Part 2

Here is a further instance: I know of a spy who himself confessed to having been in the pay of both the English and French police. He arrived in this country from France, apparently in great poverty, and his dire want was an excuse for accepting food from one “comrade,” lodging from another, and anything he could get from others. His professions of sympathy with the Anarchist propaganda were hearty, and the Anarchists trusted and believed him so far as to allow him to attend the secret meetings of the “French Group.” In consequence of this he was able to give information to both the French and English police. The plans of the “comrades” having been foiled on one or two occasions it was rumoured that a traitor existed in the camp. Shortly after this a “comrade” was deputed to go to France by the “group” on secret business, and the spy asked to be allowed to go with him. This was agreed to. At Dieppe the “comrade” was arrested, the police having been accurately informed as to the time of his arrival on French soil. The spy returned to England, and explained his return on the ground that he was not allowed to remain in France. The “comrades” in London called a special meeting of the “groups,” at which the spy was purposely permitted to attend. He was directly charged with being the spy, and with having supplied the French and English police with information as to the movements of the Anarchists in London. He vehemently protested his innocence. He was gagged and his pockets searched. Letters were found from the French police, instructing him to watch and report on the doings of certain French Anarchists then in London. The spy afterwards made a full confession of his connection with the French police, and also of his connection with the authorities at Scotland Yard. He was shamefully ill-treated, but escaped and fled to France, where he is now.

As an example of the way in which these police agents work themselves into the confidence of the Anarchist leaders, here is an advertisement from the _Commonweal_ in proof--

“INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST SCHOOL, 19, Fitzroy-square, W. Conducted by Louise Michel and A. Coulon. Free education in English, French, and German. Any friend taking an interest in the School can now obtain a portrait group of teachers and scholars on application to A. Coulon, Secretary, at above address.”

The secretary of this school was the police informer in the Walsall case.

At one time there existed in London an international Anarchist news agency, where every kind of Anarchist publication, in almost any language, could be procured. A “comrade” enjoying the confidence of the party was placed in charge, and the shop became a rendezvous for almost every foreign Anarchist in London. The trusted “comrade” was a police spy! He had been instrumental in dragging his Anarchist customers into the great police net, even going to the lengths of procuring photos of them for the monster album of Scotland Yard. The truth leaked out gradually. One night the Anarchists assembled in force outside the shop, seeking the traitorous “comrade’s” gore. But, scenting trouble, and like a sensible person, the “comrade” had a few hours earlier sought out fresh fields and pastures new.

During my connection with the movement, several spies were discovered and denounced. I have in mind, as I write, the case of an Anarchist friend of mine--as good-hearted a fellow as ever breathed--who, but for my timely intervention, would be now in penal servitude, a victim to the machinations of one of these _agents provocateurs_. One day a letter came to the place where our “group” met, addressed to the “Communists’ Committee.” It was a long scrawl, in very bad English, from a Frenchman who signed himself in three different names. On the Sunday following, Monsieur came to our “group” meeting, and professed intimate acquaintance with the Walsall Anarchists, who had just then been sent to penal servitude. One of our English “comrades” somehow took a liking to this fellow, and as he professed to be homeless and without money, gave him shelter and food for some months; even, on one occasion, going so far as to pawn his carpenter’s tools to procure him food. During all this time, the Frenchman was endeavouring to persuade my friend to commit an outrage in London. At last a scheme was devised for the blowing-up of a big London institution. A difficulty now arose--my friend had to confess his ignorance regarding the making of explosives. “Zat ve vill soon rectify,” said the Frenchman. One evening I called on my English friend and found Monsieur had been out all day. “He has written a letter in French for me to send to Paris,” I was informed. Having my suspicions as to the man’s genuineness, and being acquainted slightly with the French language, I was allowed to examine the letter. It was addressed to M. Jean Grave--a well-known French Anarchist--at 140, Rue Mouffetard, Paris--and asked for a copy of “Le Anarchiste Indicateur,” a manual of instructions for the making of every kind of bomb known, to be sent to my friend’s address, “as he intends making an act of propaganda for the Cause” in London. Instead of sending the letter, I consigned it to the flames, and the plot was abandoned. Strange to say, the Frenchman never returned to my friend’s house again, but, in his place, appeared two detectives who, for some weeks, day and night, watched the premises, and shadowed my friend wherever he went. These facts aroused our suspicions. I heard nothing further until some months later when, the matter having blown over, a representative of Scotland Yard told me that, after writing the letter, and feeling confident that it would be sent, Monsieur had communicated with the French police, who, in their turn, had informed the authorities at Scotland Yard, with the result above mentioned. If that letter had been sent, my friend would be now in penal servitude for being in the possession of illegal publications.

In France, spying is done on a grand scale. M. Andrieux, in his “Memoirs of a Prefect of Police,” gives the following instance:--

“The companions were looking for someone to advance funds, but ‘infamous capital’ did not seem in a hurry to reply to their appeal. I urged on ‘infamous capital’ and succeeded in persuading it that it was to its own interests to facilitate the publication of an Anarchist paper.... But don’t imagine that I with frank brutality offered the Anarchists the encouragement of the Prefect of Police. I sent a well-dressed _bourgeois_ to one of the most active and intelligent of them. He explained that having made a fortune in the druggist line, he wanted to devote a part of his income to advancing the Anarchist propaganda. This _bourgeois_, anxious to be devoured, inspired the companions with no suspicion. Through his hands I placed the caution-money” (caution-money has to be deposited before starting a paper in France) “in the coffers of the State, and the journal, _La Revolution Sociale_, made its appearance. It was a weekly paper, my druggist’s generosity not extending to the expenses of a daily.”

IV.

ANARCHIST “LITERATURE.”

The literature of Anarchism is interesting only in so far as it denotes the peculiar mental characteristics of its devotees. Couched in an exalted strain, its sickening grossness and sentimentalism leave little or no impression on the mind of the thinking social student (unless it be that of disgust). Strictly speaking, there are two classes of Anarchist literature. The one--the idealist--voices the sentiments of the “perfect beings” I have before enumerated, but who in reality are not Anarchists at all; the other is the advocate of that pessimistic and criminal Anarchism which sees no good in any institution extant, nor hope for the future, and consequently seeks to destroy. My object, however, is not so much to criticise the literature of Anarchism, as to expose the canting professions of these humbugs who pose as the “real and only friends of labour.” For whilst there are none so loud as Anarchists in denouncing sweating and lauding trade-unionism, yet, strange to say (or, is it strange?) the difference between precept and practice is alarmingly conspicuous. _The Anarchists have reduced sweating to a fine art!_

The “society” rate for compositors’ work is 38s. per week. But the “labour-emancipating” _Commonweal_ paid its compositor the extravagant remuneration of 10s. per week! _Liberty_, at the outset of its career, was produced by boy labour, but later was brought out entirely on the voluntary principle. The _Alarm_ paid for composing 15s. per week--sometimes; at others, the paper was brought out by exploiting the labour of poor wretches out of employment, who, to this day, have never received payment. These papers have now ceased publication. _Freedom_, the only one remaining, was for many years a trade-union production, but in 1897, it paid the princely salary of 10s. per week for “comping,” and was “machined” by boy and non-union labour at prices which make the sweater’s wage pall in comparison.

It is interesting to note the names of prominent Anarchists connected with these ventures. Prince Kropotkin is a member of the “group” which publishes _Freedom_. But, in answer to a letter of mine, the Prince assures me that he was altogether unaware of the sweating conditions under which it was produced. (This is accounted for by the fact that the Prince lives at Bromley, in Kent, and the “group” holds its meetings at Camden Town.) Other members of the “group” are Prince Tcherkesov, Errico Malatesta, A. Marsh, Mrs. C. M. Wilson, and other middle-class men and women.

The history of the Anarchist movement in England is strewn with the corpses of dead journals; and among them may be mentioned the following:--The _Commonweal_, which described itself as a “revolutionary journal of Anarchist-Communism,” was first suspended at the time its editor was arrested and sentenced to serve a term of eighteen months’ imprisonment for an article inciting to the murder of Mr. Justice Hawkins, and Home Secretary Matthews, in 1892. Two years later the compositor who set up the paper was arrested for a speech which he had made on Tower Hill, and sentenced to the small term (on account of his lack of influence in the inciting direction) of six months’ imprisonment with hard labour for advising the assassination of Royalty on the occasion of the opening of the Tower Bridge. That seemed to be the death-blow to the _Commonweal_, for it was not found possible to continue its publication afterwards.

The _New Order_ was the organ of the “Christian Anarchists,” and was opposed to violence of every description--even going so far as to approve the non-resistance theories of Count Tolstoi.

The _Anarchist_ was published in 1886, and was the first Anarchist paper ever published in England. _L’Internationale_ was noted for the violence of its language and its open advocacy of the dagger and bomb. The _Anarchist Labour Leaf_ was an eight-page pamphlet issued monthly by the East End Anarchists, and distributed by them on Sundays round the various meetings which are held in Victoria Park. _Liberty_ was edited by James Tochatti, a Hammersmith tailor, and was opposed to the policy of indiscriminate outrage. For this reason it was little supported by the Anarchists, and soon gave up the ghost. It was the best among the many Anarchist papers. Of the many others there was the _Alarm_, which, notwithstanding its stirring title, did not strike often; the _Herald of Anarchy_, a “journal of consistent individualism;” the _Worker’s Friend_, a Yiddish publication; the _Walsall Anarchist_; the _Sheffield Anarchist_, which was inscribed “Pay what you like;” _Der Lumpen Proletaire_, a German production, a writer for which is still “wanted” by the police on suspicion of murdering a woman in Shaftesbury Avenue some years back; the _Torch of Anarchy_; _Die Autonomie_, which, during the German anti-socialist laws, was smuggled into Germany by all manner of curious means; and _Die Freiheit_, whose editor, the notorious Johann Most, underwent sixteen months’ imprisonment for an article applauding the assassination of the Czar in 1881.

As a sample of the unscrupulous lengths to which some Anarchists will go, I may mention that in 1889 a tract of George Bernard Shaw’s, entitled “Anarchism _v._ State-Socialism,” appeared in defence of Anarchism. Soon after, Mr. Shaw saw fit to discard Anarchism as unreasonable, and wrote a masterly pamphlet on its “Impossibilities” (Fabian Society). Yet, in 1896, the “Associated Anarchists” actually reprinted the first-mentioned tract, and spread it broadcast as if it were the opinion of Mr. Shaw at the time. Similar dishonesty was shown by the Anarchists actually at the open grave of William Morris, by resuscitating opinions he had long since repudiated. Such dishonesty Anarchists seem to glory in.

V.

THE “GROUPS.”

Anarchists associate in “groups.” These, for obvious reasons, seldom muster more than a dozen members each. Whilst the Anarchist creed--the elimination of authority in all its forms--admits of no kind of organisation whatever, still it must be admitted, in justice to a section of the party, that some of them profess to believe in a form of “voluntary co-operation,” as distinct from the “coercive” institutions of government. I say “profess to believe” advisedly, for I have never yet found the practices of Anarchists square with their professions. In vain do we look in the Anarchist party for a sample of organisation. There is none. Attempts at organisation among them have been frequent, but all have ended in ignominious failure. The fact is, the Anarchists are incapable of organisation, and, far from being fit for a “society without government” (could such an anomaly maintain itself a day), they have shown themselves incapable of managing a decent-sized apple stall. The manifesto of the “Associated Anarchists” bears out what I say. “We have been present,” say the issuers of this manifesto, “at many of the meetings of our Anarchist comrades, where discussions of important matters were to be conducted, and where it was hoped that some mutual and collective agreement would be come to as to an expression of opinion and as to action. In every case, however, where perfect unanimity was not hit upon, as it were, by accident, it was found impossible to decide anything in the shape of a general opinion of the meeting, or with regard to what action should be taken by them in all these particular and important affairs. Instead of this, violent altercations have arisen; the utmost disorder has prevailed, and the whole of the meetings, from the standpoint of organisation, have been absurd farces and ridiculous frauds.”

At Anarchist conferences it is amusing to observe the shifts to which the “companions” are put, to obviate the inconvenience arising from this lack of system. At these so-called conferences and congresses there is no chairman (he being a “relic of authority”), and it is always left to “individual initiative” to start the discussion on matters concerning the “propaganda.” The consequence is that order is conspicuous by its absence. Anyone can roll off a speech when he likes, where he likes, for as long as he likes, and on any subject he likes. No vote is taken of the feeling of the “comrades” present--who, by a convenient fiction, are supposed to be delegates of the various “groups”--consequently no action is taken, and the so-called conference resolves into a mere talking shop. So loosely are the party affairs carried on that anyone can gain admittance to a “group,” and anyone can enter their congresses even _without_ being a member of a group. No credentials are asked for, and it is not an extraordinary occurrence to see one or two detectives sitting among the “comrades.”

The names of some of the “groups” are interesting, inasmuch as they indicate the thoughts uppermost in the Anarchist mind: the _Torch_, _Alarm_, _Rebel_, _Necessity_, _Ni Dieu, ni Maitre_ (no God, no master), _Firebrand_, _Liberty_, _Revenge_, _Free Initiative_, _British Nihilists_, etc. The last-named “group” loudly prated their belief in the “propaganda of action.” They talked of naught save dynamite and daggers. They were the party’s dare-devils. (And if daring consists in breathing fire and slaughter all the twenty-four hours of the day, then the Anarchists are the pluckiest folk I know of.) One of the British Nihilists managed to muster up sufficient courage to perform the revolutionary act of firing a revolver at the House of Commons, doubtless expecting to see it collapse, like the walls of Jericho at the trumpet’s blast. As a result of the Deptford Group’s propaganda, Rolla Richards blew up three post-offices in South London with pennyworths of gunpowder, “in memory of Ravachol, Santo, Bourdin, Polti,” and others.

The “Associated Anarchists” were not long in becoming dissociated. They were a body of about a dozen youths who had become disgusted with orthodox Anarchist “organisation.” They decided on reform, and accordingly drew up a code of “non-compulsory agreements.” Members on joining agreed beforehand to voluntarily abide by the decision of the majority (the contrary of Anarchist principles), but still were free not to so abide. They printed and published the _Alarm_ (an alarming little sheet printed in gorgeous blue, like an oilman’s circular). Dissensions soon arose among the associates as to the management of this property. A minority of two, in the exercise of their “individual liberty,” claimed the lot to do as they liked with, and shut the door in the face of the other “brothers,” who, in their turn, “burgled” the premises at dead of night. Then the minority called in the police (by no means strange for Anarchists). However, a reunion took place between the opposing factions, and everything went as merrily as a marriage bell, until, one fine day, the majority found that this time the minority had sold up all the happy home and pocketed the proceeds! And now, dear reader (as they say in tracts), just picture in your mind the beauty of Anarchy adopted nationally!

Some of the groups, for obvious reasons, adopt a disguise of respectability! Thus, the “South London Progressive Association,” which met at one of the coffee-houses in the Old Kent Road, was a group of Anarchists. So also was the “North London Progressive Association” of Kentish Town. The Jewish Anarchist Club in Berner Street, E., was known as the “International Workpeople’s Educational Society,” and was composed of the lowest class of Russian and Polish Jews. The “Deptford Educational Society,” which met above a shop in New Cross Road, was a group of English Anarchists, who dissolved soon after the conviction of Rolla Richards for blowing up post-offices in the neighbourhood. Another Anarchist club was the Scandinavian Club in Rathbone Place. The Commonweal Group met in a mews off Gray’s Inn Road. Its members were believers in the “propaganda of deed,” and were often in the hands of the police.

The old Autonomie Club, in Windmill Street, Tottenham Court Road, was the home of a number of groups: the French, German, and Italian groups; the “Knights of Liberty” and the “Young Anarchists”--a group of mere boys who actually conducted classes for the study of explosive chemicals.

Some of the so-called groups comprise only one or two individuals. For instance, _Freedom_ speaks of the “Somer’s Town Group” as being very active. This formidable revolutionary organisation comprised three individuals--one of whom, in true Anarchist fashion, appointed himself secretary, treasurer, librarian, and everything else. The two men who composed the Torch group after its founders, the Misses Rossetti, had left the movement, appointed themselves delegates to one of the May Day Celebration Committees, wrote out their own credentials, and sat and voted on every proposal brought forward. This “group” was the loudest in shrieking for the admission of Anarchists to the International Socialist and Labour Congress held in London in 1896, and was the originator of the agitation having that object in view. The cool and impudent demand of these self-elected and unrepresentative nonentities to sit and vote side by side with _bonâ fide_ trade-union delegates representing thousands of members, is only equalled by its astounding hypocrisy, for Anarchists profess not to believe in democracy, voting, or representation, and consequently have no place in any organisation based on democratic principles.

The English Anarchists (who, by the way, are looked upon by their foreign and practical brethren more with contempt than “fraternity”) are to-day a mere handful, and the “party” is becoming smaller and beautifully less owing to the numerous secessions of the more intelligent, who, in course of time, become disgusted with the lack of system, want of order, and contempt for moral conduct which pervades the practical section of the party. I doubt if there are fifty Englishmen in London of the Anarchist persuasion. The strength of the entire movement may be judged by the fact that their oldest established, and now only existent organ in the Press--_Freedom_--has a paltry circulation of about 500 copies monthly throughout the entire country.

Very few of these “groups” exist otherwise than in name. By this I mean that few are conducted on genuine business-like principles, such as the periodic appointment of officers, the holding of weekly or fortnightly members’ meetings, the issuing of balance-sheets, and so on.

VI.

BOMB-MAKING.