THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS P J. BUCKIXGHAM POPE BAEniSTEE-AT-LAW DEDICATED TO COKSTITUENCIES OF EVEEY COLOUR, PtIVINGTON, PEECIVAL & CO. 34, KING STREET, COVEN T GARDEN LONDON, W.C. 1897 CONTENTS. CirATTER rAGE I. IXTKODCCTOEY ....... 5 II. The Demoralizing Influence op the House OF Commons on Conservative Members . 11 HI. The Demoralization of the Conservative Press 15 IV. The "Armchair Politician" . . . .22 V. The Power op the "Armchair Politician" 27 Yl, The Cruelty of the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill in its effects upon Employees and Employed . . . .34 VII. The Compensation Bill as a Specimen op Electioneerlkg Tactics . . . .44 VIII. The Effect of the Compensation Bii;L on the Welfare of the Nation as a Whole . 50 IX. The House of Lords 54 X. Practical Advice to Conservatives and Others 62 Letter addressed by the Liberty and Property Defence League to "The Eastern Morning News" op July 2nd, 18S7. — Workmen's Com- pensation Tested by Facts . . .68 4()207-« CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS ? CHAPTEE r. INTRODUCTOKY. In the ensuing pages I have endeavoured to point out, not only to Conservatives, but to the large number of thinking Liberals who are to be found in this country, that politics have now reached a crisis at which every individual who has any stake in the kingdom, or is interested in trade or commerce, must ask himself the question, " Whither are we drifting ? " Ever since Lord Beaconsfield " dished the Whigs," there has been evinced by each political party only one idea, and that idea has been to secure by any means, and at any cost to the true interest of the country, the vote of " the masses." Each party has indulged in the profitless pursuit of grasping at the shadow and dropping the 6 CONSEEVATIYES OR SOCIALISTS ? substance, liy scrambling for short-lived popu- larity with the masses, they have each in turn lost the confidence of the nation. It is true that until the introduction of th'? Compensation for Accidents Bill, the Conser- vatives always had some species of apology or explanation to give for their obvious attempts to outbid measures which had been bitterly opposed when introduced by their opponents. But for the introduction of the Compensation for Accidents Bill no such apology is possible. The Bill is simply a piece of Socialism let loose on one of the most depressed industries in the country. It has been said by members of the Government that the only real opposition has come from the coal-owners ; and when it is con- sidered how short a time the Bill has been before the country, it seems very natural that tliis should be the case. The coal-owners are in this position: They have made a bargain with their work-people, and, in respect of the risks incidental to the duties the latter have undertaken to perform, have agreed to pay them higher wages than any other unskilied labourers receive. The CONSEliVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? 7 coal-owuers are now suddenly called upon by the Legislature, without one moment's warning, to pay over again in respect of a risk for which they have already paid. I ask Conservatives and thinking Liberals to put to themselves the question, " What is to come next ? " A Liberal ex-Cabinet minister (formerly a great supporter of Mr. Chamberlain), when recently speaking of this Bill, said : " This is the thin end of the wedge. Now we shall get every- thing — it is only a question of time." And unless Conservatives and unsocialistic Liberals act in concert to prevent the prophecy being fulfilled, fulfilled it will be most assuredly. Cruel as this Bill is to the struggling coal-owner, cruel as it is to a large number of workmen, all this is as nothing compared with the evils which will follow this absolute disregard of all principle. If the Legislature once establishes the precedent that on the ground of supposed " expediency " it can step in and alter contracts made between one man and another, there is no law on which either trade or property can rely. Eecollect what happened in Ireland when Mr. Gladstone followed that precedent, and recollect 8 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? that the continual repetition of such measures in nearly every session of Parliament has not only taken up almost the whole time of Parlia- ment, but has resulted in the ruin of the Irish land-owners — a ruin which has been as effectually helped by the Conservatives as the Liberals. Ptecollect that the "union of hearts," prophesied by Mr. Gladstone, has just resulted in the fact that Ireland is the only portion of the Empire which has refused to join in the world-wide congratulations to her Majesty on the occasion of the sixtieth year of her reign. Eecollect that this Bill means that thousands of minds will now be set to work to evolve fresh attacks on capital and property of every description on the ground of " expediency." Eecollect that there is no finality when once you have destroyed principle, and set up expediency in its place. The labours of Parliament in ruining Ireland would not have ceased yet, had it not been for the fact that the united ingenuity of both j^arties is unable to solve the problem of extracting blood from a stone. Having squeezed the lemon dry. Parliament is now allowed to rest from its destructive duties. COXSERYATIVES OR SOCIALISTS ? 9 The landlords have been recently advised to agitate ; but it is far too late for agitation, for now nothing can save them. It is for the purpose of preventing the people of England from finding themselves in the position of the Irish landlords, that I take this opportunity of suggesting that agitation in England should come now, and not after the principle of " expediency " has been accepted by the Legislature ; not after every succeeding measure, however wild, has been defended on the ground that Parliament has already accepted what it is pleased to term the " principle " of Compensation, As I have before stated, we have seen what the departure from principle has brought forth in Ireland ; but, calamitous as these effects have been, they are as nothing compared to the effects which will be produced in Great Britain if this Compensation Bill is passed into law. Mr. Gladstone's first Irish Land Act may be regarded as the prototype of the Compensation Bill, And, after all, it has taken some fifteen years to com- plete the ruin of only one section of the Irish community, although the main portion of the work of the House of Commons has been devoted 10 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS { to that end. But the possibilities of ruining England engendered by the passing of this Bill are far greater ; and it will be interesting to see how much of the time of the House will be required to efiect, by its means, and by others like it, a destruction which will not be merely confined to land, but will fall, sooner or later, upon every species of property, and every business which exists. I therefore ask the property classes and trade classes not to wait until the mischief is done, but to act at once, and " scotch this snake " before it scotches them. A few of the evils which we shall have to face, I will try to indicate in the pages which follow. CHAPTER II. THE DEMORALIZING INFLUENCE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS, It is almost universally admitted that, however high a Conservative may stand amongst liis fellows, however honourable or just he may be in all the private relationships of life — once let him become a professional politician, and enter the House of Commons, and, as a rule, he sinks into a kind of automatic voting machine, which, when pressed by the party " whips," will vote with equal regularity fQr measures which it approves or for those which it detests. I will now proceed to consider the working of this machine in regard to its latest development. The Compensation for Accidents Bill has been introduced nominally by Sir Matthew White Pddley, but (as mentioned a short time since in the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce) "the voice 12 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? VMS the voice of Matthew, but the hand ^vas the hand of Joscj^h." If we take the case of Mr. Chamberlain, it cannot be said that any actual deterioration has taken place ; for he is the same Mr. Chamberlain who some few years ago drew the attention of the masses to the manner in which the rich spent their money. He charged the rich with living on "unearned increment," and he pointed to Lord Salisbury as a person who lived "without either toiling or spinning," omitting to mention the fact that he was doing precisely the same thing himself. It was Mr. Chamberlain who advocated manhood suffrage and the payment of members of Parlia- ment, and it was he who propounded the doctrine of "ransom." The demoralization of politicians to which I have alluded is therefore not shown in his case (regarded by the light of this Bill), but is seen in the so-called Conservative Govern- ment, who have practically adopted him as their leader, and made him almost a dictator over this country, without apparently even inquiring whether or no he still adheres to the principles and doctrine of a few years ago. The adoption of Mr. Chamberlain has resulted CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS ? 13 in the fact that a political party has been more thoroughly undermined than was ever before known ; and never has a party seen its generous confidence more cruelly betrayed. It is not for me to determine whether the Radical and Irish parties were justified in bestow- ing upon the right honourable gentleman a name which is emblematic of the greatest act of be- trayal of which we have record ; but its sugges- tion in the past renders its adoption in the future a possibility not only to its originators, but also to the Conservatives. The acceptance of its fitness by the latter party would place the House of Commons in the novel position of having at last discovered a subject in which every party in the House would be unanimous. The loner prophesied " union of hearts " might thus be realised. In Sir Matthew White Ridley we have a better illustration of the deterioration of the individual citizen in the politician. This gentleman, in his private capacity, is liked by every one, and I doubt whether there is a single person in the North of England in whose honour or integrity more implicit confidence would be placed, if it 14 CONSEllVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS ? were left to liini to decide a question of para- mount importance between man and man. But Sir Matthew is a politician, and is also a large owner of coal, which he does not work, but leases to other people. Having made his bargain, Sir Matthew must be aware that the direct conse- quences of the Bill to which he has lent his name will be a serious loss to those people who invested money in mines without warning of such " con- servative " legislation. He does not, however, propose to alter the old law, so as to release lessees from their obligations. He leaves them to bear the loss together with the additional hard- ship involved in the knowledge that the process is intended to gain the support of their own work-people to the advantage of those who framed the l^ill. All who know Sir Matthew White Eidley must recognize the fact that in his private capacity such a transaction would not only have been impossible, but one against M^hich every sentiment of justice which he possesses would have revolted. CHAPTER III. THE DEMORALIZATION OF THE CONSERVATIVE PRESS. When gentlemen so prominent in public life as those to whom I have alluded exhibit such melan- choly instances of deterioration, it is only too probable that the organs of public opinion should reflect a somewhat similar weakness ; and as a matter of fact the demoralization of the Con- servative Press is as well marked as that of the Conservative politician. In commenting on the action of the Govern- ment tlie Press describes this Bill as "a most generous measure." The generosity involved by the act of putting your hand into another man's pocket for the purpose of securing to yourself power and a high salary, is generally described by quite another name when initiated by private individuals. 16 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? One Conservative journal, in alluding to the complaint of the injustice involved in holding employers responsible for accidents occasioned by the drunkenness of their work-people, roundly lectured the coal-owners for daring to hint that miners ever became drunk, and asked what they would say if the miner made the same suggestion with regard to the owners ? It did not occur, apparently, to the journalist who conceived this brilliant argument that, however drunk or besotted the owner may be, there is at present no Bill before the country making the miner responsible for his safety. The following extract from a leading article in reply to a speech of Lord Londonderry (com- plaining of the interference of the Government in regard to the rights of property) crystallizes the present policy of the Government, admits the truth of my deductions, and really puts the whole case in a nutshell. The organ I refer to is the Standard ; and the first of the statements which I will quote is as follows : " Can Lord Londonderry explain to us how the Conservative jparty can hope to hold its own, and CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? 17 to continue to shoia a firm front to the enemies of the Constitution hy any otlier line of policy than the present Government have adopted ? " Now, if this means anything, it means that if the Conservatives were to refuse to pass the first of Mr. Chamberlain's " Eansom " Bills, the Liberal Unionists would be offended, and would at the first opportunity vote for Home Eule. No sug- gestion can be more false or more ridiculous. The Press seems dominated with the idea that Liberal Unionism and Mr. Chamberlain mean one and the same thing; whereas there is not one tittle of evidence to show that the Liberal Unionists have any idea in common with Mr. Chamberlain, except upon the subject of Home Eule. This party contains the bulk of the strong common sense of the old Liberals, whose greatest watchword was, "Freedom of Contract." Mr. Chamberlain's Bill not only entirely puts an end to this, but, if passed, it would leave this com- mercial country in the desperate position of having no law, the permanency of which could be relied upon. If it is right for Parliament to alter certain bargains entered into between employers and employed, there cannot be the c 18 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? slightest security that it will not alter any con tract which exists in the country, and this simply means that it would in future be im- possible for business to be conducted on safe lines, or on any known principle. Without attempting to explain away or mitigate the evil, the Standard says that this is the only way "to show a firm front to the enemies of the Constitution." The next sentence in the article is as follows : — " Hie only result of acting on the system which Lord Londonderry appears to recommend vjould he to hring the Conservatives into a position of 'splendid isolation.' No such party woicld ever command a majority at the polls. Its functions would he confined to opposition; it would attract little new hlood into its ranks from the rising generation, and would gradually wither away like the Jacohites." Now, the only policy which Lord Londonderry advocated was respect for the rights of property ; and here is a so-called Conservative organ treat- ing such a policy as one which must "wither away." This journal has evidently not learnt much from the experience of the last quarter of a CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? 19 century ; apparently it is under the fixed impres- sion that attacks upon property by successive Governments have in all cases been crowned with success. But I should like to call the attention of the writer to the position of the Liberals at the last election. This party had been menacing everything in the country ; they had brought out their Newcastle programme, and there was absolutely nothing of a kindred nature which they were not prepared to adopt as their political platform, if they were impressed with the conviction that they could thereby secure the vote of the masses. They adopted in its entirety the policy advocated by the Standard ; but it is they who now occupy the "position of splendid isolation," and it is the Conservatives (who at the General Election had never whispered one word about the Compensation Bill, and, indeed, had practically promised nothing) who were returned by a sweeping majority. Nay, more ; Sir William Harcourt, who had really succeeded in passing a Bill by which not only Conservatives, but a vast number of Liberals, considered themselves robbed, was returned by one of the most Eadical con- stituencies of the country to the " splendid 20 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? isolation " of his own home, and would probably have remained there, had he not been reh'eved from it by a constituency situated in a portion of her Majesty's dominions in which English is not the national language. So much for the logical deductions drawn from the light of past events by the Standard ; but its political morality I dedicate to the thoughtful reflection of its readers, and trust they will in their own minds consider whether this organ can in the future be considered to represent the feelings and instincts of the great Conservative party in this country. However, if this journal is to be believed, the Conservatives know what they have to expect, and must realize the fact tliat respect for the rights of property and free- dom of contract have now been completely relegated " to the regions of Jupiter and Saturn." At the same time, it must not be forgotten that if this Bill had been introduced by Mr. Asquith, it would have been howled down by every Conservative newspaper from Land's End to Cape Wrath as a measure founded on pure and unadulterated socialism. It is abundantly evident from this that in these newspaper CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS ? 21 arguments the real welfare of the country is put on one side in the interests of wire-pullers and politicians, who represent the same doctrine under different names. Apparently the only interest of the Press is centred in the question of whether or no " Lord This " or " Sir William That " shall hold the reins of office. It is with a sigh of relief that we find a very different line adopted by the Neiocastle Chronicle, represented by that robust specimen of Liberalism and common sense, Mr. Joseph Cowan. Mr. Cowan is a gentleman who probably knows more of the exigencies of the coal trade, and the neces- sities of both employers and miners, than all the Conservative Press in London put together. Yet whilst the latter is senilely congratulating the public upon the excellence of the measure and the generosities of its proposers, Mr. Cowan has constantly and consistently indulged in trencliant criticisms of its proposals, aided by far more able arguments than any to which I can lay claim. CHAPTER IV. THE "ARMCHAIR POLITICIAN." The policy recommended by the Standard having been followed by the defeat of every successive Grovernment which has adopted it (including all since Lord Beaconsfield's Eeform Bill), it follows that there must be some factor inevitable to success which each party has in turn neglected, I will, for want of a better name, take one suggested some time ago by the Times, and I will term this factor the " Armchair Politician." Let me explain what I mean by this title. The " Armchair Politician " is the representative of property and the right of " freedom of contract " in politics. It is my business now to show the importance of the class represented by this title, and to give that class itself some few words of advice. The party leaders — having, as I have shown. CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? 23 for many years past been actuated by only one idea, viz. the attempt to secure the vote of " the masses" at any price and at any cost — have apparently drawn up their political programmes with this object only. One would almost think that they are under the impression that the " masses " take in the Times and other leading journals, and that a considerable portion of each working-man's day is spent in weighing the different measures proposed by the various Governments, in reading and noting the speeches of members of Parliament, and in estimating carefully the effect of every proposal upon his own individual interests. Xow, it is easy to perceive how politicians originally fell into this error ; but it is almost impossible to understand how they can have avoided recognizing it before the present year of Grace. There was an idea, which originated with the passing of Lord Beaconsfield's Eeform Bill, that landlords and property owners generally were (in proportion to the nation) an exceedingly small number, who possessed an exceedingly small number of votes: whereas the labouring classes generally commanded an enormously 24 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? larger number. The idea underlying the action of the leaders of both political parties has been this : they have said, " Let us, either by a tax on property or by fostering some Eadical fad, commend our policy to the classes who possess the largest number of votes and the least amount of property, and let us ignore the others alto- gether. If we can only prevail upon the working classes to believe in us, we may safely neglect the feelings of the rest of the country and the home interests of all the rest of the nation," This conclusion has not been confined to the intellects of one party only ; both sides play the same game. Each Government as it comes into power makes an attack on property an integral portion of its politics. The leaders forget that all sections of society are bound together indis- solubly, and that an attack on any section acts and reacts to the detriment of the whole. By making a dead-set at this industry or that in- terest, by offering bribes to the working men, they imagine that the highest ideal of practical politics has been attained. Yet, as I have pointed out, if there is any truth in this suppo- sition^ how is it that the Conservatives, after CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS ? 25 achieving office, have only encountered defeat in their turn as the reward of their progressive measures ? The reason is that both parties have been turned out of office by men whose existence both parties have totally ignored — by men who seldom attend political meetings, and who are out of the reach of the political wire-puller. These men are the "Armchair Politicians" of both the Conservative and Liberal parties ; these are the men who make up their minds upon the value of measures, without any regard to partisan orations from the hustings, without disturbance from the hysterical outcries of the agitator, but with a calm, impartial, and deliberate con- sideration of the issues involved. These men are not influenced by shouting, and they do not shout themselves. When once they disapprove of a policy they turn round without a word, and either take no part in politics at all, or, if they do, give their own vote only, taking no further trouble to influence the votes of others. It is apparently forgotten that every house- holder of position, whether in town or country, exercises a legitimate influence over many votes. Not only does he obtain the promise of votes, but 26 CONSEEVATIVES OE SOCIALISTS? he either takes the voters to the poll or sees that they are taken there by some one else. His im- portance to the Conservative party is shown not merely actively by opposition to the Liberals, but passively when he abstains from politics and leaves the Eadical agent to take those voters to the poll who will not sacrifice a clay's work in order to vote unless some one looks after them. Yet this factor in politics has been systema- tically treated with a neglect which is only equalled by the swift retribution that has invariably followed it. CHAPTER Y. THE POWER OF THE " ARMCHAIE POLITICIAN." It is the " Armchair Politician " who has success- fully turned out every Government since the introduction of Lord Beaconsfield's Reform Bill. By this Bill Lord Beaconsfield did more than " dish the Whigs : " he destroyed the Tories ; and from that moment the Conservative leaders have contented themselves by imitating his policy, and have exhausted the only political idea of which they seem capable by one long and fruitless attempt to trump their adversaries' lead. All this, in utter forgetfulness of the fact that it is perfectly useless to angle for the votes of men who do not come to the poll unless sent there either by the " Armchair Politician " or by the Radical agent. Lord Beaconsfield supplemented the mistake he had already made by another error which 28 CONSEKVATIVES OE SOCIALISTS ? eclipsed his first. In the wild scramble for the votes of the working-classes, he brought in a Bill to legalize "picketing," which permitted the Trades Unionists to line the roads with strong and " persuasive " men, whose business it should be to prevent free Englishmen from making their own bargains and doing their own work in any- way that so pleased them. The result was immediately seen in agitations, stoppages, and strikes, which crippled trade in every direction ; but the Trades Unionists went on voting for their leaders as before, and the " Armchair Politician " dismissed the Conservatives from office. If we consider the similar policy adopted by the other side, .the results again are similar. ]VIr. Gladstone imagined, after the manner of politicians, that by " squaring the Irish " with his Home Eule Bill, he would at one blow obtain the requisite majority ; but he forgot the effect which would be produced upon his own party — an effect wliich has remained in evidence until the present day. The Conservatives' greatest reason for opposing Mr. Gladstone's Home Ptule Bill was that they professed to feel it unfair to allow the staunch, law-abiding land and property owners in Ireland CONSERVATIVES OK SOCIALISTS? 29 to be handed over to the tender mercy of the Home Euler. Yet the result of subsequent Conservative legislation has proved as disastrous as any Home Eule proposals could have been. The Conservatives have adopted and supple- mented the pernicious departure from principle inaugurated by Mr. Gladstone. They have mixed themselves up inextricably with that legislation, and it is now impossible for any Irish landowner to decide as to which party has done most in the direction of his ruin. Again, the County Councils Bill was proposed by a Conservative Government. The country never called for it, and there really was no demand for the measure from either party. It was proposed and carried as a direct appeal for the votes of the masses ; and for every Liberal vote obtained through the introduction of this measure it may be safely said that fifty Con- servative votes were alienated. The effects on the minds of Conservatives may easily be traced by their action towards the minister who was respon- sible for it. When this gentleman subsequently appealed to the Conservative electors (though an ex-Cabinet minister), he found that they 30 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS ? refused to vote for him. In spite of a tremendous Conservative reaction from Eadical methods, this gentleman failed to obtain a seat in Parliament until the party leaders, despising, as usual, the influence of the " Armchair Politician," and refusing to accept the expressed opinion of his constituents, found him an absolutely safe seat and placed him in the Ministry. This is merely an example of the way in which the Conservative leaders invariably "encourage" their followers whenever the occasion arises. After the County Councils Bill the Conser- vatives made a further " advance," and brought in Free Education, though it involved the repu- diation of every principle for which they had previously fought. What was vehemently derided when suggested by the Liberals was perfectly sound policy when backed by a Conservative majority. The Conservatives suddenly discovered that as education had been rendered compulsory by the Legislature, it was only right and fair the country should pay for it ; but it is singular the idea never occurred to them before. Just before this Bill was introduced I was myself informed by a Conservative member of CONSEEVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS ? 31 the intention of the Government. I suggested to him that after the position the party had hitherto assumed, it would be an exceedingly dis- honest proceeding. " That may be," he replied, " but it makes the next election an absolute certainty." I ventured to request him not to be too sure of that; and, as a matter of fact, at the next bye-election (in an agricultural constituency) the Conservatives were defeated by a large majority. Here, again, their failure was not due to the fact that the agricultural labourer objected to free education; but the reason was that the " Armchair Politician " was thoroughly disgusted. Instead of taking a reasonable view of the situation, the Conservative party leaders allowed themselves to be influenced by persons whom I may call the " New Conservatives," who pressed upon the Government the necessity for intro- ducing even more drastic measures in the direc- tion of the last. Nor was this dearth of intellect confined to the Conservative managers. The Liberals fell into precisely similar errors when they attained to power, and the Newcastle programme and the death duties effectually defeated them. 32 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS ? The most far-going supporter of the Liberal party could surely not complain of the pro- gramme which was offered to the electors. Sir William Harcourt himself took a prominent part in the crusade against the wealthier class ; and that crusade resulted in the return of the Con- servatives by an enormous majority. The states- man who had just triumphantly passed the New Death Duties Bill was, by a Eadical constituency, dismissed from its representation, the constitu- ency adding point to the dismissal at the same time by relieving Sir William's Eadical colleague of his Parliamentary duties. This astonishing result was surely not pro- duced by those people for whose votes Sir William had framed his attacks on property ? Xo. The Liberals were defeated at Derby — they were defeated throughout the United Kingdom — by the "Armchair Politician." If he were a Conservative he tried to forget the former sins of the Government, and applied his energies to turning out the Radicals ; if he were a Liberal, and had a stake of any importance in the coimtry, he was equally offended by the open attack upon property initiated by Sir William Harcourt, and COXSERVATIVES OE SOCIALISTS ? 33 left those voters whom he might have influenced, to be polled by the Conservatives. The climax of this policy has just been reached by the introduction of the most Socialistic measure which has ever been brought into the House of Commons. As a corollary to the mis- guided policy which has apparently inspired every party leader who has scrambled into office, the Compensation for Accidents Bill has now become a definite issue to be faced by every capitalist. And it is not merely the measure itself; it is the fatal tendency displayed in it, that I wish to emphasize. Disastrous as will be the immediate consequences of the Bill, not only to its proposers, but to the country at large, they are as nothing compared to the evils which will arise from endless other proposals of a similar character which are in store ; unless we make a firm stand, and clearly realize both where we are and whither we are drifting. This is the condition of affairs to which my first sentences referred ; this is the crisis which every thinking man must recognize as a " departure " which threatens the existence of all he can now call his own. D CHAPTEE VI. THE CRUELTY OF THE WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOE ACCIDENTS) BILL, IN ITS EFFECTS UPON EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYED. Even if the country were to decide that the principle on which this measure has been founded is a correct one ; if it be right that all questions of justice, logic, or equity be abandoned ; and if it be right for the Government to interfere and to insist upon one class of the community being paid again for that which they have already been paid ; — there is no reason that through reck- lessness and absolute ignorance of the subject, the Bill should be so drawn as to inflict the greatest possible injury to both parties affected. If this Bill passes, the great majority of coal- owners in this country will by its operation be rendered liable at any moment to instant ruin. Surely, if the coal-owners are to be robbed they CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? 35 should not at the same time be threatened (morally speaking) with murder, for this, at all events, cannot in any way benefit their employes. Coal-owners who have, in all good faith and reliance upon the laws of their country, invested their money in an industry, in which it may safely be said that during many years past their emploijes have received nearly the whole of the returns in respect of the capital so invested, are by this Bill called upon to be responsible for the act of God. If it should please the Almighty to fire the gas in a colliery by means of a flash of lightning descending the shaft (which has been known to happen), or to send an earthquake which should in one moment bury all the men in a pit, Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Matthew White Eidley (overpowered by the fact that the men have many votes and the masters few) are professedly of opinion that it is only right and just that the masters should be held responsible for the act of the Maker of the Universe ; and a neat scale of charges has been arranged as payment for His operations. I now quote the schedule in the Act which arranges the scale of compensation. 36 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? " If the workman leaves dependents, a sum, equal to his earnings during the three years next preceding the injury or the sum of one hundred and fifty Ijounds, whichever of those sums is the larger, hut not exceeding in any case three hundred pounds, pro- vided that the amount of any weekly payments made under this Act shall he deducted from this sum." — Is^ Schedule^ I. (a), (i). It is well known that during the periods of depressed trade, and at certain other times in the year, many colliers are only provided with work by their employers for three, two, and sometimes even only one day a week. There are other employers who, instead of allowing their collieries to remain idle and their men to be deprived of wages, work their mines regu- larly, and by storing their coal on the surface, provide wages during the whole of the year for their employes. They do this at a loss, because the coal deteriorates when stored, and sometimes they are unable to dispose of it for several years. By the operation of this Act the colliery owner who has by his enterprise enabled his men to work with regularity, and to receive their wages all the year round, will find that the CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? 37 Government has carefully provided that, in the case of fatal accidents, he will be liable to pay £300 for each man killed; whereas the owner who has failed to provide his men with work during a large portion of the year will find that he is only called upon to pay £150 for each man killed. It works out in this way : that if, say, two hundred men are killed at the colliery of Messrs. Brown, the owners (who have failed to provide their men with work during a large portion of the year) will be called upon to pay a fine of £30,000. If the accident takes place on the more enterprising works of Messrs. Jones, who have had the temerity to provide their men with regular wages during the whole of the preceding period of three years, the sum to be extracted from them will amount to £60,000. Now, Mr. Chamberlain has stated that the cost to the coal-owners will only be ^d. per ton, but he has refused to produce the figures from which he has arrived at this result. It will, however, be interesting to know whether the |d per ton applies to accidents occurring to the workmen of j\Iessrs. Brown, or whether they have 402074 38 COXSERVATIYES OR SOCIALISTS? been calculated upon the liabilities imposed by the Bill in Messrs. Jones's case. There is obviously a difference of 100 per cent, between the two. But there is something even more illogical still involved, and that is that if men are by the act of God killed when away from their employers' work, they are entitled to no com- pensation whatsoever. Evidently Mr. Chamberlain must have forgotten this point ! If it be right and fair that the families of men should be com- pensated by their employers for accidents which it has been quite beyond the latter's power to control, surely, if similar accidents occur to them when away from their employers' works, some one or other should be liable ; because it could never be said that it was through any fault of the men that the visitation took place at home, and thereby deprived them of compensa- tion, to which the law has admitted they are entitled. Let me refer again to Mr. Chamberlain's |f?. per ton. He says, in a light and airy manner, ''You must insure against it." But before you can do so, there is a condition CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? 39 precedent, and that is, you must find some one to insure you; and at present those insurance companies who have been consulted state that they will not insure on any terms until they have seen the operation of the Act for twelve months, because they have no idea as to the number of extra accidents which will be claimed for, owing to the direct invitation given to these claims by the provisions of the Bill.* It therefore follows that the coal-owner will be placed in the position of being liable at any moment to receive a telegram informing him that he is face to face with the workhouse. The widows and families of the men will probably learn that, owing to the mortgaged state of the property, there will be nothing left for them, and the compensation due, but not received by them, will effectually prevent the works being reopened. Whether Mr. Chamberlain's calculation of |c?, per ton is correct or not, I can only say that if the principle of this Bill is to be affirmed, the large majority of masters will only be too glad to compound with the Government for IM. per * Seo page 68. 40 CONSERYATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? ton, or a hundred per cent, more than Mi'. Chamberlain's figures, leaving the Government to divide the compensation in any way it pleases ; and if this plan were adopted (unfair as it would be), not only would the masters be relieved from the cruel and shocking liability imposed by the Act, but the men would be assured of the receipt of the money to which the law said they were entitled. I have hitherto only alluded to the risk of ruin to employers in case of accidents; but I must now refer to a similar risk of ruin which operates before any accident takes place, and which threatens the daily livelihood of thousands of miners in this country. I allude to the fact that under this Bill the claims of the miners for compensation have been ordered to take precedence of other trade liabilities. It is a known fact that a considerable majority of the small, and many of the large, coal-owners of this country are entirely dependent for the next week's wages of their work-people on the forbearance of their bankers, who have advanced them money. If this Bill comes into force, their bankers will naturally tell them that the Legislature has CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? 41 practically put a mortgage upon the colliery which takes precedence of their (the bankers') claim for money advanced. Whilst sympathizing with them in the great injustice which has been done, the bankers will, as men of business acting in the interests of their shareholders, be unable to continue the overdraft they have previously allowed, as the whole of their security is liable to be swept away in an instant. They will therefore ask the coal-owner to repay the money already advanced; and this will result in the immediate closing of the works, and the men will be sent adrift without compensation of any sort or kind. Again, some of the worst victims of this Bill will be found to be amongst the aged poor, amongst those old people who have been kept at work because their masters have not liked to discharge tried and faithful servants, tiiough very probably they have not been able to earn the full value of their wages. All these must to a certainty be discharged, because they are just the people to whom accidents are most likely to happen, and who are most likely to cause accidents. Such will be the position of existing 42 CONSEKVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? employers and employed in the coal trade if this Bill passes into law. On the other hand, let us consider what will be the effect so far as the future development of England's main industry is concerned. Can it be imagined for a moment that any one in possession of his senses would invest fresh capital in coal-mines in this country ? Is it possible to believe that he will incur not only the terrifying liabilities I have mentioned, but that he will do so with the full knowledge that, ruinous as they would be under the operation of the Com- pensation Bill, they are as nothing in comparison to those which the adoption of the principle involved in this Bill may produce, long before he touches coal. Colliery undertakings nowadays, owing to the depth of the existing seams, are works which require years to develop, together with the investment of immense capital. An investor commencing a new undertaking must recognize the fact that before his works are completed the law may be altered half a dozen times. He may find that he is called upon to provide annuities for all people who have worked for him for a certain time ; he may find that he CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? 43 is to be held responsible for the ill-health of any person who may have worked for him and chooses to attribute his illness to the fact. And when the full blast of the "Kansom" theory is thoroughly developed, it is no wild stretch of imagination to say that he may find that the Legislature has decided that employes must, at the cost of employers, be sent to the seaside for a few weeks each year, in order that they may thus be braced up against the fatigues and confined nature of their employment. This Bill, means the stoppage of the develop- ment of that wealth which has so materially added to England's greatness in the past, and upon which its prosperity in the future so vitally depends. As a natural sequence, the demand for the services of the rising generation of miners will be materially lessened. We shall then probably have Mr. Chamberlain trying his hand at some new patent process for solving the " social problem " in respect of the unemployed, and proposing that the cost of their support should in some way or other be thrown on the already overburdened tax-payer. CHAPTEE VII. THE COMPENSATION BILL AS A SPECIMEN OF ELECTIONEERING TACTICS. In admitting the Bill has all the unpleasant immediate consequences I have enumerated to both masters and men, it may be argued by- certain politicians that it is justified strategically as a thoroughly sound party measure. Let us see what it is worth from this point of view. A little personal experience of my own may perhaps provide the most convincing argument of the manner in which the Conservative mining legis- lation (of which this Bill is the latest and worst example) is regarded. The last time the Conservatives were in power I happened to be talking to the manager of very extensive collieries, who was also chairman of the local Conservative Association. I asked how CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? 45 that association was progressing, " I have retired from it," he said. "When I asked his reason he replied, "These Mines Eegulations Bills which have been turned out by the Conservative Govern- ment with the regularity of clockwork, have not only made mining almost impossible, but have increased the cost of it to such an extent that I find myself absolutely unable to continue my support to a party which has done all it can to injure and harass the interests in which I am engaged. " I have formed the opinion that the most Conservative thing for Conservatives to do is to keep the Eadicals in power with as small a majority as possible. They will then propose ultra-Eadical measures which they will probably be unable to carry. If we turn them out and elect our own people with a large majority, the Conservatives will propose measures far in advance of those proposed by the Eadicals, and will pass them without any possibility of oppo- sition." Can anything be more convincing of the truth of this than the sequel which has followed in tliia Compensation Bill ? 46 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? Xow let US see the result of this one man's defection from the Conservative party. Over the colliers themselves he had very little influence ; they have always voted, and they will always vote, for their leaders. But in the works to which I am referring there were several hundreds of surface laljourers whom this gentleman could influence to a very considerable extent, and who would vote for him in a very large proportion of cases if he asked them. When, however, he withdrew from the Conservative Association, he told his men that he had done with politics, and that as far as he was concerned they might vote for whom they pleased. The Unionist candidate lost the next election, and the votes of these surface labourers would have been quite sufficient to have given Mm a considerable majority. And tliis fact sufficiently demonstrates the power of even the individual " Armchair Politician." I will give one more instance. A friend of mine, a very large land and mine owner in Scotland, at the election of 1892 contested a county in the Conservative interests, and was only defeated by 150 votes. I saw him a few CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? 47 months afterwards, and asked him if he intended to stand again, and he replied, " No, I have done with politics ; " and referring to some specimens of so-called Conservative legislation of a similar type to that which I have described, he said, " In the future, so far as I am concerned, the Con- servative party may obtain their votes in the best way they can." It is no exaggeration to say that had tliis gentleman not been thoroughly disgusted by the action of his party, he would have certainly triumphed at the next election, but at the present moment the constituency is represented by a Eadical. Nothing can demon- strate more clearly the ridiculous mistake both parties have fallen into in imagining that em- ployers can be ignored with impunity so long as the men are indulged. The instances I have mentioned can be supple- mented to any extent by any one who will take the trouble to make inquiries ; the fact remains that the Government have been offering to bestow other people's property on the working-men in exchange for votes which they will never obtain. The working-man being abandoned by the " Armchair Politician," the Eadical agents have no 48 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS ? difficulty in impressing him with the belief that it is they who have forced the Government to bestow the above-mentioned advantages, and that when placed in power their party will bestow a great deal more. In the present instance the Eadical leaders need only go round to all those people not included in this Compensation Bill with argu- ments to the following effect : " Yes, the Con- servatives have perhaps, under pressure from our own side, insured the lives of miners, but what about labourers, servants, seamen, etc. ? " To the agricultural labourers they will say, " Suppose you are kicked to death by a horse, or meet with an accident, are your wives to be thrown upon the parish ? How can you make any provision for their support out of the wretched wages paid to you, varying from 12s. to ISs. a week ? " And the sailors, too. " Surely your lives are as valuable as those of the miners, and you are just as liable to danger in the work you are each day called upon to perform ? Why are you excluded from the benefits of the new law ? Why is the highly paid collier, who gets CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? 49 from 8s. to 12s. a day, to be the only workiog- man to benefit ? " "Whilst, therefore, the Conservatives have gained nothing by the mining vote, they have by this Bill provided their opponents with one of the most perfect weapons which can be conceived. CHAPTEE VIII. THE EFFECT OF THE COMPENSATION BILL ON THE WELFARE OF THE NATION AS A WHOLE. If this Bill is neither good for masters nor for men, and if it is also unsound from an electioneering point of view, surely there must be this last excuse, that the proposal is made " with a view to the prosperity of the nation as a whole." Let us see what will be its actual effect upon the trade of the country. British trade is already hampered in all direc- tions by foreign competition, by tariffs, by bounties, and by the continual reduction of transport charges on goods in foreign countries, in order that they may more easily compete with English trade. There is a certain zone in which English coal and English manufactures are found, in practice, to be able, in spite of eveiything, to compete with the coal and the manufactures of foreign nations. Once increase the price of i' CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS ? 51 English coal, and the price of all those com- modities whose manufacture depends largely upon the cost of it will be increased as well, and this competitive zone will be proportionately decreased. Bearing this in mind, it will be instructive to notice that only a few months ago an Imperial ukase was issued in Eussia by which the rates of transport for native coal to Kronstadt were enormously reduced in order to allow Eussian dealers to compete with the importations of British coal. Now, the various Mining Bills which have been passed in England by one Government after another have never had the object of encouraging native trade. Quite the reverse. They have had a continual tendency to diminish the zone in which British coal and other produce can compete. Every other Government in the world is apparently trying with might and main to develop its trade by all the possible means in its power, even to the extent of granting bounties to its manufacturers. On tJie other hand, our Government for a long time past has been simply acting as a kind of Departmental Committee to aid them in crushing English competition. 52 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? More than this, it has been the practice of successive Governments for some time past to lend to the Trades-unions the services of an important department of the State, namely, the Board of Trade. This department has not scrupled, on the occasion of strikes or disputes, to put every possible pressure upon the employers, and has urged them strenuously to admit the principle of the minimum wage ; and this, without possessing the sliglitest knowledge of the exigencies of trade, and the difficulty experienced in even keeping collieries and factories open at all. Xo clearer e^ddence is needed in respect of this interference of the Board of Trade than what has recently occurred in the dispute which arose between Lord Penrhyn and his work-people. "We find that the Department (though supposed to be acting in a kind of judicial capacity) was absolutely showing Lord Penrhyn's letters to the leaders of the unions, and at the same time was carefully abstaining from showing the trades union letters to Lord Penrhyn. In addition to tliis assistance, it has now actually become the custom for the Government to send to the trades unions and ask them to CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS ? 53 single out from their members men to be appointed county magistrates, and, in fact, by so doing the Government has delegated to these bodies the power of appointing a portion of the judicial Bench. I have, however, never heard of the owners being consulted on a similar matter. All these things are well known to the employers, tending to increase their resentment and to accentuate the difficulties experienced in carrying on trade, which are already sufficiently heavy. Although Mr. Chamberlain only estimates the cost of his Bill at ^d. per ton, coal-owners (who ought to know somewhat more of the facts) estimate the cost at from 2cl. and del. per ton, quite independently of the liability to instant ruin to which I have before alluded. It must not be forgotten that some similar estimate was made at the time that the Education Bill was introduced by Mr. Forster. The cost to the ratepayer was not to exceed ^d. in the £, but in London it soon rose to 8d., and is now more ; and the difference in the figures needs only to be compared to give the measure of credence which can be attached to the opinions of politicians when introducing this species of measure. CHAPTEE IX. THE HOUSE OF LOKDS. One often hears it said that no help is to be expected from the House of Lords in the matter of the Compensation Bilh It is stated that the Lords never throw out measures proposed by Conservative Governments. I refuse to endorse these opinions for one moment. I refuse to believe that the Upper House will consent to accept the position of a mere registration ofQce for any measure, however iniquitous, which a Government may introduce, simply because that Government is pleased to call itself Conservative. When, without the consent of the country, Mr. Gladstone passed his Home Eule Bill, the Lords threw it out by an overwhelming majority, and the country endorsed their decision by a similar majority. When the Government (again without consent CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? 55 of tlie country) introduced the Eight Hours Bill, making it penal for English miners to work for more than a certain number of hours per day, and thereby destroying that which every English- man claims as a birthright, the House of Lords again interfered, and the advocates of the measure, finding that they were prevented from placing shackles (in the name of "progress") upon the arms of British working-men, dropped the Bill. The country at the next General Election again endorsed the action of the House of Lords ; and it is now perfectly clear that but for the course adopted by the Upper House, the nation would have been saddled with two measures of the most vital character, the principles of which it entirely disapproved. In the present case it is said that the Lords will refuse "to incur the odium" of throwing out the Bill; but, in view of the instances to which I have referred, the odium would be incuiTed by accepting it. I do not believe the Lords will proclaim publicly to the nation the fact that they are prepared to throw out Eadical measures of one Government and accept So- cialistic measures from another. Any odium 56 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? derived from the rejection of the Bill will be the odium attaching to consistency. The miners — some of whom may be naturally disappointed in not obtaining money from their masters, for which they had never even asked — must be satisfied with the reply of the Lords, namely, " We are willing to distribute to any extent the money of the employers amongst the work-people of the kingdom if it is proved to be right to do so ; but until the country has decided the point, we refuse to single out any class as especially entitled to the compulsory charity of their employers." It may be urged upon the Lords that the measure must be considered a portion of the price the Conservatives have been called upon to pay for the assistance of the Liberal Unionists, and the Lords may be told that if they reject it they will risk the loss of Liberal-Unionist co-operation. I have, however, already explained that the acceptance of this measure by the Con- servative Government is no part of the con- sideration given for Liberal-Unionist support ; but it is a portion (and a very small portion) of the price paid for the assistance of Mr. Chamberlain. CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? 57 I will now sum up the whole case in language which might with propriety be used by any governing body in replying to a similar request from any other governing body. The answer would be : " You ask us to pass a Bill which is opposed to every principle on which the law of England is based, and upon which constitutional government has rested since government began. You ask us to affirm the principle that all working-men in this country are entitled to be compulsorily insured by their employers. If we admit the correctness of that principle, we are at the same time bound to see that every working-man in the country obtains the advantage to be derived from it, without any distinction whatsoever. What right have we to say to every section of the working community not included in this Bill, ' We debar you from the benefits derivable from your legitimate lights, which Ijelong to you equally with the miner on whom we have just bestowed them ? ' "You ask us to make an invidious distinction between one class of labour and another; and your excuse is that you wish to try an experi- ment, and that you are anxious to see how the 58 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? experiment will work before embarking in others of a similar nature. You therefore clearly admit that you are uncertain as to the result. "What is to happen supposing the worst occurs, and it is found the experiment is not successful? Can it be assumed for one moment that the act can be rescinded? And if not, is it intended that miners, and the few working classes who are included in this Bill, are to remain for ever a privileged class of the community, enjoying rights equally with all other sections of the labouring community, but enjoying benefits in respect of those rights from which all other sections are debarred ? " You have asked us to raise up this privileged class from labourers in an industry in which the employers have notoriously, for years past, re- ceived a less return on their outlay than any other capitalists, and the workmen have received the highest wages accorded to any class of unskilled labour in the country — wages whicli often exhaust the whole proceeds of the mines, and in some cases exceed them. The truth of this is clearly demonstrated by the number of collieries which, even under the present law, are CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? 59 lying idle in every mining district in the country, and whose number you ask us to increase in- definitely. " From the discussions which have taken place amongst yourselves, we learn that this Bill is not supposed to have any logical basis, or to possess any substratum of justice, the owners having already paid for that risk which you have asked us to compel them to pay for again. If we were to pass your measure, we should be guilty of upsetting those principles upon wliich alone, in our judgment, the whole basis of trade depends. You ask us to affirm the principle that, after one man has made a bargain with another, the law can step in and alter it, to the detriment of one of the contracting parties, without in any way releasing him from all other contracts he has made, which are based upon the integrity of that contract which has been legally destroyed. This is asking us to render nugatory one of the initial principles recognized by all nations at the time they recognized the advantages of civilization. " The secrecy observed in regard to this measure is one of its most extraordinary features. Surely, 60 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? in a measure involving alterations of such magni- tude, you ought to have taken the opinion of the country before you came to us ; but even if you had not done so, you ought to have proclaimed from' the .housetops the principles you were about to advocate ; so that the people might have had the fullest opportunity of considering their effect. You, on the other hand, not only kept the measure a profound secret at the General Elec- tion, but allowed it to remain a profound secret until its introduction to your House. " Before a sufficient period had elapsed for the astounded coal-owner to fully realize the meaning of the Bill, it was already nearly passed. No time was allowed to him to defend his property from the vulture-like swoop which (under the euphuism of ' experiment ') was descending on it. "We are informed that the Bill has been intro- duced as a matter of ' expediency.' "We ask what is the nature of the ' expediency,' and whether you are not satisfied with the majority the country gave you at the polls, when you so care- fully refrained from mentioning either the Bill or its expediency ? Have you learnt nothing from the position of your opponents, who, having CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? 61 acted on the doctrine of ' expediency,' find them- selves ' out in the cold ? ' "You send us the Bill, professing that it represents the views of the Conservative party ; but every doctrine it contains is false to the principles, the instincts, the sentiments, and to the very name of that party. If the Bill really emanated from this source, it would be equivalent to an act of political suicide; for its provisions would leave nothing to conserve. If, on the other hand, it owes its existence to one or two politicians who are attempting to destroy the party by pretending that the Bill represents its views, we can only say that their conduct is little less than a crime, and constitutes a breach of trust of the most flagrant description. " As it is our opinion that, if you had men- tioned the fact at the General Election that it was your intention to introduce this Bill to us, your constituents would never have given you the power, we must request you to take it to them, and ask their opinion before you ask ours." CHAPTER X. PEACTICAL ADVICE TO CONSERVATIVES AND OTHERS. Destructive criticism is of very little use, unless something in the nature of constructive argument be offered in addition. I wish, therefore, to offer a little practical advice to that " Armchair Poli- tician" whose importance I began by empha- sizing, and to every thinking Conservative or Liberal in the land. Do not wait to agitate until the calamity which is threatened by the passing of this Bill has become a stern reality. The mere proposal of such a measure from such a quarter (be its fate what it may) indicates only too clearly that Conservatism in the House of Commons is dead. For the moment you cannot revive it by elect- ing either Conservatives or Ptadicals ; for Mr. Chamberlain dominates the Cabinet, the Cabinet CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? 63 dominates its followers in Parliament, and the followers, without asking the consent of their constituents, have performed the funeral ob- sequies. My advice, therefore, to Conservatives and " Armchair Politicians " is to bring to the know- ledge of the Government, in a practical manner, the fact that Conservatism outside the House of Commons is not yet dead and buried. I ask them, if this Bill passes, to vote for and support the Eadical candidates at every bye-election until the Conservative majority has been largely re- duced. I ask them to take their names off Conservative associations, and to stop political subscriptions, for the fact must not be over- looked that when the full blight of Socialism is upon them they may require all the money left to them for their own purposes. I ask them not to be ashamed of being charged with having left their party, for their party has left them, and, as a political factor, is dead. In view of what has already happened (whether this Bill passes or not), it is made abundantly plain that if the right of freedom of contract, the rights of property, and the liberty C4 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? of the nation, are to be maintained, it is necessary that a third political party should be formed. America is not a country from which we are often enabled to draw political examples for our own instruction ; yet it will be remembered that when the last presidential election in the United States was seen to be a struggle for sound money and national credit against the experiments of faddists and the measures of a party, there was at once no doubt of the result. The Democrats, who saw their party principles betrayed, their party name debased, refused any longer to vote under a banner they despised; they voted for the Eepublicans, and they saved the country. The parallel is instructive, and is complete, with one exception, namely, that the mere voting for Eadicals by Conservatives will not in itself obtain the desired object, although it will be useful to the extent that I have previously pointed out. The new political party should be formed by the " Armchair Politician," whether he be Liberal or Conservati^■e. It should be formed by all persons generally who have a stake in the country of any nature whatsoever, and it should CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS ? 65 be supported pecuniarily, not only by them, but by capitalists. If the " Armchair Politician " is possessed of the power I have ascribed to him when un- organized and unfederated, what would his power not be capable of when combined into a strong association ? Wlien his experience and know- ledge have been added to the interests and resources of the capitalists, it is easy to see that no Government, whether Liberal or Conservative, could dare to ignore them. From a monetary point of view, it would be enormously more powerful than any mere ordinary political association that we have hitherto experienced. Land-owners, ship-owners, mine-owners, iron- masters, brewers, and the threatened classes of all kinds should become alive to the fact that, if they wish to keep possession of their property, and be enabled to conduct their businesses as people have hitherto been allowed to conduct them, they must subscribe to and support the New Party. I think the fact will be then recog- nized by members of Parliament, that the day of " running with the hare and hunting with the hounds " is over. V GG CONSERVATIVES OK SOCIALISTS? Organization has done everything for sucli fads as Anti-A^accination, Anti- Contagious Diseases, Local Veto, Universal Peace Societies, etc. These associations, whose members do not, probably, represent one in a thousand of the population, are regarded with respect by nearly every candidate, and each one tries to spread his sails to catch the breath of their approval. How all- powerful, then, would be an organized party for the protection of property and commerce, backed up, as it would be, by the monetary assistance of the great commercial firms to which I have alluded ? It would be an association which would be not only strong enough to protect itself from being robbed either by Liberals or Conservatives, but powerful enough to insist on their respective Governments legislating occasionally in the interests of trade and commerce. If there is not sufficient backbone and nervous fibre left in the country to attain this result ; if through mere supineness the English people are content to stand quietly by with folded hands, and see their rights and property used as shuttle- cocks for the battledores of rival place-seeking COXSEKVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS? G7 politicians, then I unhesitatingly say that the day of England's greatness is over. I am prepared for the accusation that, as a coal-oTTuer, I am ^Yriting in the interests of my own property. I reply that every one has an inherent right to protect himself and his property to the Lest of his ability; but I assert most emphatically that the dangers to which I have alluded outbalance immeasurably even the ruin which this Bill threatens to that great industry, whose development has so largely contributed to the wealth and prosperity of this country. [StE NEXT tAGE. 68 CONSERVATIVES OE SOCIALISTS? Letter addressed by the Liberty and Property Defence League to the Eastern Morning Neivs of July 2, 1897 — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION TESTED BY FACTS TO THE EDnOR OF THE " EASTERN MORXIXG ^■EWS." Sir, — Mr. Chamberlain was lately congratulated on having by a single measure translated a whole series of German insurance laws. The compliment was a doubtful one, seeing that these German laws are in almost every respect an unmitigated failure. The following figures taken from the 1896 report of the Imperial Assurance Bureau speak for themselves : — Number of acciilents per 1000 insured— 18S7 23-78 1890 30-28 1893 35-23 1894 36-37 1895 37-90 There has, therefore, been an increase at the rate of GO per cent, in ten years. For the agricultural workers the growth in the number of accidents has been still more rapid. 1888 was the first year in which the law was applied to this class, and the number of accidents was, per 1000— 1888 0-92 1890 3-98 1893 4-80 1895 G-56 showing an increase at the rate of nearly 600 per cent, in the agricultural class. Accidents followed by death were, per 1000 assured, at the rate of — 1886 0-70 1890 0-73 1893 0-69 189-t 0t)5 1895 0-67 CONSERVATIVES OR SOCIALISTS ? 69 This class of accidents shows no increase, malingoring being out of the question. The accidents causing incapacity, permanent or for more than 90 days, per 1000 assured, were at the rate of — 18S6 2-10 1890 4.^3 1893 5-34 1894 .-,-(30 1895 .r57 showing an increase at the rate of 165 per cent. The German legislation was intended to diminish the number of legal proceedings. Two courts were instituted for deciding disputes, and here is the growth of contested cases : — First Court. Appeals. 18S6 2,446 267 1890 14.879 2,354 1893 25,318 5,304 1894 30,104 7,052 1895 33.553 7,806 1896 38,647 9,273 On an average, in one case out of fi>ur there is a refusal to accept the pension fixed by the administration, and in one case out of every four decided b}^ the first court a refusal to accept its jurisdiction. The ex]»enses of administration are from 21 to 22 per cent, of the amounts granted in relief. Under this system of compulsory insurance an injured workman acts from either of two conflicting motives. The first is the natural desire to get cured as rapidly as possible, and the second to get an income from the in- surance fund by maintaining his inability to work as long as possible. Judging from the above figui'es the second motive appears to be the stronger of the two. — Yours, etc. R. N. McDOUGALL. Liberty and Property Defence League, 7, Victoria-street, Westminster, July Ist, 1897. UNIVEUSITY OF CALIFORiM/ AT LOS aNCELES This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 3m-8,'49(B5572)470 Ulsi UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY AA 000 962 970 o HD 7816 G7P8