[29] See _Annual Report Home Office_, 1909-1910.

[30] _Ibid._

[31] The money for these things he proposed to raise by taxes, and especially by a tax on land values.

[32] CHIOZZA MONEY, _Riches and Poverty_, p. 82.

No. of Owners Cla.s.s of Owners Acres owned 400 Peers and peeresses 5,729,927 1,288 Great landowners 8,497,699 2,529 Squires{1} 4,319,271 9,589 Greater yeomen{1} 4,782,627 24,412 Lesser yeomen{1} 4,144,272 217,049 Small proprietors 3,931,806 703,289 Cottagers 151,148 14,459 Public bodies 1,443,548 Waste lands 1,524,624 ------- --------- 973,015 34,524,922

{1} This cla.s.sification is purely arbitrary.

[33] _Op. cit._, p. 91.

[34] The leaseholder is burdened with "rack-rent" and "premiums"; when the lease expires the improvements revert to the landlord. There has been, for years, a well-organized Single-Tax movement in England that points to the evils of this land system as conclusive proof of the validity of Henry George's theory.

[35] One of the choruses popular with the great throngs that paraded the streets in that eager campaign is full of significance. It was sung to the tune of "Marching through Georgia."

"The land, the land, 'twas G.o.d who gave the land; The land, the land, the ground on which we stand; Why should we be beggars, with the ballot in our hand?

G.o.d gave the land to the people."

[36] During the debate on the second reading in the House of Commons, the writer one day counted twenty members on the benches, and a labor member called the attention of the Speaker to the fact that "in this hour of const.i.tutional crisis only twenty brave men are found willing to defend the prerogatives of the realm!"

[37] Some of the Fabians, nevertheless, fought the bill, and their champion, Bernard Shaw, called Lloyd George's effort "The premature attempt of a sentimental amateur."

[38] In 1909 the Labor Party claimed credit for the following measures pa.s.sed during the Parliamentary session of that year:

"(1) The grant of an additional 200,000 ($1,000,000) for the unemployed, and the extraction of a promise that, if it was insufficient, 'more would be forthcoming.'

"(2) The pa.s.sing of the Trades Boards Bill--the first effective step against 'sweating.'

"(3) The smashing of the bill authorizing the amalgamation of three great railways.

"(4) A discussion, protest, and vote against the visit of b.l.o.o.d.y Nicholas, the Tsar. The Labor Party's amendments secured 70 supporters, whilst only 187 members of the British Parliament were dirty enough to support the Tsar's visit.

"(5) The introduction of the Shop Hours Bill and the extortion of a promise that it shall be adopted by the government and pa.s.sed."--From a campaign pamphlet, _The Labor Party in Parliament_, p. 20.

[39] See _Wanted--A Program: An Appeal to the Liberal Party_. S. WEBB, London, 1888.

[40] See article by PROFESSOR HOBHOUSE, on "Democracy in England,"

_Atlantic Monthly_, February, 1912.

[41] J.A. HOBSON, _The Crisis of Liberalism_, p. 93.

[42] L.T. HOBHOUSE, _Democracy and Reaction_, p. 230.

[43] See "Report Eighteenth Annual Conference, I.L.P.," 1910, p. 59.

[44] _Supra cit._, p. 71.

Some of the I.L.P. members are Continental in their views. The president of the party used these words in his address, 1910: "All this jiggery-pokery of party government played like a game for ascendency and power is no use to us" (_supra cit._, p. 35). The discipline of the Labor Party was unable to keep half a dozen of its ablest debaters from fighting the Insurance Bill. The reversion of the radical Socialist element to the I.L.P. is by some observers considered not unlikely. Then the liberal or _reformiste_ element will become either a faction of the Liberal-Radical party or melt entirely away as the Chartists did in 1844.

[45] This was the language used in the amendment moved in January, 1911.

[46] See _Parliamentary Debates_, 5th series, vol. 21, February 10, 1911.

[47] The Socialist workmen always resent the activity of the police and soldiers during strikes. In 1888 F. Engels wrote to an American friend: "The police brutalities in Trafalgar Square have done wonders in helping to widen the gap between the workingmen Radicals and the middle-cla.s.s Liberals and Radicals." (See _Briefe und Auszuge aus Briefen von Fr. Engels u. A._, Stuttgart, 1906.)

One of the incidents of the debate over the railway strike in the House of Commons was a clash between Lloyd George, the Liberal leader, and Keir Hardie, the Socialist. Keir Hardie had made inflammatory speeches to striking workmen, and for this the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave him a terrific and unmerciful flaying. (See _Parliamentary Debates_, 5th series, vol. 29, Aug. 22, 1911.)

[48] J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: speech delivered at Edinburgh, 1909.

[49] See J. RAMSAY MACDONALD, _The Socialist Movement_, pp. 150-7.

[50] G.B. SHAW, Preface to "Fabian Tracts."

[51] See LLOYD GEORGE'S famous "Limehouse Speech."

[52] L.T. HOBHOUSE, _Democracy and Reaction_, p. 237.

[53] BROUGHAM VILLIERS, _The Opportunity of Liberalism_, Preface.

[54] See article by Secretary PEASE, of the Fabians, on the Fabian Society, _T.P.'s Magazine_, February, 1911.

[55] J.A. HOBSON, _The Crisis of Liberalism_, p. 156.

CHAPTER X

CONCLUSION

We have now concluded our survey of the political activities of Socialism in the four countries that present the most characteristic features of this movement of the working cla.s.ses. It is peculiarly difficult to draw general conclusions from the study of a movement so protean. Democracy is young; Socialism is in its early infancy.

Is there a rational trend in Socialism? Or is it only a pa.s.sing whim of the ma.s.ses? Is it a crude theory, an earnest protest, a powerful propaganda? Or is it a current of human conviction so strong, so deep-flowing that it will be resistless?

It is futile to deny the power of the Socialist movement. The greatest proof of its virility is its ability to break away from Marxian dogma and from the fantasies of the utopists, and acknowledge mundane ways and means. In spite of this earthiness, it still has its fanciful abstractions. Some of its prophets are still glibly proclaiming a new order,--as if society were artificial, like a house, and could be torn down piecemeal or by dynamite, and then rebuilt to suit the vagaries of a new owner.

On the other hand, a portion of the Socialists are learning that society is a living thing that can be shaped only by training, like the mind of a child. Socialism, as a whole, is metamorphosing. Some of its vicious eccentricities, like the ravings against religion and the espousal of free love, have already vanished. It is learning that inst.i.tutions are the product of ages, not of movements, and cannot be changed at the fancy of every new and disgruntled social prophet.

The best school for Socialism has been the school of parliamentary activity. Here the hot-blooded protesters become sober artisans of statecraft. We have seen how the early utopian ideas, with their edenesque theory of the guilelessness of man, were abruptly exchanged for the theory of violence, based on the materialistic conception of the universe and of man. Neither the soft humanities of the utopists nor the blood and thunder of revolution overturned the existing state.

But when the workingmen appeared in parliaments, then things began to change.

In every country where the Socialists have entered parliament, they appeared suddenly, in considerable numbers. So in France, Germany, England, Belgium, Austria. And they always produced a flutter, often a scare, among the conservatives. They were an untried force. Their preachings of violence and their antagonism to property made them an unknown quant.i.ty, to be feared, and not to be lightly handled--a bomb of political dynamite that might explode any moment and scatter the product of ages into fragments!

But no explosion came. And one more example of the persistence of human nature was added to the long annals of history.