Part 9

“Well,” said the old man, “I suppose you know that two years ago after the disastrous war in South Africa, and the disorders and the general strike which followed it, the Government, acting under the advice of Sir Ernest Cassel, the Prime Minister, decided to re-establish the old liberties granted by the Magna Charta and to summon a Parliament--a thing which had not occurred since the days of Oliver Cromwell. A manifesto was issued in this sense, promising that henceforth no new laws should be passed without the consent of the people, and that a Parliament would shortly be summoned. This was taken by the whole population to mean that the autocratic powers of the Monarch were to be limited, and that the Government would henceforward be constitutional. In the meantime no laws were promulgated, but the newspapers for the first time for three hundred years began to write what they pleased; all the Jews in the East End were massacred by hooligans at the instigation of the Jacobites; many of the University dons were sent to the Hebrides, and some of them to the Isle of Man and New Zealand; the administration of the country continued to be in the hands of the military governors instituted by Cromwell and confirmed by Charles II., and everything went jogging on until January, and since there was to be a Parliament general elections had to be held. The task of making an electoral law was entrusted to an official belonging to the Board of Trade, who devised a law according to which the labouring class should elect a member of their class for each borough, and besides this should have a vote in the election of the remaining representatives of the borough. This was done because the Government believed that the labouring classes were fundamentally loyal and would prove Conservative. The result of the elections was a triumphant majority for the Liberals, who were represented by the flower of the English gentry, among them being Lord Lansdowne, Lord Wemyss, and also by the most eminent names of the Bar, science and literature, such as Asquith, Haldane, Morley, Butcher, and Sir Charles Dilke. Whereas among the gentry only six Jacobites were returned.

“The Liberals, who were nicknamed the C.B.’s, owing to one of their leaders’ names being Campbell-Bannerman, were practically led by Mr. Balfour, who was not allowed to stand for Parliament by the Government for having edited the _Fortnightly Review_ during some months previous to the elections. The labouring class returned fifteen Jacobite peasants and one hundred men who professed to belong to no party, but who as soon as Parliament was opened formed themselves into a Radical group called the Labour Party; there were also about fifty Irishmen and Scotchmen, who formed separate groups. The Parliament as soon as it met demanded a responsible Minister, and, the Government refusing, passed a vote of censure on the Ministers; Cassel had resigned before Parliament met and been succeeded by Sir Thomas (afterwards) Lord Sanderson, and Lord Methuen was appointed Minister of the Interior. The Government being unwilling to yield on the subject of responsible Ministry, dissolved Parliament, and declared that a general election should be held in five months’ time. But the C.B.’s regarded the sudden dissolution as unconstitutional, and published an address in which they advocated passive resistance. For this they were disenfranchised. Sir Thomas Sanderson resigned and was made a Peer, and Lord Methuen was made Prime Minister. As disorders were feared, London and all the large towns were placed under martial law. All the newspapers except the _Times_ were suppressed, but the _Morning Post_, _Standard_, and _Daily News_ were ultimately allowed to appear on certain conditions; and the provincial Governors were given powers to hang people within forty-eight hours without trial. On the other hand the revolutionary element enormously increased. Oxford and Cambridge were closed, and the undergraduates devoted their leisure to blowing up officials and soldiers with dynamite. From two to three hundred high officials perished in this manner, besides nearly all the rank and file of the police in Dublin, Belfast, Cork and Edinburgh. Before the next elections were held the Government took measures by which it hoped to obtain a moderate Conservative result, and a majority composed of men who considered Mr. Balfour’s policy too advanced. They disenfranchised therefore the most educated portion of the lower class and ostracised the Liberals; the election was therefore held under double pressure, under that of the Government on the one hand and that of the revolutionaries on the other. The Socialist Party was allowed greater liberty than the Liberal Party, although the system of excluding any individual who was superior in any sort of way to his fellow-beings was rigorously adopted as regards the Socialists as well as regards the Liberals. At the time of the dissolution of the first Parliament many people, and among some who had great influence at Court, maintained that it would be a good thing to form a Ministry either of the C.B.’s or of leading men of the country gentry, such as the Duke of Devonshire. This latter possibility was taken into consideration and _pourparlers_ took place between the Prime Minister and the Duke; but the Duke refused to take office unless guarantees for the adoption of a thoroughly Liberal régime were given. As regards the C.B.’s the Government said they were a set of doctrinaires, that Mr. Balfour was a Jesuit, and that it was impossible to expect that a man who had written a defence of philosophic doubt and spent many hours on the golf links could possibly be capable of administrative work. The same argument was applied to Mr. Haldane and Mr. Morley; these men, it was said, were philosophers and men of letters, and could not be called statesmen. They were without experience.

“Mr. Winston Churchill, also a C.B., was said to be a Socialist at heart, and Mr. Belloc, a member of the Labour Party, had to leave the country to avoid arrest and emigrated to Russia, where he gave lectures on English literature.

“The result of the second General Election proved to be a great disappointment to the Government. Mr. Balfour and Mr. Morley stood as candidates for London, but a week before their election Mr. Balfour was disqualified on the grounds that he had only spent nine months of the preceding year in London and Mr. Morley was also disqualified, because there had appeared in the _Spectator_, a newspaper to which he had been a leading contributor, a letter from an officer of the 60th Rifles, stating that the policy of the Government was revolutionising the Army. He was, however, shortly afterwards made a Peer and took his seat in the House of Lords. In spite of the persecution of the Liberals all the big towns returned Liberal members; Professor Butcher was returned for Cambridge, and Mr. Strachan Davidson for Oxford, and in all 90 Liberals were returned, 100 Socialists, 100 members belonging to the Labour Party, 60 Irishmen, 30 Jacobites, and 30 Conservatives. The Government brought forward a programme of elaborate reforms, which, however, eschewed Ministerial responsibility, and it was soon clear that the Liberals were dancing on a tight-rope over an abyss, and had to depend for support either on the Conservatives or on the Socialists. Shorn of all that constituted their strongest elements, their position was pitiable, and they had among them no statesman strong enough to build bricks out of straw, to dominate the situation and force his will on the Assembly. That was the position the day after Parliament was opened. During two months, however, the Centre managed to obtain a working majority, but last week they were defeated by the alliance of the Jacobites and the Socialists. And we are told that we may expect a dissolution any minute, although it is, perhaps, to the influence of the Government for Parliament to continue its existence, since it is too weak to prove a serious danger. That is the situation at present.”

“Lord Lansdowne’s country house, Bowood, was burnt yesterday,” said the young man in flannels, looking up from his newspaper.

“Yes,” said the commercial traveller, “and houses are being burned and looted in the Midlands every day; that comes of having a weak Government.”

“Three policemen were shot at Leeds by a youth seventeen years old,” continued the young man, “and the foreman of the ironworks at Wolverhampton was stabbed.”

“How cruel of the Government,” said the young lady, “to force people to do such things!”

“Lord Althorp has been asked to leave the Turf Club by the Jacobites,” said the young man.

“Why?” said the young lady.

“Because of his principles,” said the young man.

“Why,” said the young lady, “he’s a C.B., that is to say, almost a Jacobite.”

“The C.B.’s are a Liberal Party based on sound democratic and constitutional principles,” said the old man, much ruffled.

“Hear, hear,” said the clerk.

“The C.B.’s are a set of revolutionary liars paid by the Jews and the Germans,” said the commercial traveller.

“The C.B.’s ain’t no good,” said the workman. “They’re in a funk of the Government.”

“They’ve become Conservative,” said the mechanic.

“Yes, Jacobite,” said the young lady.

At that moment the train stopped. From one of the first-class carriages a gentleman in uniform got down.

“Lord Kitchener,” said the young man, looking out of the window.

The young lady got out, carrying her hamper with her. As she walked past the General she took something from it and flung it at him. There was a terrific explosion, and I woke up.

A ZEMSTVO REPORT

The Zemstvo report of a large district in the centre of Russia for the year 1907, the district of Morshansk, government of Tambov, is in the highest degree illuminating as to the difficulties and the problems with which Russian administrators and reformers are beset at the present moment. Before proceeding to an analysis of the report it will perhaps be as well to remind the reader of what the Zemstvo consists. The Zemstvo is a County Council consisting of about thirty-two members, of which twelve represent the nobility (practically the large landowner class), twelve the peasants, and six the city or cities of the district, one the clergy, and one the official class. To represent the nobility a candidate must possess a certain quantity of land (in the district I am speaking of, about 500 acres). Each member is elected by his class. This County Council has in its hands the management of nearly all the primary schools, the public health department, the support and management of the roads and means of communication, and various small but important matters connected with farming and agriculture, besides the organisation of the county post. To pay for all this the Zemstvo has the right to levy taxes on the land. The Council elects a Standing Board of four members including the chairman, which carries on the business from one yearly meeting of the Council to the next, and is elected for three years. The Council also sends representatives to another Zemstvo Council representing the whole province, which is managed on similar lines.

The Board in the report in question starts by saying that the most salient fact in the present state of the Zemstvo in the district of Morshansk for the past year is a want of funds, owing to the fact that the taxes due both from peasants and landowners by which the Zemstvo is supported are no longer forthcoming. The taxes are not forthcoming because neither the peasants nor the landowners are willing to pay them, this unwillingness being in some cases a matter of principle and in others the result of the peculiar psychology of the Russian landed class at the present time. The peasantry is neither sufficiently developed nor does it possess the requisite knowledge to form conceptions of principle with regard to the payment or the non-payment of taxes consciously. Conceptions of this kind, however, obviously exist, and they have reached the mass of the peasantry in the form of ready-made watchwords or party cries. These watchwords have the characteristic of releasing the peasantry from some kind of moral tie or obligation; it is not therefore surprising that being sown broadcast among the masses at a time of popular excitement they are eagerly absorbed. In the Daily Press stress was laid on the significance of not paying the Zemstvo taxes. The idea was spread among the peasants that the Zemstvo of the present day is an aristocratic institution, which draws on the resources of the peasant without giving him anything in return. Such was the elementary philosophy which was absorbed by the peasants. And now, although the cry against paying the Zemstvo taxes is no longer heard, doubt and confusion have been instilled into the peasant as to what is truth, and in what the Zemstvo taxes in reality consist, as to whether they are simply a “squeeze” or a matter of public necessity and local interest. Such a question can only be settled by an inspection of figures and facts, but before going into these it is necessary to say a few words with regard to the non-payment of taxes by the landowners. The landowners were not so much actuated in this case by a principle as by a feeling of alarm resulting from the horrors of the Agrarian agitation. At one moment it seemed as if the end of private property had come, and that the only course left was to liquidate one’s affairs and to flee from one’s burning house, and if such was the case the landowner said to himself, “What is the use of paying taxes when my house is on fire, and I am lucky if I get off with my life?” In the places where, as in this district, there were no such violent incidents, a cooler argument obtained, namely, “If the peasants were not paying, why should we pay?” Some landowners, an infinite minority it is true, went so far in the organs of a reactionary character as to invert and apply the simple party-cry of the peasants, speaking thus: “The Zemstvo is simply a peasants’ institution drawing on the resources of the large landowners, and is incompatible with State interests; let it therefore be abolished.” Thus the Zemstvo in its effort to satisfy the universally recognised needs of the population found itself between Scylla and Charybdis. Let us now return to the question, which is more important, of the boycotting of the Zemstvo by the peasants. If the Zemstvo is an aristocratic institution which would therefore deserve to be boycotted by the people, it should above all and before all consider its own class interests and satisfy them at the cost of the Zemstvo funds, otherwise the accusation is meaningless. A glance at the balance-sheet subjoined will satisfy the reader as to whether this is the case or not.

Total estimated expenses for 1907-8: 243,504 roubles 60 kopecks (£24,350, 5s.) divided as follows:--

1. Public health, 61,429 roubles 54 kop. (£6142, 9s.), or more than 25 per cent. of the total estimate.

2. Education, 52,682 roubles (£5268), or quarter of the total.

3. Share in the expenses of Government institutions, 41,204 roubles 7 kop. (£4120), 17 per cent. of the total.

4. Paying off of debts, 36,777 roubles 60 kop. (£3677), 15 per cent. of the total.

5. Costs of the Zemstvo Administration, 25,554 roubles 58 kop., more than 10 per cent. of the total.

6. Roads and means of communication, 9816 roubles 90 kop. (£981), or 4 per cent. of the total.

7. Relief and other funds, 9807 roubles 21 kop. (£980), or 4 per cent. of the total.

8. Old age pensions, widows, orphans, etc., 3296 roubles 80 kop. (£329), or 1 per cent.

9. Veterinary department, 2150 roubles (£215), or less than 1 per cent.

10. Various, 1768 roubles (£176), or less than 1 per cent.

From the above figures it will be seen that one-fourth of the whole expenses is devoted to the support of hospitals, doctors, accoucheurs, nurses; and these hospitals are exclusively devoted to the peasants, who are relieved free of charge. Another fourth of the whole amount is devoted to the support of teachers and schools, in which the peasants’ children, and peasants’ children alone, are educated.

In fact, 75 per cent. of the total expenses are devoted by the Zemstvo to the needs of the peasants, and 25 per cent. to the needs of the population at large, but not exclusively to any special class. The charge, therefore, of the Zemstvo being in this district an aristocratic institution falls to the ground. It might be said that although the Zemstvo devotes 75 per cent. of its expenses to the needs of the peasantry it does not give as much as it receives from them. But the Zemstvo for this district should receive out of the Zemstvo taxes paid by the peasants for 1907 86,000 roubles (the rest being paid by the landowners), and it returns them 15 per cent. of the expenses, that is to say, 182,000 roubles. In other words, the peasant receives for every rouble he pays 2 roubles 12 kopecks worth of medical aid, education, etc. There is another argument which has likewise become a catchword and is used as a party-cry against the Zemstvo, namely, that the peasants are overburdened by Zemstvo taxation and are not in a state to be able to pay additional Zemstvo taxes. Besides the Zemstvo taxes, the following is a complete list of the total taxes paid by the peasants:--

1. State land tax, about 43,000 roubles (£4000).

2. Canton rates (a Canton is an administrative unit consisting of several villages), 89,000 roubles (£8000).

3. Village rates, 84,000 roubles (£8000).

4. Compulsory insurance, 91,000 roubles (£9000).

Total, 307,000 roubles (£30,000).

The Zemstvo taxes form, therefore, one-sixth of the total taxation, but the Zemstvo Board does not consider the peasants to be overtaxed for the following reason: During 1906 the total amount spent by the peasants in the district on alcohol was 1,800,000 roubles (£180,000). The population of the district amounts to 300,000; this means 6 roubles a head, or over 36 roubles a farm (there being 40,000 farms in the district), and as the total taxation amounts in round figures to 500,000 roubles (£50,000) the amount of taxes paid by each farm is 12 roubles 50 kopecks.

If a farm can pay a yearly voluntary tax in alcohol of 36 roubles it is absurd to speak of its being overtaxed by a yearly payment of 12 roubles 50 kopecks, and still more absurd to talk of the burden of the Zemstvo tax, which amounts to 2 roubles 15 kopecks per farm.

This is the gist of the Zemstvo report of this district for 1907. At first sight two conclusions might be drawn from it: (1) that the political agitators and the Liberal Press in general have been guilty of criminal folly in urging the peasants to boycott the Zemstvo; (2) that it is useless to try and improve the condition of peasants who refuse money for the support of the means of bettering their condition, and spend it on drink. Such conclusions would be too sweeping. Political agitators have, indeed, done endless mischief in advocating such futile and wicked measures as, for instance, the boycotting of the Zemstvos, and this testifies to their total lack of political experience; but the very existence of such a propaganda, and the very fact that the watchwords quoted above can be accepted presupposes a frame of mind which can only result from the persistence of bad Government and the constant putting off of reform. With regard to the peasants and their drink, the autocratic system is again to a certain degree at the root of the matter, since so far from discouraging drink among the peasants, it lives upon it, the money spent on drink by the peasant forming a substantial part of the State revenue.[6] And in cases where the peasants have demanded that the Government spirit store may be closed in their village the local Government Magistrate has refused them the permission to do so. Moreover, it is sufficiently well known that the autocratic system of Government--that is to say the old régime--never of its own accord took a single serious step to raise the condition of the peasants by education, civilisation, and culture. On the contrary, it leant with all its might against the closed door.

[6] To abolish the State monopoly now a Peter the Great would be needed. However difficult the task, there can be no doubt that in the present circumstances the monopoly is a source of unmixed evil.

ANTI-SEMITISM IN RUSSIA

The fundamental error underlying the main theories of people who write with indignation on the massacres of Jews in Russia seems to me to contain in itself everything which makes it difficult for Englishmen to understand current events in Russia. The error is that the Russian Government, which such writers would be the first to proclaim incompetent, imbecile, stupid, ineffectual, purposeless, without a policy, shifting, distracted, fickle, wavering, unstable, weak, corrupt, insolvent, dislocated, tottering, and rotten to the core, should at the same time be so competent, so united, so perfect a machine, so drastically single-minded, so unfaltering in design, and so masterly in execution that one man in St. Petersburg can by pressing a button have his anti-Semitic will carried out in the smallest detail in any village of the immense Russian Empire. The great error is to think that attacks on Jews or anything else which has occurred in Russia during the last three years has been the result of one policy conceived by one master mind and executed by well-trained and perfectly organised instruments responding directly to that one mind. The truth is that there has been no policy in Russia during the last few years, but an ever-shifting mass of contradictory currents. During the last three years[7] it can be said that there has been no Government at all; nothing but the anarchy resulting from civil war, a civil war which is not fought in pitched battles--as that which was waged in England between the Cavaliers and the Roundheads--but carried on in the ordinary course of everyday life by what are termed peaceful citizens of the community, during their everyday avocations, by every means at their disposal. The anarchy resulting from such a state of things is rendered doubly anarchial because one of the sides in the conflict is recruited in some degree from the very officials and public servants on whose service the proper administration of the State depends.

[7] 1904-7.