The Note Book
It’s come at last ! I knew it would if we only kept at it long enough. When you call a man say, a thief, and prove it, he has no reply except perhaps “you’re another.” When we say a Party has sold out to the capitalist class and prove it, there is no reply possible except perhaps “so have you.” After Camborne it is therefore not surprising that we should hear from the S.D.F. that we are financed by the capitalist class. The allegation comes from Bradford. I understand it’s quite a common sort of charge against us there in the S.D.F. branch. Deponent sayeth that this paper is run by a wealthy American gent (name and extent of financial resources unknown) who pours his wealth into our party exchequer to the end that we may break up the Socialist movement in this country. We are, it seems, bold bad persons of no delicacy, and we are also, at last, discovered—in Bradford.
It’s such a pretty story that I am fain to withhold my hand from writing that which will burst it. Yet must I. Therefore be it known to all men that, like so much of the information that cometh out of the S.D.F., this story is entirely untrue. Unlike the S.D.F. this Party’s Treasurer is not allowed to issue all-embracing items of expenditure such as “Ink and Sundries £50,” or similar statements. He must give to all the membership a full detailed return of income and expenditure. These returns, supplied quarterly and annually, can be inspected by arrangement with any of our Branch secretaries, or through the Head Office. That should, I think, dispose of our American millionaire. Will the S.D.F. allow the same inspection of their books ? or the I.L.P.? or any other party claiming to represent the working class as against the capitalist class ?
Speaking for the S.D.F. at Tottenham, on Sunday, June 25th, Mr. Whitlock of the Stratford Branch, said “I would not have crossed my doorstep to vote for Will Thorne at the last election.” Referring to an interview he had had the previous week with Mr. H. M. Hyndman he said “Mr. Hyndman declared himself utterly disgusted with the present Executive Committee of the S.D.F.” Here’s a pretty kettle of fish !
Mr. Hyndman utterly disgusted with his Executive and Mr. Whitlock utterly disgusted with Mr. Thorne. It’s a great Party !
“Socialists don’t desire to get into Parliament quickly : they desire to make Socialists. And they can make Socialists best by teaching Socialism, not by masquerading as ‘Labour’ men.” This is not an extract from a back number of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD—it is from the “Answers to Correspondents” column of the Clarion, of all papers in the world ! And the Clarion is a thick-and-thin supporter of the gentlemen masquerading as “Labour” men, and says that what the workers want is more of ’em ! Well! Well ! If consistency is a jewel the Clarion men must have realised on theirs very early in their career, if, indeed, they ever had it.
In reply to a question put to him in the House of Commons on May 23rd, Mr. John Burns said it was not true that he stated in 1886 that there were five millions of people in England on the verge of starvation. We fear that John Burns’ memory, like most other official memories, has grown very short. Speaking from the Old Bailey Dock when on trial for conspiracy on April 9th, 1886, Mr. Burns said, “I say we cannot have in England as we have to-day, five millions living on the verge of pauperism, without gross discontent.” This speech was published at the time in pamphlet form, and was sold widely. It has been sold by Burns’ supporters and by Burns himself. A copy of it, unless I am very mistaken, is at the present time among Mr. Burns’ collection. I have never heard of Burns repudiating the accuracy of his reported remarks before. It is only now, when it is brought up in evidence against his official view of the poverty problem that he denies it. Which brings us to this : either Burns was disseminating a falsehood then or he is disseminating a falsehood now. On the evidence of the supporters of the Party he belongs to, like Mr. Chiozza Money and Mr. Rowntree, the statement made at the Old Bailey must have been well within the mark. Therefore it is now that Mr. Burns is fabricating
The question referred to was asked, I observe, by Mr. Will Thorne and Mr. Thorne is a regular reader of this paper, as I happen to know. And in this paper for May we reproduced extracts from Burns’ speech in the Dock. The source of Mr. Thorne’s information, therefore, is clearly THE SOCIALIST STANDARD ; and not a bad source either. I commend Mr. Thorne’s example to the other “Labour” members. A regular and careful perusal of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD would, I am sure, do them a world of good. The terms, gentlemen, are 1s. 6d. per annum, post free.
When Mr. Burns denied the accuracy of Mr. Thorne’s statement, Mr.Thorne replied that he had the evidence in his pocket. A thousand pities Mr. Burns did not challenge its production.
I observe that the S.D.F. have endeavoured to secure kudos from the incident by reprinting the speech referred to. We published a few extracts only in order to effect a sharp contrast between the Burns of the eighties and the Burns of to-day. The possibility of reproducing the whole speech was discussed by us several months ago but, although we could see that it would find a ready sale, the idea was rejected because there would be no propagandist value in the document by itself. Like most of Burns’ speeches (in this respect at any rate the gentleman has consistency) it was largely wind and bombast. Apart from their educational possibilities we have no concern with the publication of pamphlets. Because it had no educational possibilities we rejected the Burns’ speech pamphlet. For the same reason, apparently, the S.D.F. seized upon it. They are very welcome.
Mr, Thorne has, it seems, nearly arrived at the conclusion that if anything is to be done in the matter of the unemployed, they will have to do it themselves. “They,” I presume, means the “Labour” members. William must have been very muddle headed if he thought the Government was ever likely to do more than the exact equivalent of nothing. And William must be still more muddle-headed if he thinks the “Labour” members can do anything worth talking about. If William wants reasons and has preserved his back numbers of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD, he will find any number of them have already appeared in our columns. If he wants any more, a note to the Editorial address will receive prompt attention,
On the authority of The Labour Record, this—”while Parliament sits in the sweltering heat of these summer days discussing dogma, trifling about tittles and often failing to take occasion by the hand, J. R. Clynes, the Labour representative for North East Manchester, sits quiet, emotionless, imperturbable, noting everything and forgetting nothing ! Someday he will arouse himself—and then !” Lor ! Someday he will arouse himself. Note that, impatience ! Someday—and then? Well, frankly, I don’t know what then ; but I conclude, there’s a good time coming boys when Mr. Clynes arouses himself. We may wipe away all tears from our eyes—when Mr. Clynes arouses himself. And we shall have a time—when Mr. Clynes arouses himself. But why, oh, why! does he sit quiet, emotionless, imperturbable ? Why doesn’t he arouse himself?
Quoth the Daily News in adverse criticism of that prince of political judges Sir William Grantham (whose judicial calm and serenity by the way, appears to find highest expression in speech husky with emotion and watered with the bitterest of tears !)—”We do not complain of the Bodmin decision as it stands by itself. The serious part of the business is that the election at Bodmin should be declared void while the elections at Yarmouth and Maidstone are allowed to stand.” The naivetté is charming. The serious part of the business, the part that really matters is that two Conservatives retain their seats while the poor Liberal loses his. If now, it had been two Liberals who had maintained their positions and a Conservative who had failed, it wouldn’t have been nearly so serious a matter. Indeed, there would have been nothing at all calling for comment except, perhaps, the skilful discrimination and the even-handed justice of the be-wigged and very learned exponent of law on the Bench. As it is, the really serious part of the business to the Liberal Daily News is that all three Liberals have failed—two in their efforts to unseat their opponents and one in his effort to himself remain seated !
In the matter of the Daily News—can anyone tell me why its “Life and Labour” column now appears only about once a week ? Was the writer too out-spoken, giving offence to too many good Liberals and true ; or has the need for the maintenance of the fiction which the Daily News was so assiduous in disseminating about the time of the General Election, that the Liberal Party is the Party of the workers, the Parly of Progress and industrial reform, etc., etc., ad nauseam, now ceased to exist ? Many of those who take in, and are taken in by, the Daily News, incline to the first view. I accept the second. The good Liberals and true, don’t mind the “Life and Labour” column fillips so long as the writer is always careful to muddle the real issue of the irreconcilable antagonism existing between working-class interests and the interests of that section of capitalism represented in the Liberal Party.
It is time the good Liberals aforesaid could always rely upon the good Liberals in the editorial and sub-editorial chairs deleting anything particularly objectionable, but I don’t think there would have ever been serious occasion for their intervention. Those who are familiar with the writings of the “Life and Labour” column man know how adroitly he can steer himself out of the danger zone while leaving in the mind of the casual reader the impression that he has faced the whole problem and arrived at the only conclusion. They know too that it is inconceivable that a man can get so near the truth without seeing it, and they know, therefore, that the writer referred to can be relied upon to say just enough and no more. It may consequently be fairly concluded that the Daily News does not now think it necessary to particularly emphasize the fiction mentioned. When the time comes again, as it surely will, the “Life and Labour” column or its equivalent will surely reappear as a regular feature.