FOOTNOTES:[1]Note for example the action of the Irish Members in securing the exclusion of Convent Laundries from the operation of the Factory Acts—action of which every enlightened Roman Catholic, to whom I have spoken of it, has expressed strong disapproval.[2]Social Democracy and the Armed Nation, Twentieth Century Press, 37a Clerkenwell Green, E.C. 1d.[3]Fabianism and the Empire, edited by Bernard Shaw, the Fabian Society, 3, Clements Inn, W.C. 3d.[4]There is one of Mr. Blatchford’s proposals to which I feel the strongest possible objection; that is the suggestion that those who do not volunteer for his citizen force should pay extra taxation. This sounds fair enough, no doubt, but its effect would clearly be that the rich could escape service and the poor could not—which is hardly a Socialist ideal. Surely it is sounder policy to make such citizen training as you give compulsory for all able-bodied citizens.[5]Since these pages were sent to the press a striking confirmation of my view has been furnished by recent occurrences in Russia. There, it will be remembered, the populace (acting on strictly Tolstoian principles) marchedunarmedto lay their grievances before their Sovereign. We all know what happened. They were shot down and cut to pieces by Cossacks. One hopes that the survivors will be less faithful to Count Tolstoi’s gospel in the future, and will perhaps realise that “moral force” is an exceedingly poor protection against bullets and bayonets.[6]Lest I should be accused of “sitting on the fence” (a phrase much beloved by those who always want to have judgment first and evidence afterwards) I may as well state definitely that in my opinion a protective tariff, if framed by genuine reformers solely in the public interest, would be decidedly advantageous to Labour.[7]I omit mention of the proviso whereby certain Non-County Boroughs and Urban District Councils have authority over Elementary but not over Higher Education. The concession was a most unfortunate one, but it does not affect the general drift of my argument.[8]The gentleman in question announced, if I remember rightly that he proposed to avoid this misunderstanding by showing in his front garden a placard with the inscription—“MY GOODS ARE BEING SOLD TO PROMOTE RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.”—a remarkably candid confession![9]The Case for Municipal Drinkby E. R. Pease (King & Son).[10]The Labour Party might also take up the question of the development of Crown Lands (especially those containing minerals), to which Mr. Sheridan Jones has lately been drawing public attention.[11]A good illustration of this may be obtained by comparing the two by-elections which have taken place since the present parliament was elected, in North-East Lanarkshire. In both cases a typical orthodox Unionist and a typical orthodox Labourite were in the field. But the Liberal candidates were of a very different type in the two cases. In September 1901 (while the South African War was still in progress) the Liberal candidate was Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, of the “Daily Mail,” an Imperialist of so pronounced a kind that all the organs of the Anti-Imperialist press and many of the Leaders of Anti-Imperialist Liberalism advised the electors to vote for the Labour candidate. This year on the other hand the Liberal candidate was a strictly orthodox Liberal who succeeded in uniting all sections of the party. I give the figures for both elections.By-election 26/9/01.Sir W. Rattigan (U) 5673Mr. C. Harmsworth (L) 4769Mr. R. Smillie (Lab) 2900By-election 10/5/04.Mr. Finlay (L) 5619Mr. Touch (U) 4677Mr. Robertson (Lab) 3984The noticeable thing about these figures is the enormous increase in the Labour poll. It may reasonably be supposed that the fulminations of a large section of representative Liberal opinion against Mr. Harmsworth produced some effect on the voting, and one may therefore take it that a fair number of electors, who voted for Mr. Smillie in 1901, voted for Mr. Finlay in 1904. Yet Mr. Robertson’s gain is far greater than Mr. Finlay’s. This can only mean that a large number of working men, who, in time of war voted for the Tory Imperialist candidate, voted for the Labour candidate in time of peace.
[1]Note for example the action of the Irish Members in securing the exclusion of Convent Laundries from the operation of the Factory Acts—action of which every enlightened Roman Catholic, to whom I have spoken of it, has expressed strong disapproval.
[1]Note for example the action of the Irish Members in securing the exclusion of Convent Laundries from the operation of the Factory Acts—action of which every enlightened Roman Catholic, to whom I have spoken of it, has expressed strong disapproval.
[2]Social Democracy and the Armed Nation, Twentieth Century Press, 37a Clerkenwell Green, E.C. 1d.
[2]Social Democracy and the Armed Nation, Twentieth Century Press, 37a Clerkenwell Green, E.C. 1d.
[3]Fabianism and the Empire, edited by Bernard Shaw, the Fabian Society, 3, Clements Inn, W.C. 3d.
[3]Fabianism and the Empire, edited by Bernard Shaw, the Fabian Society, 3, Clements Inn, W.C. 3d.
[4]There is one of Mr. Blatchford’s proposals to which I feel the strongest possible objection; that is the suggestion that those who do not volunteer for his citizen force should pay extra taxation. This sounds fair enough, no doubt, but its effect would clearly be that the rich could escape service and the poor could not—which is hardly a Socialist ideal. Surely it is sounder policy to make such citizen training as you give compulsory for all able-bodied citizens.
[4]There is one of Mr. Blatchford’s proposals to which I feel the strongest possible objection; that is the suggestion that those who do not volunteer for his citizen force should pay extra taxation. This sounds fair enough, no doubt, but its effect would clearly be that the rich could escape service and the poor could not—which is hardly a Socialist ideal. Surely it is sounder policy to make such citizen training as you give compulsory for all able-bodied citizens.
[5]Since these pages were sent to the press a striking confirmation of my view has been furnished by recent occurrences in Russia. There, it will be remembered, the populace (acting on strictly Tolstoian principles) marchedunarmedto lay their grievances before their Sovereign. We all know what happened. They were shot down and cut to pieces by Cossacks. One hopes that the survivors will be less faithful to Count Tolstoi’s gospel in the future, and will perhaps realise that “moral force” is an exceedingly poor protection against bullets and bayonets.
[5]Since these pages were sent to the press a striking confirmation of my view has been furnished by recent occurrences in Russia. There, it will be remembered, the populace (acting on strictly Tolstoian principles) marchedunarmedto lay their grievances before their Sovereign. We all know what happened. They were shot down and cut to pieces by Cossacks. One hopes that the survivors will be less faithful to Count Tolstoi’s gospel in the future, and will perhaps realise that “moral force” is an exceedingly poor protection against bullets and bayonets.
[6]Lest I should be accused of “sitting on the fence” (a phrase much beloved by those who always want to have judgment first and evidence afterwards) I may as well state definitely that in my opinion a protective tariff, if framed by genuine reformers solely in the public interest, would be decidedly advantageous to Labour.
[6]Lest I should be accused of “sitting on the fence” (a phrase much beloved by those who always want to have judgment first and evidence afterwards) I may as well state definitely that in my opinion a protective tariff, if framed by genuine reformers solely in the public interest, would be decidedly advantageous to Labour.
[7]I omit mention of the proviso whereby certain Non-County Boroughs and Urban District Councils have authority over Elementary but not over Higher Education. The concession was a most unfortunate one, but it does not affect the general drift of my argument.
[7]I omit mention of the proviso whereby certain Non-County Boroughs and Urban District Councils have authority over Elementary but not over Higher Education. The concession was a most unfortunate one, but it does not affect the general drift of my argument.
[8]The gentleman in question announced, if I remember rightly that he proposed to avoid this misunderstanding by showing in his front garden a placard with the inscription—“MY GOODS ARE BEING SOLD TO PROMOTE RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.”—a remarkably candid confession!
[8]The gentleman in question announced, if I remember rightly that he proposed to avoid this misunderstanding by showing in his front garden a placard with the inscription—
“MY GOODS ARE BEING SOLD TO PROMOTE RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.”
—a remarkably candid confession!
[9]The Case for Municipal Drinkby E. R. Pease (King & Son).
[9]The Case for Municipal Drinkby E. R. Pease (King & Son).
[10]The Labour Party might also take up the question of the development of Crown Lands (especially those containing minerals), to which Mr. Sheridan Jones has lately been drawing public attention.
[10]The Labour Party might also take up the question of the development of Crown Lands (especially those containing minerals), to which Mr. Sheridan Jones has lately been drawing public attention.
[11]A good illustration of this may be obtained by comparing the two by-elections which have taken place since the present parliament was elected, in North-East Lanarkshire. In both cases a typical orthodox Unionist and a typical orthodox Labourite were in the field. But the Liberal candidates were of a very different type in the two cases. In September 1901 (while the South African War was still in progress) the Liberal candidate was Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, of the “Daily Mail,” an Imperialist of so pronounced a kind that all the organs of the Anti-Imperialist press and many of the Leaders of Anti-Imperialist Liberalism advised the electors to vote for the Labour candidate. This year on the other hand the Liberal candidate was a strictly orthodox Liberal who succeeded in uniting all sections of the party. I give the figures for both elections.By-election 26/9/01.Sir W. Rattigan (U) 5673Mr. C. Harmsworth (L) 4769Mr. R. Smillie (Lab) 2900By-election 10/5/04.Mr. Finlay (L) 5619Mr. Touch (U) 4677Mr. Robertson (Lab) 3984The noticeable thing about these figures is the enormous increase in the Labour poll. It may reasonably be supposed that the fulminations of a large section of representative Liberal opinion against Mr. Harmsworth produced some effect on the voting, and one may therefore take it that a fair number of electors, who voted for Mr. Smillie in 1901, voted for Mr. Finlay in 1904. Yet Mr. Robertson’s gain is far greater than Mr. Finlay’s. This can only mean that a large number of working men, who, in time of war voted for the Tory Imperialist candidate, voted for the Labour candidate in time of peace.
[11]A good illustration of this may be obtained by comparing the two by-elections which have taken place since the present parliament was elected, in North-East Lanarkshire. In both cases a typical orthodox Unionist and a typical orthodox Labourite were in the field. But the Liberal candidates were of a very different type in the two cases. In September 1901 (while the South African War was still in progress) the Liberal candidate was Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, of the “Daily Mail,” an Imperialist of so pronounced a kind that all the organs of the Anti-Imperialist press and many of the Leaders of Anti-Imperialist Liberalism advised the electors to vote for the Labour candidate. This year on the other hand the Liberal candidate was a strictly orthodox Liberal who succeeded in uniting all sections of the party. I give the figures for both elections.
By-election 26/9/01.Sir W. Rattigan (U) 5673Mr. C. Harmsworth (L) 4769Mr. R. Smillie (Lab) 2900By-election 10/5/04.Mr. Finlay (L) 5619Mr. Touch (U) 4677Mr. Robertson (Lab) 3984
The noticeable thing about these figures is the enormous increase in the Labour poll. It may reasonably be supposed that the fulminations of a large section of representative Liberal opinion against Mr. Harmsworth produced some effect on the voting, and one may therefore take it that a fair number of electors, who voted for Mr. Smillie in 1901, voted for Mr. Finlay in 1904. Yet Mr. Robertson’s gain is far greater than Mr. Finlay’s. This can only mean that a large number of working men, who, in time of war voted for the Tory Imperialist candidate, voted for the Labour candidate in time of peace.