Messers. H. H. Asquith, James Bryce, Herbert Gladstone, John Burns, Sydney Buxton and John E. Ellis. What a galley !

Space will not allow us to give details of other alleged “Labour” and “Socialist” candidatures, but sufficient has been said to show the hollowness of the claim that there has been a victory for Labour or a triumph for Socialism. If further evidence is required one has only to take the declarations of the successful candidates as to why they won and what they think should be done. Free Trade, Trades Disputes Bill, Chinese Labour, and the like. There is only one phrase that will express the result. It was a

VICTORY FOR CONFUSION.

Jack Kent