part I have often wondered why in the world a man takes the risks of

trade instead of investing his money in something that brings him in four per cent. Mr. Hyndman talked of the gambling interests of the capitalists. Why, that is all for your benefit. Each capitalist, call him a gambler or a vain man, thinks himself cleverer than other people and says, I am going to make a fortune. One does make twenty per cent., and the other gets ruined. But if you take the whole body of capitalists their profits come out at four per cent. If it were not for the gambling chance, or the ability shown by some undertaken in making this four per cent., you would not get money at so low a rate of interest as now, nor would you get a body of skilled organisers ready to take so little as they do take at the present moment for their ability and work. Now, Mr. Hyndman will, I think, admit with me that the thousand men would not produce so much were it not for the organising powers of some man, and also for the capital employed. We know they would not. Each man without the aid of capital would make so much a day. With the organisation and with the capital employed in the {470} business he makes a great deal more, so that he really benefits--he gets more than he would from his own particular separate work. He gets more that is from his collective work by this application of capital and organisation than he would be logically entitled to were he to work without the aid of capital and machinery.

"Now I am going to show you by a few figures what benefit capital has been to the working man. Here, again, you have a great difficulty with the figures. They are calculated out by various men, but I think this conclusion is generally accepted. In 1800 all that was earned, obtained, secured in wages to working men was seventy millions sterling. In 1860 this had increased to 400 millions. In 1860 the numbers engaged in manual labour were double those engaged in 1800, so you must make a deduction for that. It would then stand thus, that whereas a man got seventy pence, shillings, or pounds for his work in 1800, in 1860 by the co-operation of capital he received 200. But it is even more at the present time, for he now receives 600 millions. There is a dispute as to whether it is 500 millions or 600 millions. Mr. Giffen says it is 600, Mr. Leone Levi says it is 531. Mr. Hyndman says it is 300. Well, anyhow, that is two to one. I stand by Mr. Giffen and Mr. Leone Levi and take the figure as at 531. But here again is another way of putting it. In the first year of the present reign, the gross income of the country was 515 millions. Of this 235 millions went to labour. Labour at the present time gets 531 millions according to the lower estimate of Professor Leone Levi, consequently labour now gets more than the income of the entire country at the commencement of the present reign.

"Gentlemen, there can be no more erroneous idea than to suppose, as Mr. Hyndman apparently (as I gathered from him) laid down, that the lot of the working man is not bettered by machinery, or that machinery by doing part of the work now done by working men either increases the number of hours or reduces the wages of labour. My contention is {471} that it reduces the number of hours and increases the wage of the individual. Listen to this: Machinery, of course, is revolutionising the labour market; but it is not found that machinery, while it displaces labour, though opening up new channels for the displaced workers, either increases the hours of labour or decreases the remuneration. Before the Sweating Committee it was stated that the wages of nailmakers in this country was 12s. a week on the average. The American nailer earns £6 a week; yet American nails are only half the price of English. The explanation is that, owing to excellent machinery and efficient labour, maintained by high wages and short hours, the American produces 2½ tons of nails while the English man or woman is making two cwt. You say 'Shame!' I say, 'Why don't you do it?' Why don't you follow the example of the Americans?

"Take again the illustration of a Waterbury watch. So exact is the machinery which cuts the different parts of this watch that an assistant will put one of these instruments together in a few minutes by selecting at random a piece from as many heaps as there are parts in the watch. Yet the workmen earn 45s. a week, and the watches can be sold cheaper than those made by workmen earning 8s. or 9s. a week in the Black Forest. How is this? Because by the aid of his improved machinery the American completes 150 watches in the same time as the European is painfully manufacturing forty. You will say that some capitalist wrote that; some man who was unfit to judge the matter. I will tell you who the capitalist was. I got it out of Reynolds's newspaper last Saturday. As I pointed out, in the factory you have these diverse charges--the charge for interest, the charge for ability in organising, and the charge for the wage of the worker. The business, I hold, of the wage worker is to see that he gets a fair wage; and it is because the only way to do this is to combine in trade unions that I am one of the strongest advocates of trade unionism in the whole country. Then take distribution. I leave {472} out the carriage and sale of the various articles in the shops. Here again competition reduces prices. You know that as well as I do. You know perfectly well that you see stuck up in some shops: 'Come and buy here; things are half a farthing less than anywhere else.' Shopkeepers compete against each other. And there you have just the same reason as in the case of factories why men go into the business of shopkeeping, because each man thinks he is cleverer than his neighbour; each one believes he is going to make his fortune and his neighbour is not. But labour benefits by this because the lower the price of the article the greater the demand for it. I say that, taking the whole shopkeepers of this country, taking their labour, taking the amount of capital they put into their different shops, it is impossible to say that they get an excessive profit from their trade.

"Now, of late there has been a good deal of discussion in regard to co-operation. I observe that Mr. Hyndman did not allude to co-operation. But co-operation exists at present, both in regard to production and in regard to distribution. In order to carry out co-operation on the very largest scale it would not be necessary to alter the whole basis of society. Under the present despised system any working-men may co-operate with each other, may be their own employers, and in that way get every farthing that is derived from their employment. Statistics show that co-operation, just like other things, sometimes pays and sometimes does not pay. In Lancashire, in Yorkshire and in the north of England there is a great deal of co-operation both in regard to production and in regard to distribution. The latest returns show that about $15,000,000 is employed in this work. As I have said, in some cases they pay and in some cases they do not pay. I have observed some curious things in connection with this. You would say that at a co-operative store you would get an article cheaper than at a shop, whereas, as a matter of fact, you do not get an article cheaper. It is a curious thing that you don't, and the reason is this. The {473} co-operators get together in shares a certain capital which has to pay four or five per cent. Then each member gets a _pro rata_ return at the end of the year, a percentage upon the amount he has paid in the store in connection with his own particular trading. That is perfectly fair. Well, so eager are they to get the return that they put up the price of the goods against themselves. You must remember that while I advocate co-operation, or while I say that co-operation needs no Socialism to enable working-men to get every farthing from the process of production and distribution, I do not believe that co-operation in distribution is not without certain evils. Why is it that shops still hold their own, and I believe always will hold their own? By competition in the first place prices in the shops are reduced to as little as or less than the prices in the stores. Again, if a man wants a red herring he don't walk to the middle of the town, near where the stores have to be, but prefers going to a neighbouring shop and buying it there. Moreover, we know that a great many men have spent their wages before the end of the week, and they want a little credit. You may depend, upon taking all things into consideration, that no very great benefit is to be got out of co-operative distribution. I merely went into this question of co-operation, not to discuss so much the advantages or disadvantages of co-operation, as to point out to you that co-operation can exist, may exist, and does exist among working men, whenever they like it, under the present system.

"Now I come to Mr. Hyndman's plan. I have said a few words in favour of the present system. I have tried to explain what that present system is, and how, as a matter of fact, labour does benefit by the existence of capital and capitalist. Mr. Hyndman's plan, I take it, is based upon the notion that labour does not get its full share; that it only gets one-third. ['It ought to get the lot.'] Very well, I have often in the course of my life thought I ought to get the lot, but I have never got it, I can tell you. Mr. Hyndman's {474} idea is that if the State took upon itself the functions performed by private capitalists everybody would be fully employed and properly paid. Could this desirable result be brought about? That is the real thing. If, at once, under Mr. Hyndman's guidance we could enter upon the millennium we should all be for entering. But the question is whether we _should_ enter it by this gate or whether we should get somewhere else.

"I have got here the programme of the Social-Democratic Federation. I have extracted it from Justice. It is all right. Mr. Hyndman pointed out that a great many things in the programme were merely doctrines which had been put forward by the Socialists, and had now been adopted by the Radicals. I should say that there was a great deal in it that was put forward by the Radicals and had always been advocated by the Radicals; and we are exceedingly glad that the Socialists agree with us so far. Now I like this programme. What has been my trouble in talking with some Socialists is that they never have the courage of their own opinions. What are you hissing for? I am going to praise you. As members of the Social-Democratic Federation you are surely not going to take under your wing every Socialist in the world. I have often had discussions with Socialists, and I have found that they leave out certain portions of their programme. I have said to them: That is a necessary plank in your programme; knock out any of these stones and you knock down the arch. You have done nothing of the kind. You have fairly and squarely put this as the Social Revolution in all its details. You see I am not complaining of you, so don't cry out again before you are hurt. Now, Number 7 says: 'The means of production, distribution, and exchange to be declared as collective or common property.' Now, what does this mean? That all manufacturing, all shopkeeping, all shipping, all the agricultural industry, and all banking ought to be done by the State----"

{475}

_Mr. Hyndman_: "Community."

_Mr. Labouchere_: "Or community. Every man, as I understand it, is to do his bit of work, every man is to have his share of the profit of the business. Have you ever thought what amount of capital this would require? The building of factories would require 1000 million pounds for ten million workers. The wage fund would be 600 millions; the raw material would be 200 millions; the shipping, say about 500 millions. I am trying to underestimate the amount. As to the shops, I suppose, if you took all there are in the whole country, they would cost about 100 millions. Then the agricultural buildings and machinery, excluding the land itself, would be, say, 500 millions. This would be very much under a proper estimate, but still the whole amount runs up to something like 3000 millions. Are all the factories to be seized? My friend says 'Yes.' That will knock off 1000 millions at once. Are all the shops to be seized? ['Yes, yes.'] This will knock off 100 millions for the shops. Still, if you do this, you won't certainly have done. Obviously you have to buy the raw material, you have to have a wage fund, and a good deal to keep the machinery in order even when you have laid hands on it in the expeditious way your friend proposes. That would be 2000 millions. How are you going to get it? You would borrow it. _Would_ you borrow it? Let us suppose you borrow it. To borrow it you have to get somebody to lend it to you. I have known a great many persons ready to borrow more than people are ready to lend. Another item, which I am bound to say is not in the Radical programme of the Social-Democratic Federation, is the repudiation of the National Debt. Now, sure, if you repudiate the National Debt you would find a difficulty in getting anybody to lend you the money you want. Where are you going to get it? Are you going to levy it upon property? What property are you going to levy it upon? We'll allow that the land and factories are to be seized. If they are not to be {476} seized they are to be ruined; they are to be left high and dry. No individual man is to work in them. You would have a certain amount of portable property like the money that comes in from foreign investments, but its owners would not wait to have it taken. They would immediately clear out of the country."

_Mr. Hyndman_: "Hear, hear."

_Mr. Labouchere_: "I am going from surprise to surprise. I really do believe that Mr. Hyndman wishes that the men with the 100 millions should clear out of the country. These 100 millions are derived from investments made abroad. The investments are already made, and the money may be paid here or abroad just as its owners please. Therefore you would absolutely have no control over it. Its owners could walk off to America or France to-morrow, or to one of our colonies, where they would be welcomed with pleasure and where they would be able to live with their 100 millions and spend it just as they liked. The only difference would be that they would not be consumers here, they would not compete with their capital to reduce the interest on the capital necessary to run the whole business of the country. I am very curious to know, I cannot quite make out, whether a man may save or not. It is not clear. I see one of the articles is, 'the production and distribution of wealth is to be regulated by society.' That leads me to suppose he may not save. I should say myself that if you are going to carry out this millennium you could only do it by preventing any sort of saving: because if savings take place you will have some men rich and some poor, evidently. But how about the professions? What are they to be done with? Are professional men not to be allowed to make any savings? I see all justice is to be free. Well, that would create a good deal of litigation; but I personally suffer a good deal from justice, so that I don't know that I should particularly object to that item. You would have, I presume, these professions! You would have doctors and men {477} engaged in art and so forth? They would be able to sell their productions abroad, their skill abroad. Consequently how would you regulate their fortunes? How are you going to regulate the distribution of wealth in regard to these men? I say the thing is absolutely and utterly impracticable. You could not. Yet, gentlemen, it seems there is some idea of saving, for I see this in another article: 'The extension of the Post Office Savings Bank which will absorb all private institutions that draw profit from money or credit!' Well, but who would put into the Post Office? The Post Office, if they did put it in, would have to incur all the risks of the great business. But I told you that the National Debt was to be repudiated. What is the fact? That the Post Office Savings Bank has invested £5,599,000 of public savings, of labour mainly, in consols. If, consequently, you were to do away with the National Debt one of the things you would do would be to repudiate five millions sterling saved by labour. Now, I think it was some gentleman who was discussing the matter with me in the _Reporter_ who said that you might save, but no man would be allowed to employ any savings by making another man work for him. Allow me to point out to you that indirectly one man must work for another if he does not work for himself. Is he going, like that wicked man in the Bible, to hide his talent in a napkin? Not a bit. I suppose he will make a little interest on it. He won't work for the interest himself, so somebody else will. If you are going to try to distribute wealth you will have continual disputes, for I deny that, so long as human nature is what it is, so long as a man wants to lay by something for his children, you will be able to prevent savings. The only thing you would be able to do would be to frighten savings away from this country, and cause them to be taken to some other country, which would compete against you.

"Let us suppose now that this initial difficulty of obtaining the money is got over. Then there comes the organisation. Well, who would organise? Who would be {478} superintendents, and who would be workers? Who would engage in the complicated business of exchange with foreign countries? Remember, all skilled talent would disappear. You say 'Ha, ha!' Do you really think that a man who perhaps is a skilled organiser of labour, who could earn a thousand or two thousand a year abroad or in the colonies, would stay here and receive an exceedingly small sum, simply because he was an Englishman? Of course he would go away. I say you would deprive the country of its most intelligent organisers.

"There is another difficulty. Who would settle the employment to be secured for each person? Here is a shepherd. He would say: 'I want to be a shoemaker.' 'My good friend,' they would say, 'we don't want you; go and be a shepherd.' They'd say to me: 'We've got quite enough newspapers without yours. We want a good chimney sweep. Be that. Go to Newcastle.' They'd say to our friend, Mr. Hyndman: 'We'll find employment for you in hay-making in Somersetshire.' Mr. Hyndman may say he likes that paternal arrangement; he likes hay-making. I'll tell you one thing: I wouldn't go and sweep chimneys in Newcastle. But you say that the State carries on the Post Office, the Army, and the Navy, among other things; and I say it carries them on exceedingly badly too. You will find, taking ship for ship, that ships can be built in a private yard much cheaper than in a public yard. As for the Post Office, I agree with Mr. Hyndman in saying I do not know any public Department so badly managed as the Post Office. There is an enormous deal of sweating; the big men get too big salaries, and the little men do not get enough. If the Army, Navy, and Post Office be an exemplication of what would be done under the paternal arrangement, Heaven help us!

"But, gentlemen, what really surpasses my understanding is this, how in the world, if Mr. Hyndman's system were adopted, any regular work, or shorter hours, or better pay, {479} or employment of all would be more easily obtained than under the present system. I say your capital, if you did get it, would be at a higher cost. I say that profit, if you take profit, is almost reduced by competition to a minimum. You would not make one shilling by the transaction. Supply, surely, would depend upon demand. You could not alter that. Take the foreign trade. You would not increase your foreign trade, under this system. You would still have to compete with foreign countries in China and elsewhere. Foreign consumers would take goods from those from whom they could buy them cheapest. The Socialists have perceived this, and they have invented the idea of establishing on the land an enormous number of labourers, who are to act as consumers, and consequently take all the home surplus products. And I see here it is proposed that the Municipal or State army of labourers should be organised as on the great farms in America. Mr. Hyndman alluded to what they did on these bonanza farms. They send men down to them twice a year, once to sow and once to reap. You might find if you had the proposed armies that the product might be increased, but the number of persons employed on the land, that is to say, the consumers on the land, would be reduced. That is why I have been in favour of small holdings.

"As to the numbers of the agricultural labourers, those labourers won us the election last time, remember. What are you hissing at? Did you want the Conservatives to win? You must take people as they are. These agricultural labourers may be wrong, but their strongest desire is to become possessors of small holdings. That has been the aim and object of the Parish Councils Bill, which will slowly and quietly nationalise the land by throwing the property, little by little, and very quickly I think, into the hands of the Parish Councils, who will let it to the villagers. You will then get a large number of agriculturalists on the land, far greater than now, consuming your products. At the same time you would avoid their coming into the towns and {480} competing with you for labour. The subject is a very lengthy one. As I said, you have to go into the question in all its absolute details. I will only tell you one other reason why I object to this system of making us all children in the hands of the State. I say it would be the greatest danger to our liberties. Why is the Anglo-Saxon race the master race in the world? Why has the Anglo-Saxon race maintained its liberties? It is because of that individualism, that self-reliance, which exists in this country. I would trust no body of men, not Mr. Hyndman and the leaders of the Social-Democratic Federation--though I make no implication against them--nor even a body of angels, with the power of destroying and ruining, at one fell blow, the entire nation. This unquestionably would be the case, and who would be able to resist it? You would have some strong and powerful man coming forward, supported by all the discontented, all the men who were not prepared to accept this wondrous dispensation, this dead level of equality. I say you would have such a man; I say the risk is too great. Mr. Hyndman has alluded to France. What did one great Frenchman, M. Guizot, say? He said: 'The evil of France is that a Frenchman must either be administered or an administrator.' What is the consequence of that feeling? They have no self-reliance. Every now and then they have a Republic, and then comes one like Napoleon, who overturns their Republic and seizes upon the whole thing.

"I have almost finished now. I infinitely prefer listening to Mr. Hyndman to speaking myself, but I had to make some defence of the cause by which I stand. I do say that the Radical Party as at present constituted, the modern Radical Party, has adopted every reasonable idea of Socialism. And the future of this country depends upon Socialism being recognised within proper limits--Collectivism I would prefer to call it--individualism being recognised, trade unionism being recognised, co-operation being recognised. We must all give up our little separate fads and all work together in {481} the cause of Democracy, the rule, the absolute rule, of the people, ruling for the benefit of the people."

Mr. Hyndman said in reply:

"There are just one or two points I should like to deal with in reply to Mr. Labouchere. To begin with I have listened with the greatest surprise to-night to his constant reference to the wage fund. Without any disrespect to him I say that, as a matter of fact, that figment has been abandoned by every political economist of any note for the last thirty years. It was abandoned by Mr. John Stuart Mill, in deference to the criticism of Long and Cairnes twenty-five years ago. The bottom was knocked out of it by Marx forty years ago. What is the wage fund, my friends? The wage fund is provided by the labourer himself, who, mark you, advances his labour to the capitalist before he gets a farthing of wages. There is not a man in this hall, however big an Individualist or Radical he may be, not a single working man here who goes to work from week end to week end that does not advance a week's labour to the capitalist before he gets a sixpence in return. The fact of the matter is that the capitalist has got in his possession the value, and more than the value, far more than the value paid as wages before he pays a sixpence of those wages. He can go to his banker with the product he has got out of the labourer and get an advance before he pays those wages. Practically in getting the advance he realises the product of his employees' labour. The fallacy of the wage fund theory is recognised by every economist, and I defy Mr. Labouchere to prove I am wrong. I will defy Mr. Labouchere to name an economist who upholds it."

At this point of Mr. Hyndman's speech Mr. Labouchere rose and said:

"I deny that there is one single economist of repute who questions the effect of what I said about the wage fund. The employer has either to provide himself with a wage fund, and then he is entitled to interest on his money, or he has to {482} borrow it from someone else, and then he has to pay interest. The working-man, it is perfectly true, gives him credit for a week--not always, but I am taking Mr. Hyndman's statement--but the employer does not, I say--take the cotton industry--the employer does not get back his money till the end of the year. Consequently, whereas the working man gives credit for a week, the employer has to give him credit for fifty-one weeks. ['No, no.'] I say yes, there is no question about it. All that I want to point out is that you have to pay interest on this wage fund. Mr. Hyndman admits it, because he says, what does he do? He goes and obtains it from his banker. Does his banker give it to him?"

To which Mr. Hyndman retorted, not ineffectually:

"I say that the security has been provided by the working man before the capitalist is able to raise a sixpence on it, and that all he does is to divide up the surplus value he has got from the worker with the banker who has made the advance. There is no such thing as a wage fund, except that provided by the worker himself. And it is exactly the same with the capital. Friends and fellow-citizens, where does this capital come from? From the labourers themselves. Where can the capital come from if not from the labour of the workers? Did not the workers build every factory in this country, from its base to its topmost storey? Did they not put down every sleeper on the railways, and lay down every mile of line? I say, therefore, that this idea of the wage fund, which has been repudiated by John Stuart Mill, by Cairnes, by Mr. Alfred Marshall, by every economist of note, does not exist in economy, but is a figment of the imagination. Now, friends, as to this question of families fading out. Mr. Labouchere says that the death-rate has lowered. That is perfectly true. On the average the death-rate _has_ lowered. But mark this. It has lowered principally in the well-to-do districts. The death-rate in St. George's, Hanover Square, is 11 per 1000; in several districts of Lambeth it is 66."

{483}

Mr. Labouchere, evidently astonished, turned to the Chairman and said, "Is that a fact?" Some one in the audience shouted "Proof!"

"Proof you must look up in the statistics; I can't bring a library here with me. I say, friends, in addition to that, that vitality is on a lower plane. For this, again, I give as my authority passages quoted in Alfred Marshall's _Principles of Economics_, where you will find the opinions of doctors. I also refer you to reports of certifying surgeons for the factories for the year 1875 and later dates. I say that when I speak of families fading out, I mean that the physical and mental vigour and initiative of those families are crushed down in our great cities. I have never heard it disputed before; I don't think I shall hear it disputed again. If you ask any of the great contractors as to his supply of powerful navvies, he will tell you he cannot get them out of the towns. If you ask any of the recruiting officers he will tell you the lads from the cities are physically useless. You will find the standard of height for recruits has decreased five inches during the present reign, and the chest measurement in proportion. Consequently there is, I say, in our great cities, which form the bulk of the population, a constant physical deterioration going on, which will end in the fading-out of the people unless we replace this system of robbery and rascality and oppression that is going on at present by a better. I cannot stop any length of time to dispute about the way in which the wealth that is taken from the workers is divided up. It matters not to me whether it is the Royal Family, or the professional men, or the servants who divide it, or in what proportion they divide it, after it has been taken from the worker. That makes, I say, no difference whatsoever. The workers never see it again. Four per cent. also on £100,000,000 is forty per cent. on £10,000,000. How is the amount of capital reckoned? Mr. Labouchere knows perfectly well that a coal mine or factory which has cost but £40,000 will frequently be capitalised at £200,000. {484} That is the way they put it in the Blue Books. I can give an example of a mill in Rochdale where the freehold belongs to the man who owns that mill, when and where every single charge is met in a separate category, and then, after all these are divided, the interest on the capital is reckoned over again on the whole capitalised value. I say that four per cent. does not represent the profits on cotton, even in these comparatively bad days for the cotton industry. But the mere fact that the profit is going down means that competition is cutting its own throat, that we are no longer masters of the markets of the world. And what does the capitalist do when his profits go down? He tries to make another turn of the screw on his labourers--and the result was the great cotton strike which occurred a short time ago, when, for sixteen weeks on end, the poor unfortunate spinners and weavers stood out because they would not have that amount which the capitalist was losing in the competitive market sweated out of their very bone and blood. So much for your four per cent. or your forty per cent. It is wrung out of the workers, it can come from nobody else. As to the organiser, what did the Roman slave-owner give to his villeins, who stood in the same relation to the working slaves as the capitalist organiser to the labouring classes to-day? He paid him lower remuneration because his labours were less exhausting. That is a positive fact. I say that if you want organisers who to-day are appointed by the capitalist, let them be appointed by the workers, who can pay them far better than the capitalists, because you will have all the capitalists' profits and all the amounts the capitalists sweat out of their employees' labour as well to pay with. ['Don't capitalists start as working men?'] Yes, and the more they grab, the bigger they get. As to the amount received by the working men as wages, Mr. Leone Levi was one of the most unscrupulous and lying champions of the capitalist class who ever wrote. He represented that the average wages of working men and women throughout England {485} were 32s. a week. That is a positive fact; it is on record in his own books. Thirty-two shillings a week! I say that is a deliberate lie. And that is how he made out his amount of 531 millions. As a matter of fact, Mr. Giffen and Mr. Mulhall both included in the wages of the working classes all those paid to domestic servants, the soldiers and sailors, all that is paid to your noble friends the police. I say that, as a matter of fact, those are not producers in the common sense of the word. They are simply encumbrances upon the industrial community. I say, further, that out of the amount paid in wages to the working classes, which I reckon at £300,000,000 to £350,000,000, not a sixpence more, one-fifth or one-fourth has to be paid as rent for the miserable dwellings the workers occupy. That is, I say, the position of the labouring portion of the community at the present time. I am told that shopkeepers are a useful class. Well, surely there are too many of them. You will find in one street half a dozen people vending the same wares. The organisation of any decent system of distribution would not allow such a state of things to continue, but would turn the unnecessary distributors into producers, and thus lighten the weight of producing on the others. Mr. Labouchere does not seem to understand that what we want is not money. You cannot eat it; you cannot be clothed with it. What you want is good hats, good homes, and good beefsteaks--enjoyment, contentment in life, comfort, and beyond all these, public amusements of every kind. I say that these have nothing whatsoever to do with money. If you want to save, you don't want to save money; you want to save those things which are necessary to the support and continuance of life. Mr. Labouchere seems to think that communism is unknown on this planet. I say that human beings far lower in the range of civilisation than we, with comparatively small and puny means of production, live far more happily, in far better conditions of life, than enormous proportions of our great city population. Where? I will tell you. I say I {486} have lived among communal tribes where, as a matter of fact, the conditions are as I have told you. The inhabitants of Polynesia, the Pueblas of New Mexico, and the people of other places which I have not seen, live better, considerably better, with all their small means of production, than the proletariat of our great cities, and they produce, regard being had to the productive powers at their command, articles of clothing and domestic use as remarkable in their way as the finest products of civilisation. More than that, all the great bed-rock inventions of humanity, the wheel, the potter's wheel, the smelting of metals, the canoe, the rudder, the sail, every one of these and many more, the stencil plate and weaving, to wit, were invented under communism and no human being knows who invented them. That is a sufficient answer to the supposition that under a Socialist state of society there would be no progress in the invention. But I am asked what the capitalists will do when the transformation to a co-operative commonwealth is made. They will go away with their capital. What is capital? Capital is the means and instruments of production used by a class to make profit out of labour. Can the capitalist roll up the railways and take them away in his portmanteau? Will he walk away with the factories in his waistcoat pocket? Mr. Labouchere himself sees the futility of some of this. He advocates the nationalisation of the railways because he says that they will be better administered under the State than to-day."

_Mr. Labouchere_: "No, no."

_Mr. Hyndman_: "Why then do you want to nationalise them?"

_Mr. Labouchere_: "I very much doubt whether they would be better managed in the sense that they would produce more money than now. I hold that the roads of a country ought to belong essentially to the State. It is better for the general benefit that they should be held collectively. I do object to their giving preferential rates to foreigners and {487} charging excessive amounts to persons sending goods a short distance in England. That is the reason why I think the railways would be better in the hands of the State."

_Mr. Hyndman_: "As a matter of fact, preferential rates can be stopped without the nationalisation of the railways. Mr. Labouchere can bring in a Bill when Parliament meets to prevent them. Why, then, is he so Utopian as to demand the nationalisation of the railways? I want, however, to raise the discussion out of the minor points, and I say this, that Socialism does not mean organisation by the State under the control of Mr. Hyndman, or any one else, but the entire organisation of industry, on the highest plane of co-operation for the benefit of all. In that co-operative commonwealth competition for profit will be unknown. Mr. Labouchere has drawn a tremendous picture of what it will cost to effect the change. What does the social system cost you as it is going on to-day? Competition carried to its logical issue must engender monopolies. These monopolies have been given by the capitalist class to themselves in their capitalist House of Commons. That assembly must be re-constituted and turned to Social-Democratic purposes. But then you will lose all those clever men who will not join with you! Where will they go? We are stronger in France than in England, and stronger in Germany than in France. Will they go to China? That seems to me the last refuge of the wandering individualist, the last place on the planet where the individualist will be able to go. Socialism is gaining ground in every country in the world, and mark this, where the people are best educated, there we are most powerful. Germany is the best educated country, and Socialism is stronger there than in any other nation. Whatever city in England has a body of educated workers, there we make way quickly. Mr. Labouchere seems to think that no one will serve his fellowmen unless he is able to grab from them. His idea of humanity seems to me--I wish to say {488} nothing that is in the least offensive, and I will withdraw it at once if it is considered so."

For about a minute there was disorder so great that Mr. Hyndman was unable to proceed. The Chairman rose and appealed for quietness during the two or three minutes that remained to Mr. Hyndman. Silence having been restored, Mr. Hyndman said:

"I say, friends, that the representation that the men of intelligence, of genius, of capacity, and the like would leave us and go to other places means that they are not animated by the idea of serving their species, but simply of making their own fortunes. I say that mankind, as a whole, has higher ideals than that. I say that all the great work done on this planet, all the great books that have ever been written, all the great inventions that have ever been made, have not been made for money, but for something higher than that. I say further, that when a man has been paid all he requires to sustain a happy, contented, and wholesome life, when he has around him a people living happily with him, co-operating with him, when he sees that every effort he makes tends to the advantage of the whole community and to the drawback and domination of none, I say that then, animated with a lofty public spirit, he will place his whole power, his whole intelligence, his very faults, and his life at the disposal of the community he benefits by his existence."

Mr. Hyndman went on to point out that many of the reforms adopted by the Radicals were in reality due to Socialist inspiration. He instanced the eight hours day and the nationalisation of railways, which Mr. Labouchere had advocated, and concluded what must have been a stirring and able speech as follows:

"Now I repeat, friends and fellow-citizens, that we are arguing for what is inevitable, that at the present moment the capitalist system, like the feudal system before it, and chattel slavery before that, heads back progress. I say {489} that now, in many directions the force of electricity, and various great mechanical and chemical inventions, which might tend to the benefit of the race are being headed back by low wages and vested private interests. I don't think anybody can deny that. It must be admitted also that universal commercial crises have occurred time after time in this century, each one worse than the one before it. Since the Baring crisis of 1890 there have been great financial difficulties, and thousands and tens of thousands of people have been thrown out of work. Why? Not because there is not plenty of wealth to be produced, but because, as a matter of fact, the power to produce it is taken from the producers altogether. I say that, whether we like it or not, a system of Socialism is being built up out of the facts of to-day. From the misery we see around us there is necessarily arising a glorious future, the golden age which all the greatest of the sons of men from Plato and Moore onward have desired and foreseen, an age in which wage-slavery and competition having ceased, men will co-operate for the greater advantage and enjoyment of all. Friends, that which the great thinkers of old saw through a glass darkly we see face to face. We are the inheritors of the martyrdom of men to the forms of production and distribution throughout the ages. I ask you to-night not to treat this question as being brought down to you from on high, but as growing up under your feet below. Consider it earnestly for the sake of the men, women, and children who are being crushed down in our cities, and whose lives may be rendered worthy and happy. Let us uplift ourselves at once from the question of twopenny and twopenny-halfpenny profit into a higher, nobler, and more glorious sphere."

Mr. J. G. Smith, on behalf of the Socialists, wound up the proceedings by proposing a vote of thanks to both speakers. He expressed his appreciation of the "sincerity and honesty" with which Mr. Labouchere had met Mr. Hyndman.

{490}

Opinions will probably differ as to who really got the better of this encounter, nor shall I be rash enough to award the palm. At least Mr. Labouchere's speech shows the sort of way in which he approached the question. It shows his dislike of theory, his determination to stick to the concrete, and his distaste for rhetoric.

{491}