Con Lehane: A Correction (2004)

From the December 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the September Socialist Standard we stated that Con Lehane, who was a founder member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, went on to become in the 1930s and 40s a member of the IRA and a Republican member of the Irish parliament. This was not the case and was due to a confusion with someone else with the same name.

The Con Lehane who was a founder member was born in Cork in 1878 was indeed an Irish Republican but he died in New York in 1919, shortly after being released from prison where he had been detained for his political activities. In 1916 he had published a pamphlet entitled The Irish Republic arguing that the so-called Easter Rising in Dublin that year had been a workers’ revolution.

The other Con Lehane, who was on the Army Council of the IRA in the 1930s and a Clann na Poblachta deputy from 1948 to 1951, was born in Belfast in 1912 and died in 1983 (see Irish Times, 27 September 1983).

The original source of the error was an article which appeared in the anarchist paper Freedom on 8 February 1992. Our apologies for not having first checked this thoroughly enough – Editors.

Letter: Immigration: one view . . . (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Immigration: one view  . . .

The front over of the Socialist Standard (July) is emblazoned with a definition by Ambrose Bierce: “Immigrant: an unenlightened person who thinks one country better than another.”

Presumably, this means the Socialist Standard regards Karl Marx as an “unenlightened person”. He left Germany and spent most of his life living in Britain. Actually, the development of socialist theory was fostered as a result. Con Lehane (an unenlightened Irish immigrant) became the SPGB’s first general secretary. Hans Neumann (an unenlightened German immigrant) arranged the first meeting of the SPGB’s executive committee. Charlie Lestor (an unenlightened Canadian immigrant) was for many years one of the finest orators the SPGB possessed. Does the SPGB condemn Lehane for being an immigrant? Hapless Lehane could not secure employment anywhere. Is the Socialist Standard suggesting that he should have continued looking for work in Ireland rather than coming over to Britain and helping to form the SPGB?

Doubtless the fascists of the National Front go a long way to agreeing with Bierce’s definition: in the opinion of Tyndall and his thugs “immigrants are unenlightened people”. Socialists should have an entirely different approach. Hunger and poverty in the underdeveloped countries is directly as a result of imperialism. Dire necessity forces thousands of people to leave these regions and look for a better life elsewhere. Like British workers, they are victims of exploitation, but of an exploitation of a much more intense kind.

It is vital that socialists strive to build links of solidarity between British and coloured workers. Essentially we have the same class enemy: only through unity can the enemy be overcome. For this reason, the demand must be made for the repeal of the immigration laws, racist legislation which excludes people from this country merely because of the colour of their skins. If, as the Communist Manifesto says, workers have no fatherland, then the barriers created by immigration laws must be swept aside. Workers must be free to leave and enter Britain as they choose.

To be in accord with these sentiments, the definition of Ambrose Bierce requires modification: “An opponent of immigration is an unenlightened person who thinks one country better than another.”

Dr. Raymond Challinor 

Whitley Bay

Reply:

The quotation to which you object was used because it disparages nationalism and comments, aptly in our opinion, on the situation of very many migrants. Its tone is ironical, and we ran the risk of someone’s not perceiving that. To spell it out, the word “unenlightened” relates to the remainder of the sentence: a person who thinks one country better than another requires enlightenment in that respect, but not necessarily in others. Marx and the other people you mention were not under that impression. As for racists finding that issue of the Socialist Standard agreeable — see the letter from John Binder below.

However, you appear not to have read the article on immigration inside the cover. Doing so would have dispelled the misunderstanding in the later part of your letter as well as the above one. The article pointed out that “legislation which excludes people from this country merely because of the colour of their skins” is swept aside when that suits capitalism in Britain and elsewhere. This is, precisely, the trap into which reformism leads. Liberal-minded reformers urge, as you do, that a legislative change will benefit the working class; and then find it does the ruling class a good turn instead.

To say Socialists must “strive to build links of solidarity” between white and black workers is a grandiose way of ignoring the important questions. The majority of black workers, like the majority of white, uphold the capitalist system. They include nationalists, Tories, and people who themselves hold strong race-prejudices. If it were suggested that we aim at "links of solidarity” with white people holding such views, that would cause indignation; but you ask us to do so on the grounds, apparently, that colour transcends everything else. We do not accept such a position. The task for Socialists is to spread among all workers and understanding of their class standing and interests, which come first and foremost. This means the rejection of all ideas of race and national superiority. If you are intent on re-wiring the quotation, here is another version: Opponents and advocates of immigration alike are hidebound by the idea of national frontiers which Socialism will abolish.

Editors.

Foundations. (1904)

Cross-posted from the Reasons To Be Impossible blog

"Since some people are talking about Party foundation arrangements, I reproduce below the minutes of the foundation of the SPGB:"

The Socialist Party of Great Britain Minutes of Inaugural Meeting held at Printers' Hall, Bartletts Passage, Fetter Lane, London, E.C. at 6pm on Sunday 12th June 1904 In accordance with the instructions of the Provisional Committee, R. Elrick and C. Lehane acted as Provisional Chairman and Secretary respectively, and the other members of the Provisional Committee acted as stewards. 

There was a good attendance, and the meeting opened with the singing of "The Red Flag". The Chairman briefly explained the object of the meeting, read the notice convening same, and then moved the following resolution:

"That we hereby declare our membership of and thus form the new Party, the constitution of which it shall be the business of this meeting to formulate". 

The resolution was carried, with three dissentients, who were requested to leave the building, as the invitation to attend was extended only to those who were prepared to cooperate in forming the Party. 

After these persons had left, the Chairman called on those present to give in their names and addresses for enrolment as members, and as a result the following one hundred and forty two names were handed in: 

Miss H. Aitken, Mrs Annie Albery, A.S. Albery, Victor Albery, Arch. Alcock, E.J.B. Allen, Mrs Allen, T.W. Allen, Sidney T. Alston, A. Anderson, G. Anslow, Isaac Asher, Will L. Auger, J.T. Bacon, B.G. Bannington, G. Barber, William Bartlett, Hy. Belsey, John Benford, W. Betts, J. Blaustein, A. Baggis, A.R. Brooker, R.J. Buckingham, H.J. Bull, A.H. Burton, F. Cadman, Miss L.E. Campbell, John Chishekoff, W. Chown, T.C. Collings, Robert Collins, R. Compton, Mrs E. Craske, F. Craske, Harry Crump, John Crump, A. Daintree, H.T. Davey, John W. Day, John Donovan, A.C. Dowdeswell, Paul Dumènil, W. Eayrs, Minnie Eden, Stanley Eden, R. Elrick, Edward Fairbrother, E. Fawcett, J. Fitzgerald, G. Fletcher, Haris Fagel, W. Fox, B. Galloway, John Gordon, C. Goss, A.J.M. Gray, A. Greenham, R.D. Gross, Edward Hammond, E. Hardcastle, G.R. Harris, H.J. Hawkins, Miss K. Hawkins, -- Hicks, Geo. H. Hobbs, G.J. Hodsau, Mabel Hodsau, William Holford, Mrs. Holford, Mrs. Holgate, Miss Homerton, H.E. Hutchins, A.W. Fugham, T.G. Jackson, A. Jacobs, Hyam Jacobs, S. Jacobs, A. Jones, A.C. Jones, G. Jones, Mrs L. Jones, J. Kent, R.H. Kent, W.G. Killick, G.T. King, Mrs King, William Lee, C. Lehane, F.S. Leigh, Hy. Martin, Valentine McEntee, J. McNicol, F. Mecklejohn, G.F. Moody, Moore E.O., A. Morrill, D.R. Newlands, H. Neumann, John Nodder, Charles Orme, J. Oxley, Alex. Pearson, Miss M. Pearson, H.C. Phillips, Alf Pilbeam, A. Pyrke, W. Pyrke, F. Quinney, D.G. Reid, G. Richards, A. Ridgewell, S.J.C. Russell, Walter Russell, Mrs L. Salaman, Hy. Salter, H. Severn, William Sills, F.G. Simco, Frank Linfield, H.J. Smith, H.O. Sparks, C.V. Sparks, T. Spooner, G. Streak, G. Sweeting, T. Tarrant, L. Thurston, R. Triggs, C. Turner, Annie Walker, R.H. Walker, J. Wallis, F.G. Watts, T. Wilkins, E. Wilkinson, G.H. Wilson, T.A. Wilson, W. Woodhouse, Walter Wren, H.J. Young. 

While the enrolment was in progress, one man refused to join the Party stating that he had not yet decided what to do in connection with the movement, and that he had an "open mind" on the matter. The Chairman again explained the object of the meeting and stated that the persons who had been invited to come were only those who had made up their minds in connection with the object of the meeting, and gently but firmly requested this man to take his "open mind" outside. 

This being done, the business of the meeting was proceeded with. The following letter was read:

Socialist Society, Newcastle upon Tyne 10/6/04 

Dear Comrades, 

Our society has recently had its attention drawn to the controversy between the S.D.F. and a section of its members. Although we are not affiliated to the S.D.F., we consider that, as a Social-Democratic Society, and one in full sympathy with the principles of the S.D.F., we had a title to consider the dispute. After much discussion of the question at issue, on information based on the two circulars of the dissentient members, the Report of the Burnley Conference, the Statement in "Justice" of a fortnight ago, the experience of those of our own members who, in other parts of the country, have been members of the S.D.F., and our own observation of the trend of affairs during the last few years, - we have arrived at the following resolution, "That, believing that the basic principles of the S.D.F. have not been violated by the expelled members and branches, we regret the motion of the conference and executive in relation to these members and branches". 

I remain, yours truly, (Signed) T. Kerr, Secretary. 

P.S. Am sending a copy of this letter to H.W. Lee. The resolution is as far as the bulk of our members are prepared to go at present. Permit me, however, to express my personal and, of course, absolutely unofficial sympathy with your comrades in the action that they have been compelled to take, and to trust that its result will be the rescuing of the S.D.F. from the dangers of opportunism and intolerance which at present beset it and the placing of that organisation on the absolutely straight and unswerving pathway of Social Democracy once again. Personally, I should be sorry to see a permanent second Social Democratic Party established in opposition to the S.D.F., but I quite agree that the action your comrades are taking is such as may well lead to the really closer unity of the Socialist forces in the near future. Would be glad if you would keep me informed of the progress of the agitation. 

The reading of the above letter was met with loud applause, and the Secretary instructed to send a suitable reply. 

The next business was the election of Chairman and Secretary of the meeting, and the election of tellers. On the motion of Fitzgerald and Anderson, the Provisional Officers, viz., Elrick and Lehane, were unanimously elected Chairman and Secretary respectively. Kent, Woodhouse and Killick were elected tellers. Phillips read the minutes of the Battersea Meeting on Sunday May 15th 1904, and on the motion of E. Allen and Jackson they were unanimously adopted. 

Phillips gave a verbal report on the work of the Provisional Committee elected at the Battersea Meeting to draft a constitution for the Party and to make arrangements for the holding of the Inaugural Meeting. 

On the motion of Hawkins and Lehane the report was adopted with unanimity. Anderson and Lehane moved: 

"That the name of the Party Shall be 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain."' 

Neumann and Blaustein moved an amendment: 

"That the name of the Party Shall be 'The Social-Democratic Party'". 

A good discussion followed, Hawkins, Jackson, E. Allen, Turner and Kent speaking in favour of the motion, and Martin, Mrs. Salaman, Killick and Albery for the amendment. On a show of hands, there voted for the amendment 27 against 76. The amendment was therefore deemed lost. Martin and Neumann moved a further amendment:- 

"That the name of the Party should be 'The Social-Democratic Party of Great Britain'." 

After some discussion a vote was taken, and there were 31 in favour and 73 against. The amendment was declared lost. Another amendment was moved by McEntee and Hutchins: 

"That the name of the Party shall be 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain and Ireland'." 

This amendment was also lost, only 6 voting in favour. There being no further amendments, the motion: 

"That the name of the Party shall be 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain" 

was put to the meeting and carried by 91 votes to 3. The announcement of the result was greeted with loud applause. Hawkins and Martin moved: 

"That the Object of the Party shall be 'The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community". 

There was no amendment and the motion was carried unanimously. The Declaration of Principles drafted by the Provisional Committee was then read: 

The Socialist Party of Great Britain holds:- 

 That society as at present constituted is based upon the ownership of the means of living (ie, land, factories, railways, etc.} by the capitalist or master-class, and the subsequent enslavement of the working-class, by whose labour alone wealth is produced. 

That in society, therefore, there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle, between those who possess but do not produce, and those who produce but do not possess. 

That this antagonism can be abolished only by the emancipation of the working-class from the domination of the master-class, by the conversion into the common property of society of the means of production and distribution, and the democratic control by the whole people . 

That as in the order of social evolution the working-class is the last class to achieve its freedom, the emancipation of the working-class will involve the emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race or sex. 

That this emancipation must be the work of the working-class itself. 

That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working-class must organise consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic. 

That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working-class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master-class, the party seeking working-class emancipation must be hostile to every other party. 

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore, enters the field of political action, determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist, and calls upon the members of the working-class of this country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labour, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom. Fitzgerald and E. Allen moved: "That we adopt the Declaration of Principles as read". 

Martin and Blaustein moved an amendment:

"That the statement of Principles be printed and submitted to each member of the Party for consideration and that a Conference of the Party be called in one month's time to adopt same or accept amendments thereto".  

Hawkins, Jackson and Leigh spoke against the amendment, and on a vote being taken only 3 were in its favour, all the other members present voting against. The amendment was therefore declared lost. Martin and Albery moved a further amendment: 

"That the word 'hostile' be deleted and 'opposed' substituted". 

This amendment was also lost, only a few votes in its favour. The motion: 

"That we accept the Declaration of Principles as read" 

was then put to the meeting and adopted with unanimity and enthusiasm. 

The Draft Rules drawn up by the Provisional Committee were then read: 

MEMBERS 

(1) Any person desiring membership shall be required to fill in and sign the application form signifying acceptance of the principles and policy of the Party. Such application shall be lodged with the Branch Secretary, whose duty it shall be to place same before the next business meeting, to which the applicant shall be invited, for consideration, when a majority vote shall decide. 

(2) A member shall not belong to more than one Branch at a time. A member may transfer to another Branch provided a clear record be furnished by his last Branch. 

(3) Each member shall pay 2d per week towards the Branch funds. The payment of dues shall be waived in the case of members when out of employment. Members thirteen weeks in arrears shall be struck off the books after written notices have been sent to them by the Branch and a further fourteen days have elapsed, unless a satisfactory explanation be given, and shall not be allowed to join any other Branch whilst these arrears remain unpaid. 

(4) Members shall have the right to attend and speak at meetings of Branches other than their own, but shall not have the right to vote. 

(5) Charges against any member shall be submitted in writing to the Branch and a copy supplied to the member accused. The Branch shall consider the matter, and a majority of two thirds of the members present at any business meeting shall have power to expel any members. An expelled member shall have the right of appeal to the EC or annual Conference. All expulsions must be immediately reported to the EC. BRANCHES 

(6) The Branch shall be the unit of organisation. A Branch may be formed by not less than six persons making written application on the prescribed form to the EC and receiving their sanction. In any Parliamentary constituency there shall not be more than one Branch. 

(7) Branches shall elect their own officers and may draw up such bye-laws as they may deem necessary for their internal management, provided they do not conflict with the rules and policy of the Party. 

(8) Each Branch shall report its numerical strength and financial condition once a quarter to the EC. 

(9) Each Branch shall remit to the centre 1d a member per week. 

(10) Branches thirteen weeks in arrears shall not be allowed to vote upon any Poll nor send delegates to any Conference of the Party. 

(11) Disputes between Branches shall be submitted to the EC, all statements being reduced to writing; copies of all documents in connection therewith shall be forwarded to the Branches concerned. The decision of the EC shall be binding, with a right of appeal to the next Conference. 

(12) Branches shall neither sell nor distribute any literature which has not been approved of by the EC. 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

(13) The EC shall consist of twelve members and the General Secretary and Treasurer, and shall be elected by a vote of the whole Party. Nominations shall be made by the Branches. A paid Official of the Party shall not be eligible to stand for election to the EC. 

(14) Any member of the EC absent from three consecutive meetings shall thereby forfeit his position on that body, unless a satisfactory explanation be given. 

(15) The EC shall meet at least once a fortnight, seven members to form a quorum, and shall send a report of each meeting to the Branches and a report to a quarterly delegate meeting. 

(16) The EC shall make all arrangements for the Conference of the Party, carry out the resolutions of the Conference and those adopted by general vote, supervise the work of the organisation, establish and maintain communications with the Socialist Parties of other countries, and establish a Literary Agency from which all Branches shall be supplied. 

(17) The EC shall submit an Annual Report to the Branches at least three weeks before the Conference upon their last year's work. The members of the EC shall be entitled to attend and speak at the meeting but shall not have the right to vote. 

(18) Should the action of any Branch be deemed by the EC to be an infringement of the principles, policy or rules of the Party, the EC may expel such Branch, but there shall be right of appeal to the next Conference. PARTY OFFICERS 

(19) The Party Officers shall consist of a General Secretary, Treasurer, and two auditors elected in the same manner as the EC. 

(20) The General Secretary shall send a financial statement to the Branches each quarter, and shall present to the Conference a Balance Sheet which shall have been submitted to the Branches at least three weeks previously. 

 

CONFERENCE 

(21) A Conference of the Party shall be held annually at Easter. A special Conference shall be called on a requisition, signed by six Branches, being sent to the General Secretary. 

(22) Each Branch shall be entitled to send two delegates. Delegates must have been members for at least six months immediately preceding the Conference, except in the case of Branches which have been formed for less than this period. A member of the EC or paid Official of the Party shall not be eligible to act as delegate to any conference. 

(23) A preliminary Agenda shall be submitted to the Branches eight weeks before the Conference. All amendments to resolutions and additional items received within three weeks thereafter shall appear on the final Agenda which shall be issued to the Branches at least fourteen days before the Conference. 

REFERENDUM 

(24) A Poll of the Party may be taken at any time by the EC or at the request of not less than six Branches sending a requisition stating the matter on which the Poll is desired. The result shall have the same effect as a resolution of the Conference. 

 

ELECTORAL ACTION 

(25) A member shall not be eligible for candidature unless he has been a member of the Party for six months. 

(26) A member of the Party shall not stand for any political office except as the official candidate of the Party. All candidates shall pledge themselves to act, if elected, in accordance with the instructions of the Branch in the case of local and of the EC in the case of Parliamentary elections. 

 Jackson and Hawkins moved: 

"That the rules as read be accepted provisionally and that the E.C. be instructed to have them printed and distributed amongst the members in order that they may be fully considered at a Conference to be held in three month's time". 

Neumann and Kent moved an amendment: 

"That the rules be printed and distributed amongst the Branches, any amendments to or additions thereto to be sent to the Secretary within fourteen days, and that a meeting of members be held one month hence to discuss and decide upon them. That a Provisional Executive Committee to consist of twelve members be elected forthwith to do such work as this meeting may instruct them". 

Killick and Wilson supported the amendment and Anderson and Lehane spoke against. On being put to the vote the amendment was carried by 40 to 35 and thus became the substantive motion. Anderson and Hawkins moved an amendment: 

"That we adopt the Rules as read, any necessary alterations to be made at the Conference of the Party nine months' hence, and that the Rules and Declaration of Principles be printed and placed in the hands of the members without delay". 

This gave rise to a further discussion in which Jackson supported and Kent opposed the amendment. The amendment was lost, 26 voting for and 49 against. Another amendment was moved by Day:

"That the adoption of the Rules be postponed for one month and that amendments to or additions to the draft be received within a fortnight." 

This was carried by 39 to 29 and became the substantive proposition. To this Phillips moved the following amendment: 

"That we accept Rules 1 ,2, 3, 4, and 13. Amendments to the draft submitted by the Provisional Committee to be sent in by July 15th. Rules and amendments to be submitted to a general meeting three months hence. Officers, General Secretary, Treasurer, and twelve members to be elected provisionally as Executive Committee". 

This amendment was carried by 62 to 1 and became the motion before the meeting. McNicol and Albery moved: 

"That the subscription be 1d per week and that Branches contribute at the rate of 1/2d a member per week to the Centre". 

The amendment was lost, only a few voting in its favour. The motion was then put and carried unanimously. Jackson moved and Phillips seconded:

"That C. Lehane be elected General Secretary" 

and there being no other candidates, Lehane was elected with unanimity. Anderson moved and Jackson seconded: 

"That R. Elrick be elected Treasurer" . 

Elrick was unanimously elected Treasurer, and as a first duty called for a collection, which resulted in £1.7/2 being handed in. 

For the twelve other positions in the E.C. there were 15 candidates, viz: 

Albery A.S., Crump J., Neumann H., Allen T.W., Fairbrother E., Phillips H.C., Anderson A., Gray A.J.M., Watts, F.C., Auger W.L., Jackson T.A., Wilson G.H., Belsey H., Martin H., Woodhouse W. 

Ballot papers were issued and the voting resulted as follows: 

Albery A.S., 54 Crump J. 34 Neumann H. 49 Allen T.W. 47 Fairbrother E. 37 Phillips H.C. 67 Anderson A. 61 Gray A.J.M. 44 Watts, F.C. 40 Auger W.L. 24 Jackson T.A. 48 Wilson G.H. 49 Belsey H. 50 Martin H. 63 Woodhouse W. 63 

Accordingly the following were declared elected to the E.C. Albery A.S., Gray A.J.M. Phillips H.C. Allen T.W. Jackson T.A. Watts, F.C. Anderson A. Martin H. Wilson G.H. Belsey H. Neumann H. Woodhouse W. 

On the question of Palliatives, Anderson and Lehane moved:

"That the E.C. be instructed to draw up a statement, to be issued in leaflet form, of the Party's position regarding immediate demands and municipal action and submit same to the General Meeting". 

Agreed without discussion. Neumann moved and Martin seconded: 

"That the question of establishing a Party Organ be considered at the General Meeting". 

To this there was an amendment by Anderson and Hawkins: 

"That the question of a Party Organ be referred to the E.C. who shall have powers to deal with the matter". 

The amendment was carried by 54 to 10 and became the substantive motion. Hawkins moved an amendment: 

"That we elect four members to act as Press Committee". 

This was lost, 10 voting for and 45 voting against. Another amendment was moved by Auger and Lehane: 

"That the E.C. be instructed to open a fund for the purpose of establishing a Party Press and submit a scheme in connection therewith to the next General Meeting". 

The amendment was carried by 45 to 3, and becoming the substantive motion was carried unanimously. H.C. Phillips made a statement relative to the financial position and Kent and Fairbrother were appointed to audit the acc's of the Provisional Committee. On the question of raising funds for the Party, Anderson and Martin moved: 

"That the E.C. be instructed to organise a series of Mass Meetings in different parts of London, half the amounts collected thereat to go to the Centre". 

The motion was carried unanimously. Woodhouse and Hawkins moved: 

"That Branches shall contribute to the Centre half the amount received as subscriptions from the members." 

The motion was carried unanimously. 

Neumann reported that with regard to the instructions of the Battersea Meeting, he proceeded to translate the first circular but had come to the conclusion that the circular was not suitable for circulation on the Continent. Neumann's report was accepted and Hawkins and Lehane moved:

"That the E.C. be instructed to draw up and issue Manifestos on the situation". 

This motion was carried unanimously. On the question of the relation of the Party to the Trade Unions, McEntee moved: 

"That consideration of the matter be deferred for three months". 

To this Hawkins and Jackson moved an amendment: 

"That the E.C. be instructed to convene as soon as possible a special meeting of members to discuss and determine the attitude of the Party towards Trade Unions". 

The amendment was carried by a large majority, and becoming the substantive motion was carried unanimously. Anderson and Jackson moved and it was unanimously decided:

"That the Declaration of Principles of the Party be printed and that a copy be signed by each of the members constituting the Party." 

On the motion of Fitzgerald it was unanimously decided: 

"That the E.C. be instructed to arrange a lecture list for the Party." 

The meeting closed at 10pm with the singing of the "Internationale" and cheers for the Socialist Revolution. (Signed) Alex Anderson.

A Fakir Floored. (1915)

From the December 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

Small incidents often illustrate large truths. Constantly the Socialist urges upon the working class the necessity for depending upon themselves and their own efforts to accomplish their emancipation, and to drop the superstition, so widely taught by the agents of the master class, that “they must have leaders,” “somebody at the head,” etc., to guide them on their way.

The formation of the Socialist Party of Great Britain was an important instance of the understanding by those who formed it, of the folly of relying on “leaders,” and of the determination to rid themselves of such hindrances. But the potential “leader” is always wandering round looking for his opportunity, and the S.P.G.B. seemed to offer such an opportunity to one of these persons of the name of C. Lehane.

He was one of the original members of the Party, and was is first secretary, in which position he worked hard for some time. Then he began his scheming. Resigning his post as secretary he indulged in some underhand work to push one of his satellites into the position he had vacated. The attempt failed and Lehane began his intrigues at the Islington Branch of the S.P.G.B. that ended in his being expelled the Party, by a Party vote, along with several members of that Branch The facts of the case are set out in an article in the February, 1907 issue of the “Socialist Standard.”

Even then his attempt did not end, for he and his followers claimed still to be members of the S.P.G.B., although in the same breath they denounced the Party as “rotten,” and “corrupt,” and further ran. meetings etc. against us; but their farcical situation fizzled out in a few weeks.

The memory of this incident is revived by some newspaper cuttings from America, added to some notes from a couple of correspondents there. Some months ago Lehane left England for America, and a farewell supper was given to him that was attended by a number of notorious Labour frauds and leaders.

Evidently the name of the S.P.G.B. and its reputation were important assets in Lehane’s estimation, for shortly after reaching America, in an interview published in the “New York Call,” we find the following paragraph:

“He [Lehane] led the revolutionary wing of the English Socialist movement during the internal struggles of 1904, and founded the Socialist Party of Great Britain, whose first secretary he became. He founded and edited for the first two yeas the London ‘Socialist Standard’.”

All the statements in the above paragraph are false with the exception of the one stating that he was the Party’s first secretary, while with a modesty somewhat unusual in Lehane, he quite omitted to tell the reporter that he had been expelled from the S.P.G.B.

The formation of the S.P.G.B. was not due to any individual, but was the result of the agitation by a section of the rank and file inside the old Social Democratic Federation (now the B.S.P.) for a straight Socialist policy. This agitation had been going on for some years before Lehane came to England, and so far was he from “leading” this wing, a thing they refused to allow any one to do, that he sat on the fence most of the time apparently trying to judge where the best chance of a job existed, and only threw in his lot with the seceders from the S.D.F. at the last moment. Neither did he found the “Socialist Standard.” This was done by the Party at the suggestion of the 1st Executive Committee, and R. Elrick was first editor of the paper. Neither then nor at any other time had Lehane any hand in the editing or making up of the “Socialist Standard.”

The “Call” reporter stated that Lehane showed him “credentials” from Bob Williams, Jim Larkin, Ben Tillett, Jim Connolly, Harry Lee, etc. Every one of these names stinks in the nostrils of the Socialists here because of its notorious record. Tillett’s slimy fakirism and dirty capitalist crawling is known the world over, and has reached its present limit in the cowardly, lying recruiting campaign he is conducting to-day.

The reporter opens the interview with the remark: “We usually associate the qualities and character of a man with those of his friends”—a wordy paraphrase of a terse Irish saying: “Tell me your company and I’ll tell you your character.” The application in the present instance is striking. The association with such glaring frauds upon the working class as those given in the list above is a fair indication of the character and attitude of those deliberately seeking such association—as Lehane has done.

One of our correspondents sends us some statements Lehane made at a meeting in Detroit, Michigan, and they bear out completely the character one would be led to expect from such companions. Thus he is reported to have said, among other things:

“We do things different in Ireland, There we have ONE GREAT UNION, which includes everybody, from bank managers to the ordinary labourer.

For instance, this is the way we organise in Ireland. In Sligo there are docks, and instead of having the members go out to find the jobs they go to the union headquarters, and the bosses telephone for the number of hands they want. We then send the men, and when the work is finished the men DON’T GET PAID, but the union gets the money and DIVIDES IT BETWEEN ALL THE MEN, WHETHER THEY WORKED OR NOT.”

If such a travesty of a union should ever exist it is clear that it would only be an agency of the masters, as, apart from other points, it would be quite illegal to pay such wages to the union. Of course, no one on this side of the Atlantic has ever heard of such a comic-opera organisation, even in Ireland, while the ruthless and  successful actions of the bosses in Belfast, Dublin, etc, where the men were completely defeated under Larkin’s leadership, show how stupid a liar is Lehane.

When he said he “knew France well” because “he had been in Brussels,” he was simply illuminating his appalling ignorance, that would appear to be matched only by his colossal conceit.

Another absurd statement was that: “Before the end of the war we are going to establish the Co-operative Commonwealth in Ireland,” and “in case we have to fight we will be able to use our Citizen Army which consists of 4,700 men armed with Springfield rifles and 3 machine guns.” To give the measure of this statement it is only necessary to say that England has over 4,000,000 men under arms at the present moment; large numbers are also joining every day—either from fear of the sack or conscription—her navy is larger now than ever in its history; her munitions of war, despite all the muddling, are amazing in quantity; and her credit good in all neutral countries. To pretend to pit 4,700 men, even if armed with Springfield rifles (that are inferior to the British service rifle) and 3 machine guns against this powerful combination of forces is not even farcical—it is utterly idiotic.

The cream of the joke, however, is the ironic fact that, except for the purpose of putting a rapid end to the rising, the English Government need not move a single soldier or gunboat to crush it. When the Home Rule Bill was passing through Parliament a great deal of bluff and bluster was indulged in by both “Unionists” and “Home Rulers” and both sides began to raise and arm “Volunteer” forces to fight over the question. Large claims were made as to the numbers each had—sometimes figures of over 100,000 men on each side being given. The War came and then these “opposing” forces joined in their declaration to fight the German and sent men to the Front. In a newspaper controversy a short time ago each side claimed to have sent over 30,000 men. to the Army—a rather nasty knock to their previous bluff. The important point, however, is that these 60,000 “Volunteers” would readily combine to shoot down the 1,700 men of the “Citizen” Army to whose objects and views they are strongly opposed. The English Government could therefore easily win by merely setting one set of Irishmen against the other, as they did at Dublin and elsewhere.

The “New York World” of July 3rd, 1915 quotes from an address by Lehane to the American Labour unions where he states that: “The moment that the first British officer places his hand on the shoulder of an Irish working-man to draft him for war will be the moment when the socialist revolution which has been brewing in Ireland for years will break out.” This statement shows either an astounding ignorance of the conditions in Ireland or else the lengths to which Lehane is prepared to go in his attempts to bluff the workers of America.

In the fulsome flattery poured out, in the interview published in the “Call” we are told: “Perhaps no man of his time has brought more worthy recruits to the ranks of the International Socialist movement.”

It would be interesting to know the reporter’s reasons for such a claim. How baseless is the boast is best shown by the fact that the recruits Lehane could in any sense claim to be responsible for were those members of the Islington Branch who, sheep like, followed him into—and out of—that Branch without ever having understood the principles of Socialism.

Doubtless the difficulty he found in getting hold of a soft job over here has been the decisive factor in his journeying to the wider land of the West, where, thousands of miles from those who know him, he may fancy himself free from any danger of exposure while gulling and exploiting the workers there. And for a time, under the peculiarly suitable patronage of the “Socialist” Party of America he may succeed in his mission. But sooner or later the truth will catch him up and our repudiation of his claims upon our work and organisation lay him bare for what he is.

Ed. Com.

Blogger's Note:

Some further biographical information on Lehane — from a non-party source — at the following link.

The Late Dispute in Islington. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Statement by the E.C.

R.B. (Goodmayes.)—The matter stands thus—A number of members of the Islington Branch were found guilty, by a party vote, of action detrimental to the interests of the organisation and injurious to the cause of Socialism, and they were expelled therefore. They now refuse, we understand, to accept the Party’s decision, and still pose as members of the Islington Branch. This is ludicrous enough, but when at the same time that they are asserting their membership, they proclaim to the world that the Party is rotten and corrupt, the matter becomes sheer farce. We regret exceedingly that our late comrades should place themselves in so deplorably ridiculous a position, but that is their business, not ours. Our business is to warn everybody concerned against the false pretence they make of membership of the S.P.G.B.

The above paragraph which, in answer to a correspondent, appeared in the Socialist Standard of December, 1906, caused several other enquiries to reach this office, and in reply to them we publish the following statement in accordance with the notice which appeared in the January issue. The facts of the case are as follows : A certain branch—the members of which have since been expelled and the branch dissolved—submitted a certain resolution to an annual conference of the Party. The resolution after being discussed was defeated. A vote of the Party was afterwards taken as to whether the conference was in order in discussing the matter at all. The Party vote ruled the conference out of order, and this decision was submitted to and accepted by every branch of the Party. The Islington Branch was not content to leave the matter thus ; it first of all requested a formal withdrawal of the resolution in question. The E.C. answered that as the branch concerned had accepted the finding of the Party vote it was unnecessary to proceed any further in the matter. The Islington Branch was not satisfied with this, however, but instead of requesting the E.C. to take a vote of the Party as to whether the branch in question should be asked to rescind the resolution complained of, or endeavouring to obtain the support of five other branches to compel the E.C. to do so— both of which alternatives were open to it within the constitution of the Party—the Islington Branch, because the E.C. would not insist on “the removal of the said resolution from the books of the branch concerned” (which would have involved the falsification of the branch’s records), accused the E.C. of criminal neglect, and forthwith stopped all propaganda work, thus violating the Party’s rules, which reserve to the E.C. the supervision of the work of the Party. It then proceeded to endeavour to depose the E.C., but signally failed to get the necessary support from the Party membership. 

The E.C. meantime could do nothing but place the matter before the Party. Our rules do not allow our E.C. to expel any member or any branch, but provide for the Party members settling all disputes themselves.

The E.C., therefore, under the only rule of the Party’s constitution governing disputes between E.C. and branches, (Rule XIX) placed the matter in the hands of the Party. In accordance with this Rule the case came on for hearing at the next Delegate Meeting of the Party. Islington was officially represented by its own delegate, and six of its members were present. No delegate of any branch had instructions to vote for Islington’s expulsion, but when the case for the E.C. was heard and Islington’s delegate would not even try to defend the branch’s actions, and when the six members who were present were asked to speak either for their branch, or on their own behalf, and further when one of them (Mr. Lehane) was told that he was the prime mover in, and cause of, all the trouble, and was challenged to deny it and defend himself and his branch, and when he and the others were unable to say a single word in defence either of themselves or their branch, or in support of the charges they had made against the E.C., the delegates present took their silence as evidence of their having no defence, and as an insult to the whole Party.

Acting under rule XXII, the only rule in the Party’s constitution governing Delegate Meetings, the delegates proposed a resolution calling for a vote of the Party as to whether the members of the Islington Branch supporting its attitude should be expelled the Party. Every delegate present voted for this except the Islington delegate. The resolution was submitted to the Party vote and an overwhelming majority voted for expulsion.

The E.C., therefore, had to declare them expelled the Party.

Even this did not satisfy them, and. refusing to accept the majority vote of the Party, they proceeded to “expose” the Party to the general public, and. while declaring the Party to be rotten and corrupt, etc.. still claimed and boasted of membership in it.

Two pamphlets, compiled by Mr. Lehane, have been issued to expose the “rottenness” of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. These pamphlets carry their own refutation, and as we have no intention of lowering the tone of the Socialist Standard—a tone Mr. Lehane was justly proud of when he was in the Party—to the level of the “Political Comic Cuts” or the “Penny Prevaricator,” nor any desire to insult the intelligence of our readers, we respectfully decline to treat seriously the garbage served up in those productions. This much only need we add : Mr. Lehane was for a considerable time our general secretary. In office he proved a good servant to a party which, however, could not and cannot tolerate a master, good, bad or indifferent. Being, however, in that position, Mr. Lehane knew the Party thoroughly from its very centre, and therefore we can only accept the weakness of his “exposure” as a glowing-testimony to our strength. The whole dispute was as unfortunate as it was unnecessary, and we have no wish to prolong the agony or embitter personal feelings in the matter. It has, however, proved that the membership of the S.P.G.B., much though it may appreciate and love its public champions, loves the Principles of Socialism more, and that hero worship, or on the other hand, personalities, can have no place in its propaganda.

Knowing this, we are confident that many of those with whom we have had so recently to differ will soon be with us again, fighting in the ranks where all are fighters but none are leaders.

The Islington dispute. (1907)

Party News from the January 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

A statement dealing with the expulsion by the Socialist Party of Great Britain of certain members of the Islington Branch of the Party will appear in the February issue of the Socialist Standard.

The S.P.G.B. Lecture List June (1906)

Party News from the June 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bebel and the S.P.G.B. (1906)

From the April 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondence arising out of a telegram on the results of the Parliamentary elections, sent by the leader of the German Social Democratic Party to “Reynolds’s Newspaper.”

______________

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, 

la, Caledonian Road, London, N.

17th February, 1906.

A. Bebel,

Per Addresse “Vorwaerts,” 

68/9 Lindenstrasse, Berlin.

Dear Comrade,

I am instructed by the Executive Committee to forward to you the enclosed cutting from Reynolds’s Newspaper of Sunday, January 28th, 1906, containing text and translation of a telegram alleged to have been sent by you to the paper in question.

The Executive Committee will be glad if you will kindly state whether such a telegram was sent by you, and in the event of a telegram having been sent, whether it is correctly reproduced in the attached cutting.

Awaiting your reply,

Yours fraternally,

(Signed) C. Lehane,

General Secretary.

______________

HERR BEBEL .
TO “REYNOLDS’S.”
IMPORTANT TELEGRAM. —YESTERDAY.

Herr Bebel, the famous leader of the Social Democratic party in the German Parliament, sent a telegram yesterday to Reynolds’s Newspaper, in reply to a request for his opinion on the results of the General Election. His reply was as follows :—

I welcome the result of the elections as a genuine sign of the desire of the British people for a friendly understanding in foreign affairs, and as a progressive development in domestic affairs. In any case the decision of the voting implies a cold douche for Jingoes with us and with you. On the other hand, with regard to the signs of progress in domestic affairs, I dare not, after old experiences, express an opinion until I know more.

______________

German Imperial Parliament,

Berlin, February 20th, 1906.

Dear Comrade,

The telegram corresponds with the wording of that sent by me. By way of explanation I wish to state that concerning “progress internally” I have above all in mind possible progress in the amelioration of the working class position. Here I also regard the Liberal Party with distrust.

With fraternal greetings.

(Signed) A. Bebel.

______________

The Socialist Party of Great Britain,

London, 9th March, 1906.

A. Bebel,

German Imperial Parliament, Berlin.

Dear Comrade,

I am directed by the Executive Committee to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 20th ult. regarding your telegram to Reynolds’s Newspaper.

The Executive Committee of The Socialist Party of Great Britain wishes to enter its emphatic protest against your action in this matter. The opinion you expressed in the telegram is not in accord with the Socialist position in this country, as set forth in the manifesto (entitled “Why Vote?”) issued by this Party in January last, copy enclosed. Reynolds’s Newspaper is a capitalist organ which has used your telegram against the Socialists and in support of the Liberals.

The Executive Committee regrets that occasion should have arisen to evoke this protest, but the sentiments to which you have given utterance in welcoming Liberalism to political power as an indication of progress in foreign or domestic affairs are such as to leave no other course open. Nationally and internationally there is but one Party to which we can look for progress, and that is the Socialist Party, but Socialism will triumph only by the overthrow of Liberalism in Britain and elsewhere.

Copies of this letter are being forwarded to the German Social-Democratic Party, International Socialist Bureau, and “Vorwaerts.”

Yours fraternally,

(Signed) C. Lehane, 

General Secretary.

______________

Translated from “Vorwaerts” of March l5th, 1906:

Relating to this matter Comrade Bebel writes us:—

Immediately on the conclusion of the English Parliamentary elections, I received a telegram from the Editorial Department of Reynolds’s Newspaper requesting me to communicate to them my views concerning the result. For this purpose a prepaid telegram form that afforded me the scope of 120 words for my reply was placed at my disposal. As the character of Reynolds’s Newspaper was known to me as that of a bourgeois paper, I at first entertained misgivings as to the advisability of sending a reply. Eventually I dispelled these doubts and sent off the telegram reprinted above.

But I am not a little astonished at the importance the Executive Committee of The Socialist Party of Great Britain attaches to my telegram. When describing the result of the English elections as designating a state of mind of the British people in favour of a peaceable development of affairs externally and conducive to progress internally, I could not, had I been, dreaming, have understood by that only the result in favour of the Liberals, and could not possibly have overlooked the result of the elections in favour of the Socialist Party. The total effect of the elections has the result pointed out by me—the protest raised does not in any way alter my views, which may be characterised in three directions:—

1. Definite disavowal of the protective tariff proposals of Mr. Chamberlain and his colleagues.

2. Renunciation of Jingoism and Chauvinism which have developed more and more under the Conservative regime.

3. Furtherance of progress in the social legislation of England, mainly due to the entrance of representatives of the Socialist Party into Parliament.

In the concluding sentence of my telegram, I certainly expressed distrust as to whether hopes of this kind would be realised in face of the Liberal majority in Parliament.

How the Executive Committee of The Socialist Party of Great Britain could gather from my telegram that I failed to recognise that real progress, internationally and at home, could only be achieved by Socialism, is also a riddle to me. Let no one ascribe to me what, in consideration of my past career, nobody dare impute.

I am not aware in what way Reynolds’s Newspaper has used my telegram against my comrades in England. The loyal interpretation of my telegram that I had reason to expect from the Editorial Department of that journal would have made it impossible. If I have been mistaken in this respect, I am sorry.

(Signed) A. Bebel.

Schoeneberg-Berlin, March 13th, 1906.

______________

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, 

la, Caledonian Road, London, N.

22nd. March, 1906.

To the Editors, ” Vorwaerts” Berlin.

Dear Comrades,

The questions raised in the telegram sent by Comrade Bebel to Reynolds’s Newspaper and further elaborated by our Comrade in his reply published by Vorwaerts to the protest which the Executive Committee of The Socialist Party of Great Britain felt constrained to enter, are of such serious importance to us here in England and we believe also to the whole international Socialist movement that the Executive Committee desires through the columns of Vorwaerts to deal with the position taken up by Comrade Bebel in this matter.

Let us say at the outset that far from desiring to inconsiderately impute to Comrade Bebel sentiments out of harmony with his record as a fighter in the ranks of Socialism, it was with feelings of pain that we found it necessary to send our protest, recollecting as we did that it was Comrade Bebel who at the International Socialist Congress (Amsterdam, 1904) strongly supported the ”Dresden Resolution” which decisively affirmed our tried and victorious policy based on the class struggle, condemned every attempt to mask the ever-growing class antagonisms, rejected all responsibility of any sort under political and economic conditions based on capitalist production, and discountenanced any measure tending to maintain the dominant class in power; but, having regard to the position laid down in the Dresden Resolution, we deemed it our imperative duty to call attention to an action, to which Comrade Bebel does not appear to attach much importance but to which Reynolds’s Newspaper gave the greatest possible prominence, in the hope that we would in future be saved from the humiliation of seeing the lesson which we have been hard endeavouring to inculcate into the minds of the British working class repudiated by a prominent continental Comrade in the columns of one of the most dangerous organs of Capitalism in this country.

Here we wish to observe that although we called Comrade Bebel’s attention to the manifesto (“Why Vote ?”) issued by The Socialist Party of Great Britain in January last, he has not even hinted at the truth or falsity of the arguments therein set forth. A correct comprehension of the nature of our protest is perhaps impossible unless the position taken up in iliai manifesto is known and appreciated.

Regarding the telegram which is the subject of this correspondence, there is absolutely nothing in it to suggest that the sender was a Socialist, and had it not been announced by Reynolds’s Newspaper that the message had been sent by Comrade Bebel no one would have suspected that this was a pronouncement made by a recognized spokesman of Socialism. On the contrary, the telegram might well be supposed without taxing the imaginative faculty, to have been sent by an ordinary bourgeois radical. Indeed, far from crediting this message to have emanated from Comrade Bebel, and well knowing how erroneous it might be on our part to rely on the mere assertion of a journal like Reynolds’s Newspaper that the published wording was the actual text of the telegram sent, we decided in the first instance to send direct to our Comrade the complete cutting from Reynolds’s Newspaper in order that we might ascertain the authenticity and accuracy of the published message.

We received from Comrade Bebel a letter confirming the telegram and at the same time volunteering the information that as to “progress internally” he had particularly in mind possible progress in the betterment of the position of the working class. The fact that our Comrade thought it necessary to explain a certain part of his telegram would seem to indicate that he himself realised that his message was not explicit in at least this particular, and the further fact that in his statement already published in Vorwaerts he introduced matters not referred to in the telegram serves to shew that he recognises the incompleteness of the position he at first laid down.

In his reply to our letter published in Vorwaerts Comrade Bebel states that his telegram described the result of the English elections as designating a state of mind of the British people ; to this we have raised no objection but we would point out that what we have called attention to was that the telegram also indicated on the part of Comrade Bebel a state of mind which was in our opinion unsatisfactory m so far as it “welcomed” as a sign of progress that result. The concluding sentence of the telegram did certainly express doubt as to whether the expectations of progress would be fulfilled, but similar doubts and in stronger language haver been more than once expressed by Reynolds’s Newspaper itself. That, however, dues not prove the Editor of Reynolds’s Newspaper to be a Socialist. Surely, we are justified in expecting from our comrade an expression of opinion which would convey something more than a doubt as to the power or inclination of the Liberal Party of Capitalism to ameliorate the condition of the working class ? The members of The Socialist Party of Great Britain at any rate entertain no doubts on the matter. British Liberalism is an enemy, and we expect nothing from an enemy but hostility.

Comrade Bebel avers that in sending his telegram he had in mind not merely the result in favour of the Liberals, but also the result in favour of the Socialist Party. Here the result of the elections is regarded as an overwhelming triumph for Liberalism or Radicalism, and as the telegram did not contain any reference to Socialism, it was open to the render to understand that our Comrade sympathised with the Radical victory. We have again perused the telegram and find our impressions in no way altered. In this connection it is well to point out that it is a common practice among capitalist journals in Britain to describe German Socialism as a bourgeois Radical movement, and when we here preach the class struggle they tell us that we are not in accord with the German movement. In the issue of Reynolds’s Newspaper containing Comrade Bebel’s telegram, an editorial article in the column preceding that which was boldly headed by the telegram, points out that “a Socialist in theory is a Radical in practice,” and the publication of the telegram as an ”important” message was calculated to support this position. In that issue, also, is reproduced part of our “Why Vote ?” manifesto, and the obvious contradiction between our advice to the working class to abstain from voting altogether in the last General Election (on the grounds that every candidate appealing for their votes was a conscious or un-conscious supporter of capitalism and that, therefore, whatever the result, it could not be beneficial to them) and the position taken up by Comrade Bebel whose telegram greeted the result as an auspicious sign of progress, was just the. kind of thing which has in the past been used to our detriment by the British Radical press.

Our Comrade says he cannot imagine how we could have thought he did not recognise that genuine progress could be achieved except by Socialism, but there is no mention of Socialism in the telegram and the victory of the Liberal Party is the only result referred to.

Regarding Comrade Bebel’s views with reference to the result of the British elections, we wish to make the following comments :

(1) We agree that it might be described as an expression of determination to uphold the Free Trade system. In view, however, of tho fact that as admitted by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman the head of the Liberal and Free Trade Government, there are in Britain to-day thirteen millions of the working class on the verge of starvation although the Free Trade regime has been established for sixty years, it can scarcely be claimed that the workers have much to congratulate themselves upon. As Comrade Bebel knows, it is difficult to say which are the worst off, the workers of Protectionist America or Free Trade Britain. In Germany where Feudalism is still far from being extinct there doubtless exist reasons for interesting the workers in questions of tariff, but here in Britain where industrial Capitalism enjoys full sway, such reasons are inapplicable. Hence we tell the working class that questions of tariff do not affect them.

(2) If the elections shewed a desire on the part of the British people to renounce jingoism, it is a curious fact that in foreign affairs it is the avowed intention of the Liberal Cabinet to continue the policy of the late Tory Government. On the very day that Reuter’s Berlin telegram containing Comrade Bebel’s view as to the abandonment of Jingoism in England was published, there also appeared in the English press the announcement of the refusal of the British Secretary for War to reduce the standing army which is still on the same footing as it was during the South African War. In this refusal the Government were supported by such “Socialist” Members of Parliament as P. Snowden, D. J. Shackleton and W. Crooks. Indeed, there has been no slackening of Jingoism either during or after tne elections. Comrade Bebel has apparently mistaken Liberal professions for Liberal performances. They profess to be the party of peace, but historical records shew that more wars have been carried on in the name of the British nation while the Liberal Party have been in power than while the Tories have held ollice.

(3) We absolutely deny the accuracy of our Comrade’s assertion that progress is to be expected in the social legislation of England due to the entrance into Parliament of representatives of the Socialist Party. Not a single Socialist canidate was elected. It is not at all clear what Comrade Bebel has in mind when he speaks of the “Socialist Party,” but if he refers to the Labour Representation Committee, which is the organisation that returned the so-called Independent Labour members, we wish to inform our Comrade that this organisation declines to recognise any Socialist candidate : it has no principles, no program, and merely a constitution which states that their members shall be independent of the other political parties. The Independent Labour Party, which ran its candidates under the auspices of the Labour Reprsentation Committee, repudiates the class struggle—see their press. J. Keir Hardie, Chairman of the Labour Party in Parliament, denies the class struggle, and J. Ramsay MacDonald, Secretary of the Labour Representation Committee and Parliamentary Whip of the Labour Party, has recently written a book entitled “Socialism and Society,” published by the Independent Labour Party, repudiating the class struggle and ranking Karl Marx as the last of the Utopian Socialists. Those candidates claiming to be Socialists and recognised as such by the International Socialist Congress or International Socialist Bureau, and who were elected, did not stand as Socialists—they are part and parcel of the non-Socialist Labour Party. The Social Democratic Federation, which is claimed by Reynolds’s Newspaper to be “the only genuine Socialistic organisation in the Kingdom,” did not secure the return of a single Socialist candidate.

The Executive Committee of The Socialist Party of Great Britain notes that Comrade Bebel recognises that genuine progress in both domestic and international affairs can be achieved only by the Socialist Party, but regrets that he did not remove any possibility of misconception by utilising for the specific indication of this belief the remaining scope of the one hundred and twenty words prepaid by Reynolds’s Newspaper. Had he have done this, the London organ of bourgeois democracy would be unlikely to have given his message the prominence it did.

The Executive Committee of

The Socialist Party of Great Britain,

(Signed) C. Lehane.

General Secretary.

Blogger's Note:

From the same issue of the Socialist Standard see:

• Bebel's Incursion Into English Politics
• Rampageous "Reynolds's."

Editorial: Rampageous "Reynolds's." (1906)

Editorial from the April 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

With regard to the splutteringly splenetic comments which Reynolds’s Newspaper appears to think the action of our Party in this matter merits, we need only observe that they do not unduly depress us. Curiously enough, we did not expect Reynolds’s to appreciate our protest. We did not suppose, even, that Reynolds’s would understand it. If the hard, cold truth must be told we confess that it was not in our mind that, even presuming Reynolds’s capacity to understand and appreciate a stand for principle, it would have been delighted that the stand should have been made in this particular case. Because if our action secures a wide publicity, and our view obtains a similarly extended endorsement (as we make no doubt it will from those who accept the principle of the class struggle), Reynolds’s stands exposed as merely the capitalist journal it is. This, of course, would not suit Reynolds’s book. It relies largely upon its ability to maintain the fiction that it is a desperately “advanced” organ, at whose voice Re-action halts tremblingly.

So far, therefore, from being abashed by the somewhat subtle sarcasm of its references to “a body calling itself The Socialist Party of Great Britain,” whose secretary, “a Mr. Lehane” etc., or by its crushing denunciation of us as “an obscure sect of Socialist malcontents,” we are almost inclined to hilarity. We cheerfully admit that we are a body calling itself The Socialist Party of Great Britain. We presume to call ourselves that because as a matter of sober fact we are The Socialist Party of Great Britain ! Our secretary is “a Mr. Lehane,” who, as Reynolds’s will be interested to know, we call Comrade Lehane. Also we are Socialist malcontents because there is no other way. If Reynolds’s knows a Socialist who is not a malcontent we should be glad to see him. He would be worth going a long journey to view.

Having gone to this trouble to assure Reynolds’s on these points, perhaps we may now venture to ask a favour for ourselves. That it will be quite an easy request for an organ like Reynolds’s to comply with we are quite ready to believe, although there does seem to be an incomprehensible number of apparently insurmountable difficulties in the way of other, less eminent, organs and persons satisfying our small requirements in the same regard. All we ask is that Reynolds’s will be good enough to slightly abbreviate a few of its Divorce Court reports so that it may find an inch or two of its invaluable space for the publication of the evidence in support of the allegation it has made against us of having sent a misleading letter to Bebel and of largely occupying ourselves with abuse. We should be so much obliged for proof of either or both charges. Would, for example, the extracts from this paper which Reynolds’s has often reproduced with approval contain the abuse? We are sorry to say that we cannot accept, such allegations even from Reynolds’s without some proof.

As it is we are compelled to admit that a complaint of abuse from Reynolds’s comes as refreshingly humourous to us as its rather lumbersome essays in irony. Reynolds’s protesting against abuse is as if the Prince of Darkness protested against the heat !

The valour of discretion. (1906)

From the April 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Southend S.D.F. prefers to ape Brer Rabbit.

In our January number we referred to and answered certain charges made against the Socialist Party of Great Britain by Mr. Doody, speaking for the Southend Branch of the Social Democratic Federation. These charges were the only answer Mr. Doody appears to have been able to make to questions touching the confusing and unsatisfactory tactics of the S.D.F., which were put to him at a public meeting by our Comrade Rogers. As we were, without difficulty, able to shew, the charges were as devoid of foundation as the allegation that Mr. Doody fully understands the only logical position a Socialist Party can adopt. But as Mr. Doody proceeded to challenge our Comrade Fitzgerald to public debate (in an exuberance doubtless born of the knowledge that Fitzgerald was many miles away), we were content to leave the further presentation of our case in justification of our opposition to the S.D.F. and all other similar capitalist adjuncts in the hands of Fitzgerald, confident of his ability to supply those inhabitants of Southend interested in the matter with all the evidence they might require.

Since then, we have been endeavouring to induce the Southend S.D.F. to give effect to the challenge their champion threw out. We publish the correspondence below from which it will be seen that after much hesitation, they elected to deprive Southend of the pleasure of hearing a local character—as we understand Mr. Doody is—attempt to demolish our case. We can only assume that having some not unnatural misapprehension on this score, they sought to stave off possible catastrophe (and us) by proposing to transfer the discussion from Southend to London. But we are always glad of the opportunity a debate offers to vindicate our position to the working class, and we accepted the changed venue. Since when we can get no further communication from them.

This seems to be a case of a challenge in haste repented at leisure and we ask the workers of Southend where we are pleased to know THE SOCIALIST STANDARD has a very good circulation—to observe what manner of men our opponents are and what manner of method they pursue.

The point that Mr. Doody issued the challenge is, it will be seen, disputed, but as our Comrade Rogers sends details of the incidents leading up to the challenge and has a clear recollection of the whole matter, there seems little doubt that Mr. Doody’s memory is faulty. However, the point is probably in the minds ot the audience of the meeting referred to, and need not be laboured.

_______________

1a. Caledonian Road, London, N.

December 27th, 1905.

Dear Comrade,

We are informed by our member Miss Laura Rogers, that a member of the Southend Branch of the Social Democratic Federation, viz., Mr. Thomas Doody, has publicly expressed his desire to meet our comrade John Fitzgerald in public debate and I shall, therefore, feel obliged if you will inform me as soon as possible, as I understand that you are the Secretary of the Southend Branch of the S.D.F., what proposals you have to make with respect to the challenge.

—Yours fraternally.

R. H. Kent. Asst. Sec.

Mr. S. Howard.

Point Loma, Cromer Road. 

Southend-on-Sea.

_______________

la, Caledonian Road, London, N.

January 17th, 1906.

Dear Comrade,

Will you kindly favor us with an early reply to our letter of the 27th December last, respecting the public, challenge issued by your Mr. Thomas Doody to debate with our Comrade Fitzgerald. 

—Yours fraternally.

R. H. Kent. Asst. Sec.

Mr. S. Howard.

Point Loma, Cromer Road,

Southend-on-Sea.

_______________

Point Loma, Cromer Road, Southend-on-Sea.

Jan’y 20th, 1906.

R.H. Kent,

Assist. Sec’y.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Dear Comrade,

In reply to your letter dated the 17th inst. (to hand last night), I wrote a letter to your office on the 18th inst., but not having your letter of the 27th ulto. before me, I inadvertently addressed it to “Miss Kate Hawkins” as Assistant Sec.! However, the following is a copy of it :—

“I much regret the delay in acknowledging the receipt of your letter of some days ago, with reference to a proposed debate. The question put to Mr. T. Doody by your Miss L. Rogers was, ‘Are yon prepared to defend the tactics of the S.D.F.,’ to which the reply ‘ Yes’ was given; and I am instructed to inform you that he is prepared to do so at any time, and anywhere, in London".

Yours fraternally,

S. Howard,

Branch Sec. S.D.F.

_______________

la, Caledonian Road, London, N.

24th January, 1906.

Mr. S. Howard,

Secretary,

Southend Branch, Social-Democratic Federation,

Point Loma, Cromer Road,

Southend-on-Sea.

Dear Comrade.

I am directed by the Executive Committee to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 20th inst., and in doing so to express their very great surprise at the attempt to change the venue of the proposed debate from Southend to London. They instruct me to point out that the challenge arose out of a public meeting held at Southend under the auspices of the Southend Branch of the Social-Democratic Federation, and was accepted, by Mr. T. Doody who, we presume, was your accredited representative at that meeting.

My Executive, therefore, see no reason why the debate should not be held in Southend, and they suggest that it would not be fair to the members of the public who were present at your meeting when the challenge was given and accepted, if they were deprived of the opportunity of hearing the differences between us fully discussed.

I am accordingly instructed to make the following definite proposals to you: —

That the, debate between Mr. T. Doody, representing the Southend Branch of the Social-Democratic Federation, and our comrade J. Fitzgerald, representing the Executive Committee of this Party, should be held in a public hall at Southend at as early a date as can conveniently be arranged:

That admission to the meeting shall be free : that it shall be well advertised by means of posters and handbills ; and that the total expense shall be borne equally between yourselves and this Party.

Kindly favour me with an early reply, so that arrangements can be made without delay.

Yours fraternally,

R. H. Kent,

Asst. Sec.

_______________

Social-Democratic Federation,

Southend-on-Sea Branch,

Southehurch Road.

Feb. 1st, 1906.

Dear Comrade,

Your letter of the 24th ulto. received, and the same shall be laid before my Branch on the 7th inst.

Yours fraternally,

S. Howard,

Branch Sec.

_______________

Social-Democratic Federation,

Southend-on-Sea Branch,

Southehurch Road. Sunday,

Feb. 18th, 1906.

The Secretary,

Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Comrade,

I reply to your communication of the 24th January. I am instructed to say that my Committee do not see that any good can be gained by having a debate here. Your Party has no branch, and under all the circumstances, if the debate is to take place, it must, as stated in a previous letter to you, be somewhere in London where you have a branch or branches.

Yours fraternally,

P. Pro Branch Committee,

J. Adams.

_______________

la. Caledonian Road, London, N.

24th Feb., 1906.

Mr. J. Adams,

Southend-on-Sea Branch.

Social Democratic Federation, Southchurch Road,

Southend-on-Sea.

Dear Comrade,

Your letter of the 18th inst. was laid before the Executive Committee on Tuesday last, and in reply I am instructed to inform you that the correspondence will be published.

I am further directed to state that the E.C. accepts your offer to debate in London, also your offer to debate in Southend as soon as a branch of this Party is formed in Southend.

Please let us know the dates on which your Mr. Doody could come to London, in order that arrangements may be made for the debate here.

Yours fraternally,

C. Lehane,

General Secretary.