vol. 4 no. 21, march 18, 1909

THE

A WEEKLY REVIEW OF POLITICS, LITERATURE, AND ART.

No* 758 [series. Vol. IV. No. 21] THURSDAY, MAR. 18, 1909. [registered at G.P.O.] ONE PENNY

CONTENTS. PAGE PAGE

NOTES OF THE WEEK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 BOOK OF THE WEEK : An Untamed People. By M. D. Eder 424 CIVIL LIBERTY IN INDIA. By C. H. Norman . . . . . . 417 . . . . . . STUDIES IN THE POOR LAW.-II.

DRAMA : Four Plays. By Cecil Chesterton 425 . . . ’ . . . .., 418

A DEBATE ON SOCIALISM : G. K. Chesterton, Cecil Chester- ART : Fair Women. By G. R. S. Taylor . . . . . . 427

ton, Bernard Shaw, and Hilaire Belloc, M.P. . . . 419 MUSIC : Elektra and other things. By Herbert Hughes . . . 428 YESTERDAYS. By B. K. Das . . . . . . . . . . . . 421 CORRESPONDENCE : Cecil Chesterton, Beatrice Tina, Alder- NOT OFFICIALLY REPORTED. By Richmond Haigh . . . 422 man Hartley, J. T. Fox, Gordon Bottomley, Rev. James BOOKS AND PERSONS. By Jacob Tonson . . . . . . . . . 423 Adderley, F. O. Loesch . . . . . . . . . ,.. 428

ALL BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS should be addressed to the Manager, 12-14 Red Lion Court, Fleet St., London,

ADVERTISEMENTS : The latest time for receiving Ad- vertisements is first post Monday for the same week’s issue,

SUBSCRIPTION RATES for England and Abroad : Three months . . . . . 1S. 9d. Six months , , , Twelve month;

. 3s. 3d. 6s. 6d.

All remittances should be made payable to THE NEW AGE PRESS, LTD., and sent to 12-14, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London.

[NOTE,-The Editorial address will in future be 4, Verulam Buildings, Gray’s Inn, W.C.]

NOTES OF THE WEEK. SOCIALISTS had better face the fact that Tariff Reform has won. After Mr. Balfour’s speech of Friday, following upon Mr. Asquith’s of Tuesday, there can be no doubt of it. Mr. Asquith was compelled to abandon his old attitude of almost insolent assumption of intellectual superiority ; and he descended to t-he level of seriously arguing the claims of Free Trade. Mr. Bal- four made a justifiable point of this complete change of attitude, and we may rest assured that so astute a tactician would not have thrown up his cap as he did, in triumph, without a strong conviction, based on secret figures, that Tariff Reform is going to win at the next General Election.

+ + *

Now we do not hesitate to say that the Socialist view of the problem of foreign trade has been grossly neglected, when it has not been grossly misrepresented, by the Labour members in and out of Parliament. Precisely as on the Licensing Bill, the Labour Party, with a Socialist programme in their hands (we doubt whether it was in their heads), chose to swallow instead the miserable Liberal nostrums, so on the subject of foreign trade and the right of the State to control it, they have chosen to throw in their lot with Liberal politicians. Thus they will have only themselves to thank if at the coming election they prove indistinguishable from Libe- rals on the single issue on which the Election will be fought. (F or we may say at once that nothing short of a famine and a series of bloody unemployed riots can now make Unemployment or any of the specific problems of Labour a dominant issue of the next Election.) And if they are indistinguishable from Liberals on the issue of Free Trade and Tariff Reform, we are convinced that the majority of them will be found wanting when the new Parliament assembles.

* * *

Yet we should have thought that a little intelligence would have convinced the Labour Party that in SO- cialism they had an alternative, the only alternative, to both Free Trade and Tariff Reform. If, as we believe,

it is true that Tariff Reform is no remedy, it is equally true that Free Trade has proved no remedy. How in the face of our poverty line, below which eight millions of our population are semi-starving, any Labour man, or even Liberal Collectivist, can calmly contend for the status quo in foreign trade we are at a loss to understand. Let it be granted that poverty is just as bad, if not worse, in protected countries like Germany and France and America (we have recently seen photo- graphs of the “bread lines ” in New York, which are every bit as bad as our Embankment battalions), is that any reason for thanking God that under Free Trade we are no better? The doctrine and practice of Free Trade have been, as anybody with eyes can see, as ruinous and as devastating to human life, as ever Tariff Reform can be. It may be that in jumping from one to the other we shall be out of the frying-pan into the fire, but the point is that the frying-pan is unendurable longer, and if the Socialist Labour Party cannot provide anything better, then into the fire we shall go.

* * *

What we complain of with all the force we can muster is the unintelligence, if not downright idleness, of the Labour Party in refusing to discuss the problem, except on the old obsolete lines, and in maintaining silence on the Socialist alternative. Half a dozen men in the House with a grasp of the principles could easily spike the guns of both of the clumsy combatants. Everybody with any political insight at all knows perfectly well that the Unionists, who consistently oppose measures for the amelioration of the unemployed, the poor and the sweated, are not the people to risk their political existence (as they have risked it) on the principle of Tariff Reform simply for the beautiful eyes of the British working man. Again, it stands to reason that a Liberal Party that through three Sessions has contrived to postpone even the beginnings of the Re- form of the Poor Laws, is not so enamoured of reform as to maintain Free Trade solely because of its alleged benefits to the workers. A little comprehension of the situation would demonstrate that Tariff Reform is in part a device for staving off Socialism : and in part a device for increasing revenue without resort to the taxation of Rent and Interest. As we said last week, the pressure of increasing expenditure threatens to make a Socialist statesman of every successive Chancellor, and when the indirect taxation of commodities fails, and bolder Chancellors begin to talk of robbing the hen- roost of unearned incomes, the cry of Tariff Reform is raised and is taken up by all the Dukes and plutocrats and echoed by their voluntary slaves on platforms and in the Press.

* + *

But there has been one effect of our Socialist propaganda. When Mr. Churchill took with him to South- Africa a box of Socialist literature, the callow fledglings among the Socialist ranks thought he might return a Socialist. Really, of course, he returned with a

414 THE

Socialist vocabulary only. That vocabulary having become more or less popular by our exertions, it consti- tutes a considerable asset for any public speaker, however remote from Socialism his mind may be. Simi- larly, there is not the slightest doubt that the Tariff Reformers have stolen our phrases and left our ideas. Mr. Balfour’s speech on Friday was full of the repudia- tion of Laissez Faire and the Manchester doctrine. The “Times ” of Tuesday spoke quite indignantly of the ruin to our homes brought about by the inhuman doctrine of free competition. Mr. F. E. Smith, in the House of Commons on Wednesday, deliberately chal- lenged the Labour Party logically to object to national protection when they had accepted the protection of Factory Acts. Put this language alongside of such language as was lately used by Mr. Bernard Shaw, who told a Birmingham audience that he was “a protec- tionist down to his boots,” and the difference in vocabulary is imperceptible. On the assumption that the words mean the same thing to all the speakers, we see no escape whatever for Socialists from the principle of Protection.

* * *

But do the words mean the same thing to both parties? When Mr. Shaw says that he is a protec- tionist down to his boots, is he using protection in the sense in which Lord Northcliffe, if he were not tongue- tied in public, would use it, or in the sense in which the Committee of the Tariff Reform League would use it? Of course not. What Mr. Shaw means by protection is protection for the masses, for the standard of living, and of wages, for the standard of production. He is concerned, as all Socialists are concerned, with the defence of the labourer, with nothing to sell but his labour, against the rapacity and cruelty of employers, driven by free competition to sweat the price of labour to its subsistence level. Mr. Shaw objects to cheap commodities when labour is the chief of them ; and his protection is in the interests of labour alone. But this is poles asunder from the protection which the Tariff Reform League have in their minds, if not on their lips. For them protection is entirely and wholly protection for capitalists and employers. We defy any Tariff Re- former to produce a tariff which will necessarily, or even probably, raise wages a farthing a week, or reduce the number of paupers and unemployed by a single child. The fact is obvious that their protection is precisely on a par with the Protection against Labour which every Unionist Government would gladly accord to capitalists in our own England. It was always a reasonable proposition to maintain that if men combined in unions for the defence of their interests and secured Parliamentary representatives and legislation on their own behalf, the same facility should be afforded to unions of masters. We agree, and we cannot but ad- mire the readiness with which the masters have taken the words out of our mouth, and applied them to a system of Protection, not against the foreigner, but against the labourer, be he in England or Germany or America. We-trust that Socialists will not allow themselves to be misled by the identity of the phrases employed by Tariff Reformers and ourselves. By Protec- tion we mean, and shall always mean, the protection of the interests of Labour as against Capital : whereas by Protection Mr. Balfour and his friends mean nothing less than Protection against Labour on behalf of Capital.

* * *

But this does not commit us to the doctrine of Free Trade in foreign affairs. We have broken down Free Trade at home ; so that in the best trades there is the greatest protection ; and we must be equally prepared to break it down in our dealings with other nations. OUR true line of progress is to insist more and more strongly ‘on the extension of the protective principles to imports, and to foreign manufacturers who trade with us. Precisely as we refuse to allow a British manu- facturer to work his men beyond a limited number of hours, or below a floating minimum of wages, or under insanitary conditions, or to his manifest peril by acci- dent, thereby effectually excluding from our markets the unholy products of such conditions, so we are-bound

new AGE MARCH 18, 1909

now to apply the same tests to foreign importers and manufacturers. That is in essence the principle of Pro- tection on which Socialism rests. And while it is true the name is identical with that of Lord Northcliffe’s pet nostrum, we trust that our readers will see that in spirit it is as far removed from it as THE NEW AGE from the “Daily Mail.”

* * * Once more we beg our Labour members to devote a

little attention to the subject. As we have said, it will be the main issue in politics for perhaps a generation to come. In the train of Tariff Reform (or Protection of Capitalists) a thousand evils may come : Conscription among them. For we firmly believe that Tariff Reform will be accompanied by conscription as surely as bur- glary is accompanied by revolvers and knuckledusters. While yet there is time, before the General Election is on us, the Labour Party should call a conference, draw up a programme, and plank it down : to the confusion of Free Traders no less than of Tariff Reformers.

* * !,

Nobody appears to have realised the difficulties under which Lord Morley has been labouring. Some of our correspondents have been, we think, a little unjust in their denunciations. Lord Morley always had the choice -if his schemes were threatened-of resigning ; but resignation is not a popular argument in this country. It is assumed that a man looks before he leaps into office, and has gauged pretty well the obstacles he must contend with. To resign is therefore tanta- mount to an admission of lack of forethought. Be that as it may, Lord Morley has not resigned : and, remaining in office, he had two equally exigent parties to satisfy : on the one hand, the sun-dried bureaucrats and martinets who were all in favour of Coercion and no damned nonsense with the niggers : on the other hand, the educated Indian Nationalists, whose propaganda was threatening to become popular in India. We leave English public opinion out of account as a party concerned, since, as Mr. Belloc’s question showed, English public opinion is scarcely a factor in the government of India. Under these circumstances, what did Lord Mor- ley do? He conceded to the bureaucrats their demand for coercion in the matter of immediate offences. He conceded it liberally and ungrudgingly. In addition to the Bengal Act of 1818, he went so far-so dangerously far-as to assent to the Criminal Amendment Act of 1908. This instrument of official coercion should we should have thought, have satisfied the bureaucrats that Lord Morley was sincere about the only thing they pro- fess to be concerned about : the civil peace of India. By an inordinate stretch of Liberal principles, Lord Morley had done this : with the hope, belief, and expectation, naturally, that the bureaucrats would be prepared to support him in return in some moderate political reforms. The whole significance of the affair is lost if we do not put the Criminal Law Amendment Act over against the Indian Councils Bill. That Act was, we repeat, Lord Morley’s guarantee of good faith to the bureaucrats that he meant business in India. mained.

One question re- Having granted the bureaucrats this, were

they now prepared to support, or at least refrain from attacking, the Indian Councils Bill?

* * *

Last week, as our readers know, Clause 3 of the Indian Councils Bill, as introduced by Lord Morley into the House of Lords, was rejected by a considerable majority, including Lords Lansdowne, Curzon, and Mac- Donnell. We urged that Lord Morley was too gentle with these butchers of his Bill. Clause 3 we will not say is the only clause of the Bill that matters, but, at any rate, it is fundamental. Its rejection last week by the Lords was received in India with something amounting to consternation by all moderate-minded men. Clause 3 actually inserted the thin end of the wedge of Parlia- mentary institutions in India : such institutions, in short, as in their most developed form had already been granted to or seized by Oriental nations like Japan, Turkey, and Persia. It was a beginning, at least, and as such might, and would, have acted as a safety valve for all the revolutionary steam in India ; and that was the

MARCH 18, 1909 THE NEW AGE 415

view of the moderate Indians on receiving the news of the Lords’ rejection. Armed with this knowledge, and with an explicit telegram from Lord Minto, the Viceroy on the spot, Lord Morley took the unusual but strong course of reviving the Clause in the House of Lords this week, when he made a further appeal. We have only to say that the result of his renewed appeal justifies the worst fears of the moderate Indians and our own British reformers of India. So far as we can gather from the completest accessible reports, only these arguments were advanced against the proposal of the Clause : first, that it had not been considered suffi- ciently, then that the great Curzon had as Viceroy opposed it, then that it would set up a form of Parliamen- tary administration in India, and, lastly and most important, that an Indian Nationalist, Mr. Gokhale, an ex-President of the National Congress, had originated it. Every one of these arguments proves worthless on examination ; but the last is really the most feeble of all. Why on earth should not Lord Morley take counsel with a leader of the Indian Nationalists? There was no concealment about it either. The precious secret document, about which the Lords made so much fuss, was published in full in “India ” (a weekly paper printed in the same office as THE NEW AGE) five weeks ago. Mr. Gokhale has lectured at the New Reform Club and elsewhere ; and his advice to Lord Morley was precisely the same as his advice to everybody who cared to listen to him.

9 * *

But so arrogant and racially conceited were Curzon and his fellow-peers that practically on this single charge they rejected the Clause a second time. We suggest to Lord Morley that there is one course, and one course only, open to him now : to repeal the Crimi- nal Law Amendment Act. That Act has alienated from his support thousands of good Liberals in this country, in India, and in the civilised world generally. We understand now precisely why Lord Morley assented to it. Its purpose, however, has been completely frus- trated by the despicable conduct of the Lords, and the evil that Lord Morley did having failed to accom- plish the great good that he expected, we sincerely trust he may withdraw the concession to the bureaucrats and restore to India the civil liberty which for a space he dared to suspend.

* * * But other points of extreme importance arose in the

dual debates on India in the Houses of Lords and Commons. The disastrous rejection for a second time of Clause 3 of the Indian Councils Bill was followed by a debate on the question whether Parliament should or should not directly control India. It was not, of course, put in this explicit form ; but plainly the decision to have all the Indian regulations laid on the Parliamen- tary tables a clear forty days before they became law amounted to an invitation to Parliament to occupy that interval in their discussion, criticism, and attempted amendment. Nobody perhaps has been more concerned than Lord Curzon to maintain India free from direct British Parliamentary control. We fancy we remember his warning us on more than one occasion while he was Viceroy that the intrusion of Parliament into the affairs of India would prove calamitous. Now, however, that he is in Parliament and not in India, he changes his key. By rejecting part of Lord Morley’s and the present Viceroy’s Bill, he had already asserted the right of the House of Lords to delay at least the government of India by the Secretary of State and Viceroy in Council ; and by the further proposals, he and his friends were prepared to establish that right as a privilege.

3c * 3c We have no objection whatever to the principle of

Parliamentary government of India. It has always seemed to us the clumsiest of devices for securing control to appoint a Viceroy and a Secretary of State, to endow them with absolute authority, and to reserve for their supervision nothing better than a Vote of Censure or, at the most, an impeachment. On the other hand, the whole question certainly deserved more thought and discussion than were given to it in the House of Lords

this week. If the ex-Viceroys objected to a clause of the Indian Councils Bill because it had not been discussed for longer than three years, it is surely monstrous that an entirely new principle of even greater importance than a clause should be practically settled in as many minutes. Besides, the House of Lords is not yet the only Parliamentary authority. Its authority is still partially shared with the House of Commons, which also during this very week had occasion to make a claim to the control of Indian legislation. The occasion arose on a question by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald regarding a particular act of injustice under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. As the responsible Minister in the House of Commons refused absolutely to give any information, alleging simply State reasons, Mr. Belloc a little later attempted to move the adjournment of the House for full discussion of the issue. His motion was refused on the ground that such a discussion would be both untimely and illegitimate. Illegitimate it certainly might be if the House of Lords had not already rejected a clause of the Indian Councils Bill ; but untimely it could not be, since within a few hours of the incident a similar question was being discussed in the House of Lords. We record the incident with the double motive of reminding our readers of the actual issues before the country and of the necessity laid upon practical democrats to maintain a sharp look-out upon the elementary rights of man, which are undoubtedly being threatened by the new move of Lord Curzon and his gang.

* * *

On Wednesday and Thursday the discussion of the Army was continued with no profit save for Mr. Bel- loc’s admirable speech on Conscription, which won the grateful praise of Mr. Haldane. The lack of officers is still the most serious feature of the Territorials, and if Lord Rothschild had insisted on his fellow-directors and their sons enrolling as officers there might be something to be said for his zeal. As it is, it is zeal at everybody else’s expense, with no shadow of sacrifice, and with a first-rate advertisement to boot. Mr. Henderson failed to get a straight reply from Mr. Haldane on the subject, but what could he expect? Mr. Haldane had obtained his object, and could very well afford to deprecate anybody else following Lord Rothschild’s example, which therefore remains shining, unique, and inimitable On the subject of Conscription Mr. Balfour would say nothing. Very properly, too, since Mr. Balfour knows that the English can only swallow one of their traditions at a time. Mr. Belloc presented objections to Conscription which, in the opinion of everybody able to understand them, are unanswerable ; but he was careful to explain that their validity depended upon two things, only one of which, namely, the character of the English people, was permanent. As for the other assumption, the strategic characteristics of England, they are surely open to modification by the adoption, for instance, of Tariff Reform in place of Free Trade. After all, the type of Army a nation needs is determined by the ambitions the nation entertains. Given a nation like Germany, with the idée fixe of controlling Europe, and her army must be created accordingly. Given a change in her foreign trade policy such as will come by Tariff Reform, and the whole strategical necessities of England demand a corresponding adjustment. Whether the adjustment to the new conditions can be made by a voluntary army relying on the ineradicable, inflammable pugnacity of the English is still, as Mr. Balfour says, a “ vexed question.” But there can be no sort of doubt whatever that all the whole-hoggers among Tariff Re- formers are quite prepared to keep Conscription stewing in the pot in case of need.

* * c

The whole question, however, is ripe for vigorous discussion, and we Socialists, with our tinpot notions of a Citizen Army, are miles away from reality. Briefly, there is going to be no Citizen Army. Nobody but a few of us have ever seriously dreamed of it. The ruling classes of this country, being the very enemies whom, socially and politically, we are fighting, well-nigh in despair of ever making a breach in their outermost

416 THE NEW AGE ___--_II_--_-

MARCH 18, 1909 -.-_

walls, can and will take care that no democratic army is got together under any pretence. There are ingenuous persons in the Army-intelligent officers and students and humane men-who desire to see such a civil force ; but they are merely decoys and catspaws of the astute but dishonourable oligarchy. Not a single weapon of defence of any value will be entrusted to a single soldier who is even suspected of sympathies with the people. It would be madness of us to expect that he should be. The wealthy classes are not in holiday mood when a Chancellor is foraging round their hen- roosts; and we can only smile grimly at the innocence of Socialists (ourselves erstwhile among them) who dream that by a subterfuge we could possess the people of arms to use against their capitalist enemies “when the time came.” Such a time will never come ; or if it comes, it will come as it came in Japan and as it came in Turkey : when a reforming party is able to wield the spear-point of the professional army, and to turn it against the hereditary rulers.

Y * *

We are not so much concerned with the private character of Mr. Lloyd George, which was vindicated so thoroughly on Tuesday, as with his political reputation,

which stands to be made or marred by his forthcoming Budget. A man may wear the white flower of a blame- less private life and be in public life little better than a coward or a traitor. We are happy to believe that Mr. Lloyd George, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, is likely to prove neither. Already some fears of what his forthcoming Budget may contain have sent insurances of incomes at Lloyds up to 40 and 50 per cent. ; and land values fanatics are beginning to indite their prospective “ Te Deums. ” We sincerely hope, as we said last week, that the threepenny bit on unearned incomes will undergo a magnificent series of transformations, and appear as one, two, three, yes, up to ten and twenty shillings. Nothing short of the complete and entire re- sumption by the nation of all unearned incomes will satisfy us : that alone is Socialism : all the rest is juggling ‘twixt Tweedledum and Tweedledee. We find it necessary to warn again our friends of the Labour Party and Mr. O’Grady in particular, since he proposes to move a resolution on the subject on Wed- nesday next, that there is next to nothing in the taxation of land values. Scare figures, showing the im- mense unearned increment of value in urban districts within a few years, are calculated to strike the eye, but their effect on a critical mind is nil, or very near it. There is absolutely no guarantee that a tax on land values would be paid by the landowner, except in cases where the land is unused ; and then it would be regarded as distinctly unjust, and certainly publicly dis- advantageous. A few fanatics, without the brain to be Socialists, are in favour of a measure which promises as much as it will perform little.

3t Y *

By forcing a Government amendment to Mr. Hodge’s motion on the Fair Wages Clause in Government con- tracts a good stroke of business was done by the Labour Party. With a little skill, this new clause may be used as a lever-principle by means of which to overturn the whole doctrine of Free Trade. On the assumption that the State is the model employer, its example in respect of the Fair Wages Clause should be in time enforced upon all our British importers. Let it be understood that just as the Government has now pledged itself against importing sweated contract work, all decent employers shall be expected, and all indecent employers compelled, to do the same. That would be a form of protection which the best opinion in foreign countries would be bound to respect, since foreigners no more than ourselves are mercenary devils inaccessible to the rights of man. Moreover, our national standing as fair traders in the eyes of the increasing power of the pro- letariat abroad would reduce the menace of foreign war- ships and the rancour of international rivalries. When the Labour Party has finished parroting the Free Trade fowls, and discussed their hundredth scheme for check- mating Mr. Grayson, they may resume their work on the Fair Wages Clause and get it universalised.

That reminds us that the I.L.P. officials have not had the grace to send us a copy of the Resolutions to be submitted to the forthcoming Conference. Copies, we understand, have long been in the hands of well-known Socialist journals like the “Daily Express ” and the “ Daily Mail,” in which papers paragraphs of obvious inspiration have likewise been published. Under the circumstances, we make no apology for printing the following note which we have received :-

“ We all know those compact little paragraphs in which the daily Press holds up to us, as in the twinkle of a concave mirror, some vision of a coming event. It may happen that we miss the important date itself, in which case those fleeting glimpses of what, at any rate, ought to have happened, remain with us as a picture of the event. It is impossible sometimes to resist the conclusion that nothing short of official inspiration can account for the brevity and conciseness of language, and the extreme suggestiveness of the picture held up. In such a class fall certain neat paragraphs heralding the I.L.P. Annual Conference which is to be held in Edinburgh at Easter. In these little mirrors we catch a glimpse of a large, loyal, orderly body of delegates, solid in their fidelity to the existing ‘ Cabinet ’ of the party, and demanding as with one voice that the one black sheep among the party’s M.P.‘s should be docked of pay. We fear that this comforting picture has been conjured up in the official mind by hope rather than by expectation. We fear that there are only half a dozen resolutions of the ‘ dock-his-salary ’ order, whereas there are at least 150 resolutions either censur- ing the present Executive ; condemning the tone, attitude and management of their organ, the ‘Labour Leader ‘; declaring for removing them all from the ‘ Labour Leader ’ Board, or removing it from out of their control ; or seeking to introduce electoral restric- tions which would unseat nearly the whole of the present ‘ Cabinet.’ Then there are over twenty resolutions protesting against the appearances of I.L.P. members of Parliament on platforms with Liberal M.P.‘s at Free Trade or Temperance demonstrations, and pages of other resolutions proclaiming dissatisfaction with the present policy and methods of the ‘ Cabinet,’ calling for greater independence, for separate Socialist representation, and even for secession from the Labour Party. There will be lively times at Edinburgh, but the black sheep’s salary will not be the sole cause.”

) -

The silence of the Press in regard to the dramatic conclusion of the Bottomley case is another proof of its ingrained cowardice ; for surely there never was an occasion when it was more urgent that a free Press should speak out. A prominent member of Parlia- ment is brought to the bar as a criminal charged with abominable frauds. The charge is pressed with a vehe- mence little short of vindictive. The prisoner, though admitted to bail by the magistrate, is shadowed by the police. The country is scoured for “aggrieved ” shareholders, most of whom, when they go into the box, do not even allege that they have been defrauded. Dis- missed clerks are produced, although their evidence is tainted with more than the suspicion of blackmail. The whole case breaks down, and the magistrate, without waiting for the defence, dismisses the summons on the ground that no jury would convict on the evidence. There can be no doubt that he was right, but the question remains--why was the prosecution instituted? That is the question which the public is asking, and which Mr. Bottomley will doubtless himself ask. It is imperative that it should be answered. Something like £20,000 are said to have been spent on the prosecution, and £5,000 on the defence - a serious burden both on the taxpayer and on Mr. Bottomley. But this is not the most serious side of the matter. We do not hesitate to say that nine men out of every ten in the street believe that Mr. Bottomley was prosecuted, not really for fraud, but for disobeying the party Whips and opposing the Licensing Bill. We do not, of course, endorse any such allegation. But we say that Ministers owe it to their personal honour to explain,


Civil Liberty in India. THE time is rapidly passing when the Liberal Party could claim to be the watch-dogs of liberty. The traditions and principles of the Liberal party have been ruthlessly flung aside by their most trusted exponents. The one political force which has an unwavering faith in Liberty and in natural rights is Socialism-though Socialism represents “ slavery,” “ serfdom,” and a nation of officials, to those who are merely anxious to hold on to the profits of exploitation as long as possible.

It is more than a coincidence that two members of the present Government have narrowly escaped prosecution for acts of oppression committed in their executive capacity. Sir Edward Grey’s capitulation on the Denshawai incident saved him ; Lord Morley is still in grave peril.

The refusal of the Deputy Speaker to accept a motion for the adjournment of the House raised a serious con- stitutional issue ‘as to the responsibility of the Secre- tary of State for India to the House of Commons. That is a topic of great interest and importance ; but the matter for discussion in this article is the situation created in India by the reckless manner in which the liberties of British subjects in India have been sus- pended by means of an executive “Act of Parliament.” It is an Act of Parliament which has never been discussed in Parliament, because its operation is confined to the Indian Empire ; still, it is a striking object-lesson of the capabilities of a Liberal philosophic Secretary of State in devising punitive legislation of a novel and oppressive character.

This Act is entitled the Indian Criminal Law Amend- ment Act. It was intended to give a more modern look to the Regulation of 1818, under which any person could be deported “for reasons of State ” at the will of the Government of India. The principles of that eminently useful instrument to an incompetent man, have been revived and extended nearly a century later. Such is the progression of the “ Liberalism of ideas.” The Act of 1908 provides for the arrest of a person and empowers the magistrate to “record on oath the evidence of all such persons as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and may record any statement of the accused if voluntarily tendered by him.” It is noticeable that the evidence for the prosecution shall be recorded ; but the prisoner’s statement may be recorded. In the one case it is mandatory ; in the other case it is permissive.

Sections 4 and 13 are most important, in that they strike at the fundamental basis of civil liberty. “ (4) The accused shall not be present during an inquiry under section 3 (I) ” -which is the section authorising the magistrate to take evidence-“ unless the magistrate so directs, nor shall he be represented by a pleader during any such inquiry, nor shall any person have any right of access to the court or magistrate while he is holding such inquiry.” Section 13 : “The evidence of a witness taken by a magistrate in proceed- ings to which this part applies, shall be treated as evidence before the High Court if the witness is dead or cannot be produced, and if the High Court has reason to believe that his death or absence has been caused in the interest of the accused.” Liberty is strangled by two bowstrings in Section 13. The witness may not be obtainable through the intrigues or influence of the accused ; but that need not be proved, because the section has previously provided that the evidence given before the magistrate is admissible, merely if the witness “cannot be produced ” from any cause whatso- ever. This reading is the only one which is consistent with the presence of the disjunctive “and,” which is used in the sense of “or,” in the latter part of the section.

Consider the result to a person charged with an

offence under this Act. He is arrested ; he has no opportunity of knowing what charge he is being in- dicted upon at the preliminary hearing ; he is not allowed to hear the testimony of his accusers, nor is his counsel allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. As- suming a case occurs-and it is understood that this tyrannic procedure has been adopted in the cases of the deported Indians--’ in which Section 13 is brought into operation, what happens ? A is committed for trial before three High Court judges-trial by jury is sus- pended by this Act-on oral evidence given by B, C, and D, none of whom has been cross-examined by anyone on behalf of the prisoner. Before the final trial comes on, B, C, and D disappear. Under this Act, A can be sentenced to death on the recorded evidence of B, C, and D. A has had no opportunity of shaking their testimony by cross-examination, and yet his accusers may be deadly personal enemies, quite willing to perjure themselves. The result of Section 13 is to put every Indian citizen at the mercy of any scoundrel, or set of scoundrels, Indian or European, who may desire, for their own reasons, which could hardly be dig- nified by the term “reasons of State,” to condemn innocent men to transportation or death.

The privacy of this legislation and the improbability of the ordinary layman appreciating its full effect must have weighed with Lord Morley in sanctioning it. Lord Morley quite well knew what its results would be, and have been ; but he trusted to the ignorance of the public to hide this terrific -infringement of Indian citizens’ rights. With due solemnity, I state that no legislation in the history of jurisprudence can be found to approach such an Act as this. The lettre de cachet was a means by which prisoners of State could be in- carcerated without charge and without trial. The Morley Act is a means by which prisoners of State can be transported upon a charge and after a trial which is a cruel sham. Lord Morley has clothed the lettre de cachet with the forms of legality. Such is the mockery of the liberty of Liberalism.

The Indians, India not having the protection of con- stitutional government, are at the absolute mercy of the Executive, which has practically become the judiciary.

Any officer of the Executive, from Lord Minto down to a mere district magistrate, may issue a warrant against any Indian “for reasons of State,” with a practical certainty, if he takes reasonable precautions, that a conviction will be obtained and the obnoxious Indian deported. It is a shocking and disgraceful state of things. In the words of Lord Mansfield : “To lay down in an English court of justice such monstrous propositions as that a Governor, acting by virtue of letters patent under the great seal, can do what he pleases ; that he is accountable only to God and his own conscience ; and to maintain here that every Governor in every place can act absolutely ; that he may affect their bodies and their liberty, and is accountable to nobody- is a doctrine not to be maintained,” etc. (Fabrigas v. Governor Mostyn). But Lords Minto and Morley are seemingly “accountable to nobody.”

Is it astonishing- that there is unrest in India? The process of reasoning at the India Office appears to be this : Discontent in India equals Repression : Repres- sion equals more Discontent. More Discontent equals more repression : more repression equals more discontent ; and so on, ad infinitum, until Morley, Minto, and their friends cause a second Mutiny. More alarming still was the action of the House of Lords in striking the Provincial Councils clause out of the Indian Coun- cils Bill, as it was the one clause in the Bill which had any resemblance to the old Liberal principle of consti- tutional liberty. What madmen really govern England and India ! C. H. NORMAN.

DELICIOUS COFFEE

RED WHITE & BLUE For Breakfast & after Dinner.

MARCH 18, 1909 418 THE NEW AGE

Studies in the Poor Law, I I. The Breaking up of the Poor Law. In our first article, we pointed out that the initial re- commendation of the Minority Poor Law Commis- sioners is that the administration of public relief shall be taken out of the hands of that scratch collection of amateur persons, named collectively the Board of Guardians. It was shown, conclusively, that these persons had been burdened with an impossible task : they were charged with the giving of relief to the vast and varied collection of human beings who came under the common title of the destitute. Now, it is obvious that the want of sufficient money to buy the ordinary necessities of life is a calamity which may overtake very different kinds of people, of very different ages, and for very different reasons. The destitute person may be a child at the moment of birth, or a strong man in the prime of his strength. It may be an industrious woman who has broken down in an attempt to keep together a home over the heads of her family, or an idle wastrel who never does a voluntary day’s work if he can live by charity.

It is impossible to imagine any problem of social dis- order or any defect of human condition which will not, sooner or later, come before a Board of Guardians in the form of a destitute person. To ask a Board to provide for the needs of all this mass of humanity named the “destitute ” is just as sensible and practicable as it would be to request them to provide a united religious service for the people at the fair of Nijni Novgorod. There are as many distinct types and special conditions of human life placed before the Board every time of meeting as there are tribes at the biggest fair on earth. The Guardians have failed to perform their task, not because they are inefficient, but because they are not omnipotent. They are untrained persons who are asked to do a mass of work which can only be done if it is divided up amongst a large number of persons, each trained to understand a small part of a problem which, as a whole, is beyond any ordinary single intelligence.

The keynote of the Minority Report is the breaking- up of the Poor Law into the constituent parts of which it is composed : parts which were only united by the entirely transitory and unscientific bond of the pauper disqualification. The finding of work for the able-bodied man and the supply of milk to the infant are both thrown on the Guardians, because the man and the child are alike technically paupers. It would be just as wise and scientific to send them to the Guardians because they have eyes of the same colour. To have an ad hoc body of local Councillors to deal with all paupers is not much more sensible than if we appointed a special Council to deal only with persons having one leg. Indeed, the want of a leg would be a more useful classification than the artificial attribute of pauperism.

The Minority Commissioners were faced by the fact that it is impossible for the Boards of Guardians effi- ciently to grapple with the infinite variety of cases which are sent before them. Appallingly large though the number of destitute people may be, yet even the eight or nine hundred thousand persons who are each day in receipt of poor relief, when sorted out into their appropriate class-and, still further, when distributed amongst the various Unions-are not sufficient to make it a possible economical policy to engage the experienced officials and to build the necessary accommodation to deal with the special needs of each class.

There would, of course, be an intrinsic objection to the special treatment of citizens as paupers, even if the present system were not utterly inefficient and un- economical. But, putting on one side for the moment the appeal to justice and ethics as a sufficient basis for the abolition of the Poor Law Guardians and Pauper- ism, the Commissioners have been able to show, by an overwhelming mass of evidence, that all the machinery for performing the work of the Guardians is already in existence, in a more or less complete condition. Run- ning parallel with the work of the Poor Law Boards is

a system of local and central administrative machinery which is devised to deal with exactly the same kind of work which is being done (or left undone) by the Guar- dians.

Thus, side by side with the Poor Law school under the Guardians is the school under the Local Education Authority. The Guardians are giving out - relief often to the same family which is receiving food through the channel of the school-meal under the Education Acts. Medical assistance is given, by chance, either in the workhouse infirmary or in the municipal hospital ; by the district doctor appointed by the Guardians, or by the medical officer of health under the Town Council.

We have said that these two systems are running parallel. As a matter of fact, they were devised to be parallel, but in practice, they are inextricably inter- woven and hopelessly confused. It would be impossible to overestimate the waste which results from the over- lapping authorities. It is quite clear, on this ground alone, that it is imperative to choose which of the systems should be retained, in order that the other can be cleared off the field of local government. The Minority Report is a conclusive argument for sweeping away the Guardians.

The main reason which underlies all the minor reasons is that such bodies as the Education Commit- tees, the Public Health Committees, the School Feeding Committees, the Pensions Committees, the Asylums Boards, and so on, are all specialised groups, devised for the particular purpose of dealing with the special subject in hand. It may be objected that the persons who sit as County or Borough Councillors are no more expert than the people who sit on the Boards of Guar- dians, and therefore the various services are, in the long run, just as much under amateurs as the Poor Law system. The criticism is wrong in point of fact ; for incompletely as the specialist committee idea has yet been applied to English local government, nevertheless the various departments of a County or Borough Coun- cil’s work are practically under the control of expert officials, whose advice (up to the point of current public opinion) is usually followed by their committees, and, ultimately, by the Councils. Whereas the Guardians are not in a position to buy the best advice, the members of the Board, for various reasons, rarely can supply any technical experience themselves ; and if the officials and the special members were there they would be wasted on a scheme which must necessarily have a very limited scope, because it must not go beyond the technical pauper.

As one example of the last point, which is perhaps the most important of all, the London County Council, in March, 1908, was feeding twice as many children under the Provision of Meals Act as the Metropolitan Guardians were supplying under the Poor Law. Now, as a mere matter of commercial knowledge, any business man will decide in favour of the firm working on the largest scale ; for it means economy. The medical side of relief is a still more conclusive case for the County and Borough Councils, with their widely-reaching system of hospitals, medical officers, sanitary in- spectors, health visitors : all together able to co-ordinate their efforts in a way which must be impossible in the case of the Guardians, merely engaged in relieving destitution, and not primarily concerned in the improve- ment of public health ; or legally empowered to be concerned, if they cared.

Indeed, the relief of “destitution ” in its very nature must remain an amateur’s solution of the problem of poverty. Poor Law relief cannot legally be given until the recipient is a wrecked man. The whole teaching of science is that he must be prevented from reaching destitution. The relief of destitution, the old solution, was possibly within the powers of unskilled and unscientific Guardians. The prevention of poverty, the new solution, can only be accomplished by the best experts obtainable, working with the widest scope, and co-ordinated with every other department of local and central administration. Every one of those requirements points to the county or borough officials working under the special committees of their Councils,


A Debate on Socialism. [Being part of a discussion at the Surrey Masonic Hall

Camberwell, S.E., on Wednesday, November 18, 1908, Mr Hilaire Belloc, M.P., in the Chair.]

Mr. G. K. CHESTERTON : There are two distinct advantages in having a discussion after the address ; the first is that it is the only tolerable method among free and honourable men ; and the second is that it permits the first speaker to cut his remarks short, as he is not responsible for the whole entertainment of the evening. In short, if it be, as they used to say of the old educational systems, a question of combining amusement with instruction, I will very briefly communicate the instruction, and I will leave it to you for the rest of the evening to provide the amusement.

a foul condition, in which drink is used as a drug. What is my objection broadly to those two processes- to the process of the abolition of religious art by the Puritans and the abolition of liquor by the Teetotalers- is that it is a desperate remedy, or to speak in more strict terms, it is a remedy of despair. I don’t mind it being a violent remedy, I don’t mind it being a remedy of revolution. Personally, I think the more physical revolution we have the better just now. I do, however, object to it being the destruction of something which has been valuable. That applies to the comradeship of fermented liquor. I say, that that description, that it is a universal? solid, and frequently sacred human custom, applies to the case of religious art, and applies to the case of fermented liquor.

What I have to say is of a nature rather provocative than final. I want to say what I think is the line of thought along which Socialism is now being disputed, and will be more and more disputed as it grows more and more towards what appears to me at the moment, I frankly admit, its probable triumph. It is unnecessary for me to say that none of us will convince the other. I can assure you that none of you will convince me. And if I can judge from the rugged and powerful expression of your countenances, I shall not convince you. Nevertheless, as I say, it may be worth while to indicate the lines of cleavage.

Now, there is one general principle which I should like to have admitted as a matter of history : if anyone will not admit this -(I feel as if I were falling into a theological formula, which is natural to me)-he is, I think, outside the discussion as far as I am concerned. Let it be admitted that human civilisation, that the highest civilisation, can make mistakes ; mistakes which it goes into with the best motives, which it effects with enormous toil and heroism, mistakes which it has to redeem, and to at last alter by going labori- ously back along the pathway by which it has come. I know that there is a certain philosophical tone in the modern world which supposes this impossible. BY a dextrous use of words like “progress ” and “ evolution ” you can always represent that everything, that anybody has ever done since the beginning of the world was the best possible thing he could have done. You can say this world, however unpleasant and disastrous in appearance, is-a step on the stage of Evolution. I submit as a principle that mankind can actually go wrong and then have to undo it in order to go right again.

There is a third point on which I should have my objection to the remedies of despair that are proposed in the modern world ; and that is, the proposal to abolish the idea of direct ownership of land. You will agree that there is no cant and no nonsense about that. Socialists do propose, however moderate and however gentle their measures, to abolish any direct ownership of land. But owning land is an idea of exactly the same sort to my mind as the idea of a religious symbol. It is a thing which people expressed, wrote down in poems, in verses and ballads, long before they had ever framed it in laws. You cannot find any poem, tradition, legend, or fairy tale that does not assume it as natural that a man should own a piece of land. That particular thing I ask you to assume for the sake of argument-the sense of owning your back garden, of actually owning it. That thing is, it is fairly true to say, general in the literature and in the traditions of mankind.

Now, that. idea, like drinking, appears like having religious images, like indulging in art. Nearly all those things have in our particular time undergone a disgust- ing and obscene transformation. We have seen undoubtedly in our particular time a condition of affairs in which a few people had all the property and nobody else had any property at all. The question which I want to put before you, not so much for the purpose of my own immediate victory, but rather for the purpose of discussion this evening, is-what is the right course to take in such a case as that? Can the human race ever permanently sit down under Puritanism? Can the human race ever permanently sit down under teetotalism? Can the human race ever permanently sit down under the destruction of the direct possession of land? I think not.

I will try to get to something definite. Most of us have in our minds a picture of a fairly healthy, happy human life. We want to get to that ; and if we want to get to that, if we define that good human life as I think almost everybody would define it, I think it can be said that mankind has sometimes tried to seize that happiness, and seized it in so wrong a way that they had to undo the whole of their work. instance.

Puritanism, for There is no doubt whatever that the men who

worked the Puritan revolution were mostly very fine men. There is no doubt whatever that they were re- belling against abominable cruelty and cynicism ; but the form that their rebellion took happened to be this. They said it is quite obvious that men are carrying golden croziers and wearing mitres who are very corrupt men. Ritual, art, music, the worship of God by symbol-all that has been so thoroughly corrupted that we will have done with it ; and we say we will go into a barn, we will go on the hillside and worship God. It was sincere, it was straight, it was strong ; and the only objection to it was-that it was wrong. After three centuries, we have discovered, not that it was not

What happened in the nineteenth century when the nineteenth century had been wrong? What happened then was simply the fact that the most intellectual part of the nineteenth century went back in a laborious and rather affected way to the religious art of Europe before the Puritans. It said, “We must have these symbols, even if we have to have Burne-Jones as well.” It went back and said, “We repent of the Puritan reformation.” Now, what I have got to say-and this ends the first part of what I have got to say in the merely moral part of my address -about the hideous and ghastly greed which has built up the modern conditions of England, is that we repent. All our progress has been wrong. We will have no more to do with it. There is in the original human race a disposition and a love of possession-of possessing your own back garden. When all through the eighteenth century, or towards the end of the eighteenth century, it began to be subtly thought that the industrious apprentice was a good man, it was being thought all the time that avarice was a sin. When the apprentice, however, became a successful man, avarice was then not regarded as a sin. There was a period in history when first of all one very nasty man began to buy everybody else’s back garden ; and

sincere, magnificent, and worth doing, but simply that it was wrong. There is not a man in any Nonconformist chapel who will maintain that the Puritans were right in saying that a man should not worship God by art or symbol.

consequently there was a bad religion and a bad philosophy which pointed to a man and said, “Look at that good, admirable man ; he has bought up no less than sixteen back gardens.”

There are many other examples of the same sort. The example of teetotalism is the one that occurs to me at the moment. Of course the world has got into

The other side of the question I want to urge is simply the practical and political one. All nations in Europe suffer from some specific evil. I think it is very difficult indeed to know what any foreign nation suffers

THE NEW AGE MARCH 18, 1909

from. And that, I think, is one of the real bases of the nationalistic idea. I am, however, perfectly convinced about what is the peculiar evil that affects England. The peculiar evil that affects England is that, simply, Englishman have nothing whatever to do with it. It is the fact that we are more than any other nation in Europe governed by a small and rather corrupt class of men. The question is : what are we to do in order to upset that state of affairs ? And that brings me to my concluding remarks. Almost all the books I have read both when I was a Socialist, and when I was not-and certainly all the best of them-repudiated the idea that under Socialism there would be a mere mechanical system of equal money payment by the State. If it be granted that there will be a scale or gradation of payment of some kind in a Socialist State, I have a very, very strong conviction indeed that if ever Socialism does come to this community of ours, which is very likely indeed, you will find the powerful, strong, successful fellow who is called upon to receive a high salary for the purpose of, let us say, administering mines in Lancashire, would be the same gentleman who very recently received an enormous sum as a Cabinet Minister.

Imagine to yourself the first Socialist Parliament. Imagine they are discussing-well, anything ; I don’t care what it is. One thing I am quite certain of is that there will be an eloquent speech by Mr. Vincent Churchill on one side, replied to magnificently by Mr. Churchill Vincent on the other ; that Lord Robert Cecil -who will by a quaint custom retain his title-will be replied to by the Democrat, Archibald Primrose ; and that, in short, the whole of the set of people who now have the power, will keep it in their hands. I want you to ask yourselves seriously, what is there against that being so? Of course, if there is a bloody revolution, it will not be so. But if there is a bloody revolution, there will not be many other things. Of course, if the English people rise, that will not happen. But if the English people rise, Socialism will not happen. Sup- posing the thing is not sundered by any blow of an axe, have you any kind of reason to suppose that if Socialism comes it will not simply be another of the infinite and perpetually renewed dodges of the English aristocracy?

Is-there any evidence if things work out on the lines of evolution as they are now, that you will not still be governed by the English governing classes? You say you will not believe that Mr. Vincent Churchill is the ablest and strongest man to rule you ; you believed it of the Duke of Devonshire, one of the most stupid men in the world. What made all the people of my class and yours -all the people living down the little streets of Kensington, Battersea, etc.-believe the Duke was a man of sagacity and common sense? The answer, I think, is that the conditions of modern society make all kinds of humbug enormously easy. I should ask what ground have you for actually believing that the Socialist system-that is to say, collective ownership of property and capital- will make it under immediate conditions in England any more difficult for a certain class in possession of the original machinery to bamboozle the rest of the nation into the belief that they are really appointed by political evolution ?

Mr. CECIL CHESTERTON : I have always believed that the doctrine of original sin is the only foundation for a political system. It seems to me the most extraordinary doctrine that was ever put forward-this idea that Socialism involves some idealistic views of human nature. In my opinion, Socialism will come about just because human nature is what it is. It seems to me impossible that the great mass of the people of this country can very much longer continue to practise the extrava- gant altruism of the present time, when they are handing over annually a sum of £600,000,000 to support an idle rich class. It has been said long ago that there were only three ways of living : working, begging, and stealing. Now, there was a time when it might reasonably have been said that the governing class of this country lived by stealing--a when the whole political power was in their hands. Since, however, the extension of the franchise, and since the working class have in theory possessed the political power, the governing class is

living on the magnanimity of the workers, because the workers choose to pay them rent and interest to which they have no right. I now want to say something about the question of property. I take it that every Socialist, practically every Socialist at any rate, if he were pressed as to why he wants Socialism would say : in order to secure more property for the people. After all, what is property? What we mean, I take it, is this’: that every man naturally wants to own. I mean that a man desires to be able to surround himself with a large number of things which he can change at his will, which he can modify exactly as he likes, without consulting anybody. That seems to me to be the idea of property. Our object is to get more of that for people, and not less, and the question is whether we can do that in any other way than by Socialising the means of production. That does not mean the abolition of property in anything that is necessary to the livelihood of human beings. We say that until you have Socialised those things which are the common interests of the community you will have a form of slavery-people dependent on others for a mere existence. The question I want to put to Mr. Chesterton about the land is this : He suggests that the whole land of England should be practically divided up among the people of England, presumably in more or less equal proportions. Supposing that had been done 200 years ago, and that the land on which we now stand in Camberwell, equivalent to another plot of ground in Suffolk or Norfolk, had been given to a certain person, is it not perfectly certain that the land which was received by the man who got his share in Camberwell would be now fifty times as valuable as the land shared out to the man in Norfolk?

Mr. G. BERNARD SHAW : As far as I can recol- lect Mr. Chesterton’s address, he asked us to agree with him that the building up of society must always proceed by trial and error. Socialism may be taken to mean the reparation of one of the most terrific errors that was ever made by the aristocracy in Europe ; and that was the error that was made when they threw away the whole Catholic conception of society - the commune. [Dissent from Mr. Belloc.-] We are now endeavouring to get away from that fatal attempt to try and base the fortunes of society on individualism, and the liberty of allowing that if every man is left to look after his own interest under the stimulus of private property, then every man will make the best of himself, and the success of society will consist of a number of men already making the best of themselves and who will make the best of society. With reference to Mr. Chesterton’s remarks re a man not possessing a back garden under Socialism, I contend that if Socialism is established in this country he will have a back garden. I will pledge my honour that in the coming Socialist State Mr. Chesterton shall have his own back garden. Personally, I own six back gardens, but prefer to live where there is only an area. Mr. Chesterton thinks that under Socialism we shall still be subject to our present aristocratic rulers, and warns us to beware lest the coming of the Socialistic era be only one more dodge of the aristocratic classes to keep the power in their hands. Well, supposing at Runnymede, just when King John was about to sign the Charter, somebody had drawn the barons aside and told them to beware, it was only a trick, and that King John would try to back out of it !

Mr. G. K. CHESTERTON : He did, he did ! Mr. G. B. SHAW : He did not ! And if he did, it

didn’t matter, for he had signed, and he couldn’t alter that. Well, supposing that when King Charles was about to be beheaded someone had drawn Cromwell aside and told him to beware lest this was only another trick of the Stuarts to keep the crown in their hands ! Or supposing that someone had told Mirabeau that the French Revolution was simply a trick of the French bourgeoisie to keep the power ! Mr. Chesterton has said that I shall not bully him. Very well, then, I shall adopt the schoolmasterly attitude, and tell him that he doesn’t know anything about Socialism. I have already said so publicly in this hall, and I repeat, still in the schoolmasterly attitude, that Mr. Chesterton knows nothing whatever about Socialism. As regards the

http://www.modjourn.org/render.php?view=mjp_object&id=mjp.2005.01.010


Duke of Devonshire, I do not think that the Duke of Devonshire was looked up to simply because he was a duke. Otherwise, why did not people reverence the Marquis of Anglesey ? I will tell you. The Marquis of Anglesey simply wasted his opportunities ; he was a bad example to the country. But the Duke of Devon- shire has acted in a vastly different way. Mr. Belloc has told us a lot about peasant-proprietorship. At Lismore, in Ireland, are the Duke of Devonshire’s estate and a group of little peasant-proprietors. The Duke’s estate is a model, well-ordered estate-

Mr. G. K. CHESTERTON : Hear hear ! Mr. SHAW : And the conditions there are very dif-

ferent from the continual state of unrest and quarrel- ling amongst the peasant-proprietors. Now, with regard to cutting up land and dividing it up. How will he start with London? The present state of things has nothing to do with greed. If you made all the people of this country the most chivalrous mortals under the sun, the evils would still continue. [Cheers from G. K. Chesterton.] The great discovery of the eighteenth century was the law of rent, and by the application of that law a large number of the economic evils of the day would disappear. The application of laws in other branches of life had eradicated evils. Take typhus fever. We had discovered the way to get rid of typhus fever-

Mr. G. K. CHESTERTON : But nobody wants typhus fever !

Mr. SHAW : And we shall in the same way find a way out of our present economic ills.

Mr. HILAIRE BELLOC gave as his definition of Social- ism the control of the means of production ; at least, the major portion of the means of production-that is, the necessities of life. “People say that unless you have the system of Socialism you must have the present system. I want to ask these two questions. Firstly, I want to ask if you take the mass of the human race, both in time and space, and go and ask your ordinary man which would he prefer : to be the salaried servant of the State or to be a private and independent owner? you can answer that question by saying that the vast majority of the human race would reply in one voice, ‘ I prefer to own.’ Mr. Shaw can try it if he likes. He can advertise for a secretary or something of the sort at a salary of £200 a year-of course, he needn’t appoint one- and ask the applicant if he’ll have £200

a year dependent on Mr. Shaw’s favour or take a piece of freehold land-and the land will be chosen every time. Take the bulk of the human race ; you must admit that ownership has been, so far as we have strict record, the rule and the normal desire of man. What destroyed small property in Europe was the Reforma- tion. The Reformation was the beginning of the present capitalist system.” He could place his finger. on a map of Europe and point out that it was precisely in those places that the Reformation had not touched that capitalism had made the slowest headway. The economic rent theory could be held only by nomads, by races that had no interest in the land ; and the chief exponent of the economic rent nonsense was a nomad, Karl Marx.

Mr. G. K. CHESTERTON, in replying to the discussion, said : You will be gratified to hear you have convinced me. I mean, that you have convinced me that you are all entirely wrong. I was never so completely convinced that Socialism is a mistake as I am at this moment. I gathered one important phrase from the early speeches, viz., that the object of Socialism is to abolish poverty. That seems to me to be colossal common sense. That is what we all want to do, to abolish the fact that a good many people are hungry. There is one way that poverty could be abolished-that is by slavery. Let the enormous mass of the inhabi- tants of this country, whom you despise, be reduced to the condition of negro slaves. Let them be made to work upon a general enforced condition, enforced by the State ; let those responsible for their labour give them always enough food, drink, and time to sleep -that is a solution of the problem of poverty. The difference between that State and all schemes of Social- ism is to me difficult to perceive. The essential point

which I perceive I must answer is the question about my contention that you will find that the Socialistic Government, when it comes, will, after all, be still in the same hands of the same contemptible gang which now runs the British Empire. I have heard a number of answers to that. fully expressed.

They were most of them beauti- When Socialism comes, people’s souls

will be so pure and good that they won’t tolerate an aristocrat ; or, again, when Socialism comes, we shall have so vivid a criticism of public affairs that we shall not think of regarding the Duke of Devonshire as a clever man. What shall we say of the Duke of Devon- shire when five of those present say that he was a futile, absurd person, and the best man in England (George Bernard Shaw) asserts that he was a good, capable man ? When Bernard Shaw turns courtier what is the use of anyone else talking about it? I feel quite convinced that the Duke of Devonshire will be found leading in the coming Socialist State. It is strictly true that if you have a Socialistic State evolved out of the present political one, you will find that the same men are on top with greatly increased power. It would be just as easy to vote a man £2,000,000, say, for his service to the State in Ireland, as it is in the present state of politics. Any pretext will do, as at present.

Proceeding next to deal with one whom he would call his noble relative, Mr. Chesterton said that the idea that a man would not take ten hours to do what he could do in two, was quite demonstrably wrong. We take five days to hang a man ; and we should be greatly upset if we didn’t have the periodic entertainment. Bernard Shaw had declared that in the coming Socialist State he would pledge his honour that he (Mr. Chesterton) should have his own back garden. Well, once Mr. Shaw told him privately that he would do anything, provided you did not put him on his honour. His theory of property was that if a man owned two back gardens or sixteen back gardens, he didn’t own one. He could not experience that sense of possession that the ownership of one back garden gave. One might as well walk about wearing sixteen high hats !

YESTERDAYS.

Aden.

Those yesterdays ! Those happy, happy yesterdays ! When Time seemed one unending June, And all the world a merry tune ; When Life itself lived in a maze

Of many coloured thoughts and dreams Of love that lives and hope that gleams,

Filled with the world’s most fervent praise, Those yesterdays !

Where are ye fled, ah where, ah where? Ye’ve left me nought but dry despair; Life for me has lost its haze:

Ye’ve made my heart within me burn, For scenes and hours that’ll ne’er return,

My withered soul is all ablaze. Ye yesterdays !

B. K. DAS.

-

\

‘A Complete Diet for the Infant

the Aged the Infirm

Easily digestible, Health-giving, Strength-giving.

GOLD MEDALS, London. 1900 and

422 THE NEW AGE MARCH 18, 1909

I

Not Officially Reported. have that other piece of land. It will be needed, and some other will take it if we leave it. But you must

THE woman was on her knees in the enclosed yard bring a woman to your other hand. The work is too

before the hut, grinding corn. Her babe was on her much for me. See the children ; there are four, and

back, a blanket loosely covering it, and as she swayed the first can hardly carry the baby. Is that right?

with the motion of crushing the corn between the stones You can’t speak ! One only leaves my back to make room for another. Am I then as a cow which must

the little one rocked to and fro. A few feet from her a ? And you are rich, and might have fire was burning in a hollow made in the beaten floor,

calve every year

over which stood a three-legged pot with water to boil three or four women. But you love to see the cattle

the meal which she was preparing. Against the light, reed wall of the yard her good man was sitting with his legs crossed before him. He wore neither blanket nor clothing, it being the summer time. Round his neck was a thong threaded through a tiger claw, a piece of blue soap-stone, and a small knuckle bone. A cane snuff-box swung through a hole in one ear ; a couple of wire bangles were worn on his left wrist, and a brass ring on one big toe. His head was adorned with a thick cluster of long woolly spirals, which hung around over his ears and forehead. The tail of a pole-cat, very neatly drawn together- the bone having been abstracted -was tied to one of the ringlets, and added greatly to his picturesque appearance. He was a well-built man, with a genial, good-humoured face, and as he sat now, patiently turning and twisting and rubbing a goatskin in his hands and on his thighs to cure it, he listened to his wife’s complaints without a shade of annoyance ever clouding his brow.

The family were evidently in easy circumstances, for close by were seen two shelters covering huge baskets of Kaffir corn, a fine lot of pumpkins and sweet potatoes, and against the hut stood a large bundle of sugar cane. Anyone seeing these interior arrangements would guess at once that this man possessed cattle and goats-and he would be right.

But just now there had come to a head a question which had been discussed for months, and the good lady’s tones were by no means subdued as she stated the case from her point of view ; never pausing from her work except to place fresh corn on the hollowed stone for grinding. She also had a pleasant face, and was plump and healthy looking. Her fine, heavy breasts hung straight down half way the length of her arms and swung like a pair of bells as she bent over her work.

in the kraal. You don’t like to see them leave you. You think more of them than you do of me. Very well ! You can go and sleep with your cattle. I don’t understand you. You are not as other men. Tell me why do you not bring another wife to your house? ”

Here the honest soul dropped her grinding stone, shook the meal together on the grass mat, and moved with it over to the fire. The man, with patient serenity on his face, twisted a part of the skin up tightly and worked it heavily between his hands and upon his bare legs, then noticing that his wife was waiting for a reply, he looked over to her with a smile, and said :

“ I am afraid.” The woman made an impatient ges- ture, but he went on, “ There is peace in my house.”

“ Is this peace? ” she snapped out. “There is not another woman amongst our people

like you, and I am afraid of the others. Another woman might be jealous of you or lazy, or she might be a great chatterer, or work ill with your children, and then would there be no more content or peace in our house.”

“And you have no eyes, then, and have you no ears, that you cannot see a girl’s face and hear of her before you bring her to your house? And are you not a man, that you cannot bring a girl to reason if she is troublesome? ” A grimace passed over the good- natured fellow’s face. “Well, then, I am a woman, and the first here, and I will soon teach her how to behave.”

The look on the man’s face became more grave. “ Yes, ” he said, “there would be trouble in our house,

and no more peace for me.” “You are a fool,” remarked the lady. “How is it

that you alone of all the men here fear to increase your house? Have I been such a trouble to you? ”

“You are a good wife, and there is no trouble between us.”

“Am I less than an ox or an ass ? They work sometimes, but they rest more often. Your dogs hunt for you to-day, but they rest to-morrow. Am I less than a dog? All days are the same to me : before the sun comes out I must begin, and when the moon rises I am still working, with never a rest. At night I am so tired that when you would talk to me I fall asleep. Do I speak truth? ”

“Yes, you speak truth.” “ Early in the morning I fetch the water, and it is far to

bring ; then there is the corn to grind and the meal to make ready. I scarce can sit to eat, for the lands are far, and I must take the hoe and basket and hurry to keep the birds off ; and there is the hoeing and sowing and the weeding. All through the day in the hot sun I must work in the lands, for the lands are big and I am alone, and to have weeds on my land would be a shame to me. And now you would make the fence larger and add another piece of ground. Am I made of iron? When the shadows grow I cannot rest and watch the children play. No! With the babe on my back and the basket on my head I must hurry home, for the distance is great, and there is water to be fetched again from the stream and more corn must be ground and the evening meal prepared. The yard must be swept, the pots must be cleaned, and the house made ready. The night comes too soon, and something is left not done because it is me alone, and I sleep as I work because I am tired. Am I lazy? Can you not beat me, and make me work a little more? Digging and sowing and weeding and reaping, and the lands are big and far away.”

“YOU speak truth, wife, and we will not make the lands any bigger.”

!‘Oh ! you are a mean man ! You know we must

The woman came over and, stood before the man for a moment. “And you have been a good man, and there has not been trouble between us, but there is always trouble for me and no peace now because the work is too much for me. You must take another wife that I can have rest. You always say you will think it over to-morrow, but to-morrow becomes the day after to- morrow, and I am tired. ” She moved away and brought the man some water to wash his hands, then went into the hut and brought some cooked meat on a clean wooden dish and placed it before him.

* + * * * * *

“There is a woman wants to see you, sir.” “ Who is she, Malek? ” “Wife of Mafefe, sir.” “Let her come in.” The policeman beckoned with his hand from the

door, and a moment later the woman, with the inevit- able child on her back, came into the room. She looked at me openly, then struck her hands lightly together, saying “ Morena kgos. ” I returned her greeting, and asked her upon what business she would see me. With- out any hesitation she started off :

“Ava, M’re ” (“ No, sir,“). You are our father here : I must come to you with my trouble. My man is rich. Mafefe, you know him. I have four children, and yet he will not take another wife. The work is too much for me, and the children come too quickly. It is not right, and I never have time to rest. I have spoken to Mafefe, but he is a strange man, and will hot hear me, and so I come to you, sir ! If you will speak to-”

I held up my hand, and the woman stopped. “Sit down.” She swung the baby round to the front, and sat on the bench. “ Is your man good to you? ”

“Yes, sir ; he never beats me, but-” She stopped on seeing my hand rise.

“What is all the work you speak of ? ”

MARCH 18 1909 THE NEW AGE

Her daily labour, as she detailed it, was about the ordinary lot of a native wife, but with regard to the children, her case was a bit extraordinary, and certainly gave her cause for complaint. Having gleaned a few more particulars, I dismissed her, saying I would think about what she had told me, and see what I could do.

The next day I sent word to Mafefe that I would like to see him, but he could come up any time when he was not busy. He came in the afternoon, greeting me with a broad smile, from which I judged that he knew on what matter I wished to speak to him. I was sitting in an easy chair on the verandah, and Mafefe quietly sat himself on his haunches a little way off. I started.

“ You know your wife has been to see me? ” “She told me she had been to you.” “ She does not hide things from you? ” “It could not be hidden. She is wise.” “DO you think there was some reason in her coming

to See me? ” Mafefe shrugged his shoulders. “ It is not a business

for the Commissioner to do with.” And I could see, for all his smile, that the man was hurt.

“No, Mafefe,” I said. “It is not a business for me, and I will have no word to say about it. Only the woman had to speak to someone because her heart was full. She came to me, but you need not fear she will speak to other people. She thinks much of you. It is your business only. If she is a good wife, I know you will treat her well ; if she is a bad one-well, I am sorry for you. There can be no peace for a house with a discontented wife. The baby was looking splendid. By the way, I have not seen the eldest boy for some time. Tell him to come and see me to-morrow. I’ve got some sweets out from town.”

I turned the conversation to matters of cattle and land, and when coffee was brought to me, I ordered a cup for Mafefe. He left a little later in excellent humour. My last remark was a reminder to him to send the little boy for some sweets in the morning.

It was not more than a week after this conversation that the woman met me, and, with a happy smile, said, “I thank you greatly, sir. He is seeking, and he is building a new hut.”

RICHMOND HAIGH.

Books and Persons. (AN OCCASIONAL CAUSERIE.)

ONE of the most noteworthy of recent publications in the way of fiction is Anton Tchehkoff’s “The Kiss and Other Stories,” translated by Mr. R. E. C. Long and published by Duckworths (6s.). A similar volume, “The Black Monk ” (same translator and publishers), was issued some years ago. Tchehkoff lived and made a tremendous name in Russia, and died, and England recked not. He has been translated into French, and I believe that there exists a complete edition of his works in German ; but these two volumes are all that we have in English. The thanks of the lettered are due to Mr. Long and to his publishers. Tchehkoff’s stories are really remarkable. If anyone of authority stated that they rank him with the fixed stars of Russian fiction- Dostoievsky, Turgenev, Gogol, and Tolstoy-I should not be ready to contradict. To read them, after even the finest stories of de Maupassant or Murray Gilchrist, is like having a bath after a ball. Their effect is extraordinarily one of ingenuousness. Of course, they are not in the least ingenuous, as a fact, but self-conscious and elaborate to the highest degree. The progress of every art is an apparent progress from conventionality to realism. The basis of convention remains, but as the art develops it finds more and more subtle methods fitting life to the convention or the convention to life- whichever you please. Tchehkoff’s tales mark a definite new conquest in this long struggle. As you read him you fancy that he must always have been saying to himself : “Life is good enough for me. I won’t alter it. I will set it down as it is.” Such is the tribute to his Success which he forces from you.

He seems to have achieved absolute realism. (But there is no absolute, and one day somebody-probably a Russian-will carry realism farther.) His climaxes are never strained ; nothing is ever idealised, sentimen- talised, etherealised ; no part of the truth is left out, no part is exaggerated. There is no cleverness, no startling feat of virtuosity. All appears simple, candid, almost child-like. I could imagine the editor of a popular magazine returning a story of Tchehkoff’s with the friendly criticism that it showed promise, and that when he had acquired more skill in hitting the reader exactly between the eyes a deal might be possible. Tchehkoff never hits’ you between the eyes. But he will, nevertheless, leave you on the flat of your back. Beneath the outward simplicity of his work is concealed. the most wondrous artifice, the artifice that is embedded deep in nearly all great art. All we English novelists ought to study “The Kiss ” and “The Black Monk.” They will delight every person of fine taste, but to the artist they are a profound lesson. We have no writer, and we have never had one, nor has France, who could mould the material of life, without distorting it, into such complex form to such an end of beauty. Read these books, and you will genuinely know something about Russia ; you will be drenched in the vast melancholy, savage and wistful, of Russian life ; and you will have seen beauty. No tale in “The Kiss ” is quite as marvellous as either the first or the last tale in “The Black Monk,” perhaps ; but both volumes are indispensable to one’s full education. I do not exaggerate. I must add that on a reader whose taste is neither highly developed nor capable of high development, the effect of the stories will be similar to their effect on the magazine editor.

* * x-

In the matter of anthologies, I have- been reading one- “ The Charm of Paris,” by Mr. A. H. Hyatt (Chatto and Windus, as.)-which would have been good had it been smaller. I doubt if any man can produce more than one good anthology in his life. And Mr. Hyatt has had the rashness to produce several in quite a short time. (Another is “The Charm of Venice.” Doubtless he got hold of an idea, and then the idea got hold of him.) In his Paris net he has gathered over a hundred authors, of whom quite half have no earthly nor heavenly business in any anthology whatever. Such as Jules Janin, Victorien Sardou, N. P. Willis, Miss Braddon, J. F. Macdonald. Still, I have derived satisfaction from “The Charm of Paris,” largely because it confirms my ancient conviction that Thackeray, when he went abroad, was naught but a Cook’s Tourist. An ardent anti-Thackerayan, I am always delighted to catch him again in his fundamental commonness. And Victor Hugo’s prose ! Victor Hugo on Notre Dame ! “As- suredly the church of Our Lady at Paris is still, at this day, a majestic and sublime edifice.” And so on. I should say of this as York Powell said of “ Cyrano de Bergerac : “Clotted rot ! ” And why did Mr. Hyatt insert translations from Heine and Verlaine, the two supreme untranslatable? Vast as is Mr. Hyatt’s scope, his books go into the pocket. They are carefully produced.

) * *

As a bookman, the most agreeable magazine serial that I have encountered for a long time is Mr. R. A. Peddie’s “Author Index of Fifteenth Century Books.” It was a truly brilliant idea on the part of the editor of “The Library World ” to run a serial - and such a serial. No “author index ” of incunables exists. I never found an incunable on a bookstall, but I have found the editio princeps in Greek of Plutarch on a bookstall (Shoreditch). And (in Whitechapel Road) Maittaire’s “ Annales Typographici. ” And in my maniacal youth I have consulted the great Hain, and found him wanting. “The Library World ” costs sixpence a month. The bookman should begin to buy it at once, and get the back numbers. At present Mr. Peddie has only arrived at Aristotle. This serial reinforces my enfeebled belief that bookishness is not, after all, dead.

* * *

My recent animadversions on Municipal Free Libraries have aroused some hostility, and a little sympathy, in the Press. Touching the question, I am informed that

424 THE

the censors of the great and good city of Birmingham have caused to be withdrawn from circulation as unfit for perusal “The Bomb,” by Mr. Frank Harris. “The Bomb ” was one of the most distinguished novels of last year. Mr. Frank Harris, however, is in fairish company. They have served Voltaire’s “ Candide ” the same, and also certain works of Maxim Gorki. I cannot imagine why Birmingham does not change its name at once to Warsaw. That would at least show intellectual honesty. JACOB TONSON.

BOOK OF THE WEEK, An Untamed People.”

It was just without the white township of Pereira, high in the Central Cordilleras, that my horse shied at an uncouth bodily presence across the canimo real. My companion, a muleteer of fine discernment and great strength, promptly hoisted the drunken gentleman into my saddle. In this wise I made the acquaintance of Tomas Esmeez, a North American who had been long enough in the land to forget his own tongue, but not long enough to acquire the Spanish. It was the habit of Snr. Smith to take in an immoderate quantity of aguadiente every afternoon between 4 and 5 o’clock and to sleep off the effects on the high road-a habit which the Christian population of Pereira professed common to every heretic. At all events, it was in this way that Mr. Thomas Smith did soak himself in the Spanish spirit, and this I grew to believe was the only way open for Anglo-Saxons to acquire it.

Mr. Havelock Ellis shows the absurdity of my gene- ralisation ; his work is an instance of native sympathy with that genius of Spain which stands in such con- trast with all that modern England holds dear. “Spain,” says Mr. Ellis, “ represents, above all, the supreme manifestation of a certain primitive and eternal attitude of the human spirit, an attitude of heroic energy, of spiritual exaltation, directed not chiefly towards comfort or towards gain, but towards the more fundamental facts of human existence. It is this essential Spain that I have sought to explore.” It is this essential Spain that Mr. Ellis has given us. In Spain and in countries where Spanish civilisation has taken root you realise that life can be a full thing, although your possessions are scanty and your aptitudes medi- ocre. The Spaniard wants the best things the world has to offer, and he obtains them without undignified struggling with his fellows, without the sacrifice of life itself. Romance, religion, love, home, family life, spiritual equality, these essentials are the Spaniard’s outfits, and with these he may never part. “ Spain,” says Mr. Ellis, “is still the most democratic of countries. ” It is, in truth, the only democratic country. Here, as elsewhere, one man may be rich and the other poor, one man may be highly instructed and the other nigh illiterate, but all look out on the world with the same eyes. You pay the beggar his fee and perchance he will offer you a cigar, or invite you to a friendly capita. Servant and master may eat at the same board, sleep in the same room, without compro- mise of dignity on one side or the other. It is only in some of the Mediterranean countries, perhaps above all among the Spanish, that any meaning can be at- tached to the home, to the family. Father, -mother, and children are not separate entities, each pursuing a separate task ; there is no fear, nor reserve, nor lust of exercising parental authority. The women of Spain, “whether in town or country, receive a preparation for life not inferior to a man’s ; she co-operates with men, and her work is often identical with theirs and as capably accomplished.” Mr. Havelock Ellis draws, indeed, an enticing picture of the women of Spain, who, as he observes, are anything but decadent. “Not long since I spent a Sunday in the old Castilian city of Palencia, and watched how the women-stout and matronly, as well as young women-amused themselves with playing at a game between bowls and ninepins,

* (‘The Soul of Spain.” By Havelock Ellis. (Constable. 7s. 6d. net.)

casting the large, heavy balls along the grass with unwearying satisfaction during the whole of a long afternoon in the most business-like and yet graceful manner ; whilst a few children stood looking on at their elders. I have never seen English women of the people, or, indeed, the women of any other land, playing at anything so vigorously healthy and innocent for the sheer joy of muscular exertion.” The ideal Spanish woman is “ angelic but robust. ”

Just as family life is not a thing of Sunday dinners or of the children coming down to dessert, the Spaniard’s religion is an integral part of his daily life. He is at home in church, in the house of his God : “The ecstatic attitude of devotion which the worshippers sometimes fall into without thought of any observers is equally unlike the elegant grace of the French worshipper or the rigid decorum of the English, while, perhaps, if it is a great festival, groups of women cluster on the ground with their faces at the base of the piers, and children quietly play about in corners with unchecked and innocent freedom. Nor are the dogs and cats less free than the children.” You will find this attitude of “ easy familiarity ” in God’s house among all religious people-whether Catholic, Moslem, or Jew.

Mr. Havelock Ellis, of course, easily rebuts the charge of laziness brought against the Spaniard, because he will not grind the treadmill of his free will without asking to what end. “To the Spaniard work is not so much a good in itself as an evil to which he is inured. and he prefers to limit his wants rather than to

THE BEST BOOK FOR MIDDLE CLASS PROPAGANDA.

NEW WORLDS FOR OLD. By H. G. WELLS. Crown 8vo, 6/-

An Authoritative Account of the Socialist Idea. ‘ We are glad that Mr. H. G. Wells has written a new book upon

Socialism. The charm of his style makes the reading of any work he produces a pleasure, and the sanity of his thinking prevents the warmth of his feelings leading him into those excesses which are too commonly indulged in by writers on both sides of the Socialistic question.“-Pall Mall Gazette.

‘ He stirs us and pricks our consciences, his keen and thoughtful mind plays brilliantly on the region which lies ahead of the practical politician. . . . We have seldom read a book from which an honest reader could get a more wholesome moral stimulus than ‘ New Worlds for Old.’ ’-Westminster Gazette.

" It is good-humoured, amusing. witty, kind, universally sympathetic written with an astonishing regularity of brilliance, full of expert psychology, full of large political sagacity, prudent, moderate, im- mensely serious, and above all, constructive in spirit.“ -New Age.

A ROMANTIC AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

THE VALLEY OF SHADOWS. By FRANCIS GRIERSON.

Author of ‘ Modern Mysticism,” and ” The Celtic Tempera- ment.” Demy 8vo, 6/- net.

Mr Grierson is known to lovers of literature by two small volumes of excellent literary criticism. ‘ The Valley of Shadows ’ has all the interest and movement of a fascinating realistic romance.

‘(THINGS AS THEY ARE.”

ECONOMIC HERESIES. Being an Unorthodox Attempt to Appreciate the Eco- nomic Problems Presented by “ Things as They Are.”

By SIR NATHANIEL NATHAN. Demy 8vo, 10/6 net. The author terms this work a study of the economics of reality,

meaning thereby an estimate of historical and actual values as opposed to the abstract theerising of the economic schoolmen of the last century. The book is written from the point of view of a shrewd, impartial, unconventional observer, whose politics are subordinated to practical sociology.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF POLITICS.

HUMAN NATURE IN POLITICS. By GRAHAM WALLAS. Crown 8vo, 6/-

“ It is the first serious and dispassionate endeavour to assess carefully the various and conflicting parts played by impulse, instinct, and the different human emotions in furnishing power and direction to political activities.“ --Manchester Guardian.

‘* It can be read with great acceptance by the politician at all stages and of all creeds.“ -Observer.

“ It is a very clever work, written by one who combines progressive sympathies with good humour, insight and common sense.“- Daily Mail.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EUROPEAN NATIONS, 1870-1900.

By J. HOLLAND ROSE, Litt.D. Maps and Plans. Cheaper Re-Issue, 7/6 net.

An absolutely necessary Book of Reference for Student of Continental History.

ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE & GO. Ltd, 10 Orange St. W.C.


THE NEW AGE

increase his labour.” Herein, and in his love of cere- mony and formalism, as well as in his physical traits, is the African note. Says Mr. Ellis : “Indeed, the Spanish character is fundamentally, it seems to me, not only African, but primitive, and in the best, and not in any depreciative sense of the word-savage.” But savage by election, he refuses to be servile, he remains untamed by steam and commerce ; the Spaniard has passed beyond the stage of civilisation ; he knows exactly what advantages may accrue from a colonial empire, from imports and exports by the million ; and all this he has had and has relinquished, preferring to make life for himself rather than have it adjusted by the materials which man can lay up.

Mr. Havelock Ellis illustrates the soul of Spain by its women, its arts of dancing, of painting, and of archi- tecture, by sketches of its great men; Ramon, Lull, Cervantes, its literature, and its cities. There is, perhaps, no one in England with just Mr. Ellis’s erudition, so profound that it is never apparent ; few who have so absorbed the essence of scientific method, and have retained a profound sympathy for what is beautiful and simple in the world, who have so much love for what is eternal and noble, and so much art in the telling of their adventures amidst peoples and books. Mr. Havelock Ellis overcomes long-rooted prejudice by his kindly humour and imagination ; he has no need to resort to paradox or violence. You feel that he does not take up romance because he may then cut a dashing figure, but because it is a real part of his being. Mr. Havelock Ellis must give us more of Spain.

M. D. EDER.

DRAMA. Four Plays. “THE Truants ” at the Kingsway Theatre is what I should call a disappointing play. I do not mean a bad play ; indeed, the epithet is in part a compliment, for you cannot be disappointed unless you expect a good deal. The play opens with a really excellent dramatic idea. Bill Chetwood has returned from a long stay in South America, a full-blooded, simple-minded, honest barbarian. His own life has not been immaculate, but he has never for a moment doubted the validity of the religious and moral principles of his childhood, and he has always cherished an entirely imaginary ideal of “Womanhood,” based upon the acceptance of those principles. He comes home to find everybody, especially the women, challenging and criticising the simple faith which he has always regarded as sacrosanct. He immediately concludes that all moral obligations are now at an end, and proposes to give a sharp practical application to the new scepticism by seducing a pretty young ingenue named Pamela Grey.

Here we have the materials for a very delightful comedy-the conflict between masculine conservatism devoted to ideals which it never thinks of acting up to, and feminine revolutionism demanding anarchic liberties without ever dreaming that others will take advantage of them. But instead of approaching this conflict in the comedic spirit of impartial criticism, Mr. Coleby takes sides vehemently with Bill, and appears to endorse his view that a doubt as to the literal truth of the story of Jonah involves liberty to murder, thieve, and commit adultery at large. He also makes Freda, the erstwhile “ advanced ” heroine, say that since she has known love all advanced ideas have left her. This is sheer nonsense. It is quite true that a silly girl who has picked up “advanced ” notions will often drop them if she falls in love with a conventional man ; just in the same way a silly girl bred to conventional notions will often drop them if she falls in love with an advanced man. But Freda is supposed to be a woman of experience, thought, and conviction, and in her mouth such a declaration is absurd.

Mind you, I should have blamed Mr. Coleby quite as much if he had shown himself a partisan of the other side. For Bill has a case. He stands for the sanely realistic doctrine of Original Sin, which lies at the root of all moralities. It is well that advanced people should

GEORGE ALLEN & SONS LIST. Just Out

SOCIALISM IS IT

Liberty or Tyranny ? A Lecture given in Queen’s Hall by

Father BERNARD VAUGHAN, S.J. Crown 8vo. sixpence net-

THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM With Prefatory Letter by

Right Hon. A. J. BALFOUR, M.P. This work, prepared under the auspices of the London Municipal

Society, is equipped with a full Index. and should be an indispensable Handbook to Speakers, Writers, and Politicians,

Crown 8vo, 546 pages, cloth, 5s, net. Daily Graphic.--” Socialism must be-opposed. This

book is about as neat a weapon as can-be contrived for the purpose.”

Guardian--” The vigorous and effective exposure of Socialist fallacies is driven home by numerous quotations from writers of high authority.”

SOCIALISM IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, By W. G. TOWLER, Secretary, London Municipal Society,

With Introduction by Capt. H. M. JESSEL.

352 pages, crown 8vo, cloth, 5s. net, Pall Mall Gazette--” This book shows the meaning of Socialism in practice and the actual consequences of its encroachment upon the sphere of local government.”

Daily Telegraph.--” One of the clearest and most convincing expositions which have appeared on the dangers of unchecked Socialism.”

A SERIES OF BOOKS ON

SOCIAL QUESTIONS The Morning Post says: -“With SOCIALISM so

much in the minds and on the lips of thinking men of all political parties, Mr. George Allen has done PUBLIC SERVICE in arranging for a-series of cheap little volumes from the pens of acknowledged LEADERS OF THE MOVEMENT.”

Pott 8vo, cloth, 1s. net per volume.

FROM SERFDOM TO SOCIALISM. BY J. KEIR HARDIE, M.P.

THE SOCIALIST’S BUDGET. BY PHILIP SNOWDEN, M.P.

THE SOCIALIST’S CHURCH. BY STEWART D. HEADLAM, M.A.

LABOUR AND THE EMPIRE. BY J. RAMSAY MACDONALD, M.P.

THE SOCIALIST AND THE CITY. BY F. W. JOWETT, M.P.

THE WOMAN SOCIALIST. BY ETHEL SNOWDEN.

E. NESBIT'S NEW NOVEL.

DAPHNE IN FlTZROY STREET’ A Story of Love, Art, and Bohemian Life in London.

420 pages, crown 8vo, cloth, 6s. The World: Every one of its character sketches is

vividly drawn and perfectly finished . . . . the book is brimful of humour.”

LONDON : 156, Charing Cross Road, W.C,


426 MARCH 18, 1909

be reminded that the loose anarchic talk which passes without comment at their clubs might lead to startling results if taken seriously by the ordinary man. But they should be reminded of it in the spirit of comedy, not in the spirit of partisanship.

Mr. Coleby is distinctly indebted to Miss Lena Ash- well, who contrives to put enough strong and human acting into Freda to make her a more credible and co- herent character than the dialogue warrants. Mr. Eadie acted capably, but he seemed hardly burly and brutal enough for Bill, either in appearance or manner. The most charming piece of acting was that of Miss Athene Seyler as Pamela, though she was perhaps more the ordinary spoilt child than the special spoilt child of the advanced movement that the author intended.

* * * * * * F When I have said that “The Real Woman ” at the

Criterion is by Mr. Robert Hichens I have said that it is written with a literary distinction rare on our stage, that there is much witty dialogue, and a keen percep-

tion of the idiosyncrasies of fashionable people. In- deed, had Mr. Hichens kept all his characters in Gros- venor Street I should probably have been able to praise the play without reservation. But in the second act he is so ill-advised as to transport them to Poplar, where the heroine is supposed to become “real,” and where the play, for me at least, became violently and prepos- terously unreal. The East End of Mr. Hichens’s inven- tion is a purely fictitious East End, the product partly of his own romantic imaginings and partly, I should imagine, of some hazy recollections of a lecture by an itinerent member of Toynbee Hall. Let me point out to Mr. Hichens that (owing to our indefensible class legislation) public-houses close at half-past twelve, that the homes of the labourers are not suited to festivity, and that most of them have to be up and ready for work at five in the morning. It is therefore absurd that a number of persons watching in a room in Poplar from about half-past two or three till the dawn should be greeted every time the window is opened with a burst of uproarious singing from the street below. As a matter of fact, Mr. Hichens will find the slums of Poplar and Shoreditch during those hours a good deal quieter than the West End. Moreover, Mr. Hichens falls into the common middle-class error of supposing that below the line which separates the brain from the hand-worker no social distinctions exist. I feel quite sure that no girl like Diana Woodham, native to the slums of Poplar, ever occupied any position, however humble, in the household of a lady of title. Nor is Hugh Graham in the least the real thing. He is neither the type of the really heroic‘ worker in the slums, who is generally humorous, and touched with a kindly cynicism ; nor the much commoner type of University prig, who has less real democratic sympathy than any Tory squire. He is a man of wax.

The aristocrats are, of course, much better. I had the misfortune to miss seeing Miss Millard, but her part was well acted by Miss Taverner, but Lady Arden ceases to be a real woman after the second act, when she is supposed to become one. Miss Annie Hughes, I am glad to say, I did see, and a more brilliant piece of acting than her Duchess of Dorchester, shaving caricature by just the right hairsbreadth, I have seldom witnessed.

* * * -E -x * *

It is interesting to notice that Mrs. Dearmer, whose “ Nan Pilgrim ” I saw at the Court on Sunday, succeeds exactly where Mr. Hichens fails. Her Nine Elms scene is a genuine slice of life, and every point is driven home with the shrewd, sure stroke of the woman who knows. Nothing more clearly marks the truth of Mrs. Dear- mer’s grip than her insistence on the continual putting off of creditors as the most unbearable part of poverty. The creditor, by the way, was Mr. Edward Sass, and his superb acting trebled the value of the scene.

The rest of Mrs. Dearmer’s play would have ap- pealed to me more if I could have believed in John Pilgrim. But I didn’t. He did not impress me as a saint, even a stern land ascetic saint, but simply as a prig. This, perhaps, would not have mattered so much

AN INDISPENSABLE REFERENCE BOOK.

WEBSTER’S

INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY.

TWENTIETH CENTURY EDITION.

Revised and Enlarged, with an Appendix of 25,000 Words, Phrases and Definitions.

2,348 pages. Bound in Sheepskin, £2. 5,000 Illustrations.

WRITE FOR DETAILED PROSPECTUS, with specimen pages, hundreds of opinions from eminent men, prices of various styles of binding, and particulars of the system of payment by easy instalments.

London : GEORGE BELL & SONS, YORK HOUSE, PORTUGAL STREET, W.C.

Read the following books by

CHARLES GRANVILLE. ( Both a clever and an original writer ” ( Westminster Review), whose work has been frequently noticed for its likeness to TOLSTOI’S.

GOD’S ABYSS AND A WOMAN. 1/- nett.

” A remarkable romance, told in such a convincing style as makes it really enjoyable ” (Notts Guardian).--” A clever original story ” (Bookseller, Scotsman, Dundee Advertiser).

EXTRACT FROM THE BOOK. ’ Then the heart-breaking search for work, till the little savings give

out, and he staves hopelessly at a starving family.”

THE PLAINT of the WANDERING JEW. 2/- nett.

’ A vigorously written prose allegory ” (Scotsman).--” A great truth looks out from the pages of this little book. . . . He has the courage of his convictions, and a heart full of love for the poor and suffering ” (Dundee Courier).

EXTRACT FROM THE BOOK. “ The man her husband had had no labour . . . eight weeks, , , , And to

him his wife and their child were dear as the morning light.” LONDON: OPEN ROAD PUBLISHING COMPANY,

All Booksellers, and Messrs. Smith’s Bookstalls.

Post Free, 7d.

CANCER THE "SHAW" TREATMENT.

Author of “ FIBROID TUMOUR: a new treatment for Fibroid JOHN SHAW, M.D., London

Tumour and other internal ailments WITHOUT OPERATlON ‘ (Post Free, 2s. 9d.).

From the “ LOOK-OUT ” PRESS (Desk 31), 89, Farringdon Street, London, E.C.

EXTEMPORE SPEAKING. By the Rev. J. EDGAR FOSTER, M.A.

Fourth Edition. The most complete and practical text-book on this subject; The system herein taught is very simple and easily acquired. There is no pos- sibility of forgetting a discourse during delivery if prepared according to instructions.

Price 2s. 6d. per copy, post free. From J. F. SPRIGGS, 21, PATERNOSTER SQUARE, LONDON.

Descriptive circulars free on application. name paper.

SPEClAL OFFER OF MARX’S GREAT WORK ON CAPITAL.

CAPITAL :-A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production. The Twelfth English Edition of “ Das Kapital,” by Karl Marx, translated from the German by SAMUEL MOORE and Dr. EDWARD AVELING, and Edited by F. ENGELS. The best translation of this important work, which-contains the masterly statement of those Social- istic doctrines which are having so great an effect throughout the world. Demy 8vo, cloth,

Published at 10/6 Now offered at 4/6 post free. WILLIAM GLAISHER, Ltd., Booksellers,

265, HIGH HOLBORN, LONDON. Glaisher’s Catalogue of Books at Reduced Prices sent on Application,

BEAUTIFUL HEALTH AND HOLIDAY HOME, Altitude 600ft.

Magnificent scenery of Dean Forest, Severn and Wye Valleys, Spacious House, 25 bedrooms, grounds 5 acres, billiard and bath rooms, tennis, conveyance. Vegetarians accommodated. Socialist rendezvous. Board-Residence from 29/- Photos, particulars,

CHAS. HALLAM, Littledean House, Newnham, Glos.


if the whole play had not turned on his wife’s pas- sionate love for him. A woman like Nan, whom Mrs. Dearmer and Miss Braithwaite combined to make a delicious creation, might have loved St. Dominic, but not the Rev. John.

I do not know whether Mrs. Dearmer intended her play to have a Roman moral ; but it might have. It may be noticed that Father Peter, who understands and appreciates Nan, is old and unmarried. St. Francis would have loved Nan’s beauty and gaiety as he loved his “little sisters, the flowers.” But the flowers were his sisters-not his wife !

* 9 - * * * *

“The Head of the Firm ” at the Vaudeville is one of the many attempts that have been made to dramatise the Class War. It is not, on the whole, an unsuc- cessful one, though the war is seen only from the capitalist side-Labour being represented only by the foolishly idealistic son of the employer, bankrupt of practical knowledge of the problem, and by a half- educated uppish youth of the working classes, with his brains full of muddle-headed bitterness. Both are quite genuine types, but they are not exhaustive. On the other hand, Mr. Lynford, the ironmaster, a foolish, genial fellow, who has fallen into a money-making business and regards himself as a “captain of industry ” until occasion arises for his captaincy, when he becomes pathetically helpless, is a man we all know, and so is Heymann, the brutally able and competent Jew, who, indifferent to European sentimentality, is fast pushing the Lynford type out of the management of industry and commerce. The moral of the play is sound enough, if only because it shows that men like Heymann are the only men who can ultimately run the capitalist system. And, without being an anti-Semite-well, I prefer even stupid Europeans.

The play, I ought to say, was extraordinarily well acted. Mr. James Hearn and Mr. Leslie Faber had the best parts, and made the most of them, but there were no failures, and the technique even of the minor players was faultless.

CECIL CHESTERTON.

ART. Fair Women and Others. One wanders round the “Fair Women ” exhibition at the New Gallery with the haunting dread of being ticketed as a mediaeval reactionary, New men, new manners ; and the same with women. As a matter of the most ordinary courtesy, we must value them on their own terms ; and the modern woman lays no stress on her fairness-she is only insistent on the fact that she has a right to a Parliamentary vote. To classify them on the principle of beauty is reversion to an ex- tinct social order. Imagine the just indignation of the ladies of England to find the most intelligent art committee in existence still measuring them by the standard of physical charms. But for the moment we will rule that neither Miss Christabel Pankhurst nor King Solomon shall be heard in argument on this point. We will take the International Society of Sculptors, Painters, and Gravers on their own ground. They have given us a better show than they did last year. There is no higher praise necessary. Their Committee has an extraordinary capacity for making such a show almost complete of its kind. There is something of almost every type. It even throws in a few monstrosi- ties of society ladies by society artists ; so that we may see how portraits should not be painted. Then on the next wall will be found, for example, a picture by Rey- nolds or Gainsborough, to convince us that even the fine feathers of fine ladies can be made into great art. In short, as an introduction to modern portrait painting, it would scarcely be practicable to get together a more complete collection.

There is a little of everything ; from the reverential sense of Rossetti’s and Madox Brown’s drawings to the sweeping audacity of Mr. Orpen’s “Young Irish Girl. ‘ Surely no one can paint quite so skilfully as Mr. Orpen, Indeed, the perfect craftsmanship of this

BRITISH THROUGHOUT and NOT MADE by SWEATED LABOUR. GENTS’ REAL BOX-CALF

BOOT’S, straight Golosh, Jockey Back, drill lined, medium toe, best machine sewn soles.

WARRANTED ALL LEATHER. Stocked In sizes 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Lace or Derby patterns 8,6 post free.

What our Customers say of our Boots : “ Very well pleased with the boots.” ‘ Pleased with boots. Forward another

pair.” ‘ Received parcel safe. Highly satis-

fied.” ” Received boots. Highly satisfied.

Cannot get anything like them here for the money.”

“ Boots received. Delighted with them.” ( Boots fit very well. Greatly pleased

with them.” WRITE FOR OUR ILLUSTRATED CATALOGUE.

When ordering, enclose Postal Order and state requirements. Mention “ NEW AGE.”

WHITEHOUSE & CO., BOOT FACTORS, STOURBRIDGE.

SOCIALISTS! HELP YOURSELVES. Arrangements have been made that HALF THE

PROFITS resulting from the sales of the undermentioned goods through this advertisement will be handed to the Directors of The New Age Press for disposal at their discretion, in aid of SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA WORK.

Tea China, Indian, and Ceylon Blends from 1/- to 2/- per lb. Pure China front 1/6 to 2/4 per lb. Finest Darjeeling (Hill Grown) 2/8 per lb. Special China and Darjeeling blend 2/- per lb.

Coffee Pure Whole or Ground from 1/- to 1/10 per lb. French Coffee from 10d. to 1/4 per lb.

Cocoa Essence Pure 1/8 to 2/- per lb.

Carriage paid on 5 lbs. assorted parcels in London, 20 lbs. in country.

Terms. Cash with order. Samples and price list free.

THE REFORM TEA ASSOCIATION, 17 Ingate Place, Battersea, London, S. W.

SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC PARTY. KENTISH TOWN BRANCH;

H. M. HYNDMAN On SUNDAY, MARCH 21st, 1909,

At the PUBLIC BATHS, PRINCE OF WALES ROAD, KENTISH TOWN, N.W.

Chair to be taken at 8 o’clock p.m. THE LONDON SOCIALIST ORCHESTRA will render Selections -during the evening. Conductor . . . Mr. EDWIN O. BOOTH.-

Doors open 7.15 p.m. Admission Free. Reserved Seats, 1S., 6d. and 3d. Tickets to be obtained at the S.D.P. Hall, 41, Malden Road, N.W. ; also of J. Steer, 67, Allcroft Road, N.W., and A. C. Edwards, 17, St. Paul’s Road, N.W.

SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY-HACKNEY JOINT COUNCIL.

GREAT DEMONSTRATION. At KING’S HALL, HACKNEY BATHS, Lower Clapton Road, N.E.,

On THURSDAY Evening, March 25, 1909. Speakers:

VICTOR GRAYSON, M.P.,

Mrs. BRIDGES ADAMS, E. C. FAIRCHILD.

Chairman, JOHN STOKES (President Glass Blowers’ Union). ADMISSION FREE .-Reserved Seats, 1s., 6d., and 3d. Doors open 7.30

p.m. Commence at 8.15 p m. (after which no Seats Reserved). TICKETS from S.D.P., Chandos Hall, 21, Maiden Lane, Charing Cross.

PICTURE-FRAMING (Wholesale & Retail),

Maximum of Taste

Minimum of cost Strongly Recommended by

Mr. Palmer of The New Age.

J. Edge, 155, High Holborn, London, W.C.





picture is just too -obvious ; one is lured into watching the marvellous use of the brush, when, of course, one should be thinking of the whole result. And it is the same with his “ Recumbent Figure ” of a nude. They both, perhaps, lack the delicate reserve of Mr. Orpen at his best. There is a beautiful work, “Mrs. Francis Howard,” by Mr. Strong, which has all his undesirable knowledge of the reality of idealism, or the idealism of reality, you may put it how you please. Note the distinction of both pose and colour. This portrait comes within the circle of the great works of its kind, in so far as it raises the personal element into the higher plane of the impersonal thought ; yet without losing aught of the suggestion of the living being.

There is probably nothing in the collection cleverer than Monticelli’s “Fête Champêtre,” which throws as much on the imagination as most minds can bear. And equally delightful are Renoir’s “Femme assise,” and Besnard’s “Flowers.” There is a fine group of drawings by Whistler ; besides his famous “The Golden Girl. ” The series’ by the late Charles Conder is somewhat difficult to place. There is no doubt about his “ L’heure exquise ” ; it is a delicate poem in thought and expression. But most of the rest are certainly not intellectually inspiring so far as the subjects go. If you like them it must be on the “art for art’s sake ” principle- which is a very sufficient and righte- ous reason. Their colour is usually beautiful, and they often have the sentiment of romance. That seems sufficient to make a good picture ; and perhaps it is sufficient to leave Conder there. The end of a picture is not necessarily to be food for the intellect, as that term is usually understood.

The Carfax Gallery has just opened another important show : most things that happen there are important. This time it is the pictures of Spencer Stanhope ; a little-known member of the old pre-Raphaelite group. Suffice it to say that at least three of the pictures shown (“ My Lady of the Watergate,” “The Winepress,” and “Thoughts of the Past “) rank with the finest works of that School. G. R. S. T.

Recent Music. Elektra, and other things. A FASCINATING paper was read the other evening at the Royal Academy of Music by Mr. Alfred Kalisch on the subject of Strauss’ new opera, “ Elektra.” I say it was fascinating because I mean, partly, that it was elusive at times, and a trifle incomprehensible. Mr. Kalisch may know his “ Elektra,” but his elocution is of so modest and retiring a nature that it is difficult always to believe the orator is himself present. Any- way, the paper was interesting, not so much for what it contained of sound judgment and analysis, but because it consisted largely of classifications of the principal themes in the opera ; these were cleverly played on the pianoforte by Mr. Hamilton Harty, Mr. Hubert Bath gaily turning over the pages of the thrilling score.

* * *

From what one could gather from Mr. Kalisch’s com- mentary, and from the scraps of illustrations, it seems as if Strauss had exercised rather more restraint than was expected of him. He has, or seems to have, arrived at some feeling for the logical aspect of musical- dramatic form, cutting away from those extravagances of genius in the Wagner operas which are in their own way as irrelevant and destructive of dramatic effect as the extravagances of folly in the old Italians. The extravagance of Strauss has usually been an extravagance of queer emotions rather than an extravagance of form, and in “ Elektra ” he has been even more discreet than he was in “Salome.” Judging by the illustrations, some of which were brilliantly sung by Miss Perceval Allen and Mr. Frederic Austin, it is evident he has not yet become tired of writing beautiful and wondrous music. He has arrived at that dangerous time of life when artists generally prove themselves damned or otherwise. Richard Strauss has proved himself to be an artist of the highest distinction, a heretic of amazing

improprieties, with a strong leaning towards the ortho- dox and respectable.

* * * I have received a notice from the Société des Con-

certs Français which indicates their intention of giving a series of concerts of modern French music. The prospectus includes Debussy, Ravel, D’Indy, Charpen- tier, Xavier Leroux. The first concert was given in the Bechstein Hall a little time ago ; all Debussy. Many of our enlightened critics pleaded monotony as a result of so much of one man’s music at a single sitting. I confess myself to have been completely enchanted ; seldom have I enjoyed such exquisite singing and playing. Mlle. Hélène Luquiens is an ideal singer. In this country her reputation is not equal to that of Elena Gerhardt, but that is this country’s fault. Her singing of a trifle called “ Mandoline ” (a setting of Verlaine’s poem) was beyond all possible shadow of doubt perfect. The accompanist was M. Yves Nat, and his playing of the piano part in all of her songs was, to say the least, inspired. There is not in this country an accompanist who can play with such a fine sense of appro- priateness. Somebody, I think it was Mr. Filson Young, talked wildly about horrible discords in the quartet. Somebody was insincere, or perspicacious, or “ somebody ” must have had a very bad dinner.

* * * The New Symphony ‘Orchestra proceeds cheerfully

on its pioneering way. Mr. Landon Ronald has been appointed conductor, and its programme for the coming season includes several adventures into new manu- scripts. The first concert (which I could not attend) included the performance of a new symphonic poem by Mr. William Wallace on the subject of François Villon. and this was spoken highly of’ by most people who know a good thing when they hear it.

* * * Mr. Thomas Beecham has started a nationalist

orchestra, and I hope soon to have something pleasant to say about it. It is the fourth, and latest, and in some respects the most important of our London orchestras. HERBERT HUGHES.

CORRESPONDENCE. For the opinions expressed by correspondents, the Editor does not

hold himself responsible, Correspondence intended for publication should be addressed to

the Editor and written on one side of the paper only. SPECIAL NOTICE. -Correspondents are requested to be brief

Many letters weekly are omitted on account of their length, WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

To THE EDITOR OF the NEW AGE.” In your last issue Miss Beatrice Tina, in the course of

her controversy with my brother, throws doubts upon the sincerity of my statement that I am in favour of Women’s Suffrage. Well, I can do nothing but repeat that statement. I am sorry it annoys Miss Tina so much, but I am in favour of Women’s Suffrage. I can’t help it; my mind is built that way. Of course, I cannot prove that I really think what I say I think. Miss Tina may be telepathetically conscious of convictions of mine of which I am quite unaware. All I can say is that I have always, in public and private, maintained the same doctrine, and to this I could call many witnesses, including my brother, with whom I have often argued the question.

That, however, is not the point I wish to raise. Suppose, if you like, that I am a hypocrite. That is not the slightest reason why my direct question should be left unanswered.

CREMATION. REDUCED CHARGES.

CHEAPER THAN EARTH BURIAL.

PARTICULARS FREE.

JOHN R. WILDMAN, 40, MARCHMONT STREET, LONDON, W.C,

Telephone : HOLBORN 5049. Telegrams : "EARTHBORN, LONDON."










MARCH 18, 1909 THE NEW AGE, 429

PRELIMINARY ANNOUNCEMENT.

Edited by ARTHUR KITSON. THE EDITOR’S ‘FOREWORD.

A new journal, like an uninvited guest at a banquet, is expected to justify its appearance-in some more or less plausible degree -and this degree of justification is generally believed to be registered by the number of its subscribers. In these days of evident over-production in the realm of journalism, one may naturally exclaim : “Why another? ” “What possible field of human interest and activity is still unrepresented? Is there a single subject, profession, or occupation, from rat-catching to soul-saving, that has not its weekly, monthly, or quarterly review?" Curiously enough there is, and it happens to be a subject of great-if not the greatest-importance to every member of civilised society, as will appear from the following :

Some months ago a meeting was held at my house in Kensing- ton to discuss the recent United States monetary panic, and to consider suggestions from certain well-informed persons, of means by which these panics might be prevented or checked. At the conclusion of the meeting it was decided to try to enlist the aid of the Press in calling public attention to the terrible dangers to which trade and commerce are continually exposed, from the excessive weakness of our financial system-a system which be- gins to tremble whenever £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 of gold leaves the country. Confessions by many present of their numerous ineffectual attempts to interest various papers, led to the discovery that there is not in this country a single well-known journal (with perhaps the solitary exception of a Socialist weekly-“The Clarion “) willing to open its columns to the free ventilation of this subject.

It was finally suggested that the only means for presenting it to the public was to start a review which would honestly and fearlessly deal with it in all its various phases. It will doubtless surprise most readers to learn that this question of currency and banking reform is banned from the columns of our newspapers, and that their owners regard any criticism of our financial system, or the Parliamentary Acts upon which it is built, as a crime rather worse than blasphemy ! And yet no less an authority than Lord Goschen, Chancellor of the Exchequer., when referring to this matter in a speech delivered at Leeds in 1892, said : " No fertile imagination could exaggerate the gravity of the position *’ -since which time the dangers have grown even greater. More- over, at the Annual Meeting of the Associated Chambers of Com- merce, London, March, 1907, a resolution declaring that “A reform of our existing financial system is an urgent necessity " was carried unanimously, and the special committee appointed by this body is now endeavouring to impress upon the present Chan- cellor of the Exchequer the seriousness of the situation, and the importance of strengthening our financial position.

When some years ago Mr. Chamberlain described our industrial condition as perilous, and likened it to the Campanile before its collapse, a general alarm was sounded, not only throughout Great Britain. but all over the Empire ; unfortunately for the nation, Mr. Chamberlain forgot that the most potent factor in developing trade is finance, and that no system of tariffs ever con- ceived will alter the fact that gold controls trade, or compensate a nation for a weak financial system. Had he brought to this subject the same influence and enthusiasm he has given to Tariff Reform, he might have accomplished not only all the good he has promised us will inevitably follow from the adoption of his Fiscal Policy, but a reform which would have lightened the lot of every toiler and every business man throughout this vast empire, and which would have made our trade and commerce absolutely im- pregnable. Evidently Finance is not one of Mr. Chamberlain’: strongest points.

Just now the country is being worked into a state of hysteria by panic-mongers who assert that Britain is open to invasion, and that only the forbearance of our Continental neighbours prevents our shores from occupancy by foreign troops. The Govern- ment is being warned by the Press, and even the Stage, that unless millions more are immediately expended upon the Army and Navy, we are doomed. If these agitators would but expend a little intelligent thought upon the science of trade and its present basis, they would ascertain that if foreign Powers are bent upon our destruction? our financial system provides them with ample facilities for doing us irreparable injury, without their having to approach our shores with either a navy or army, and at infinitely less expense. They have only to withdraw a considerable sum in gold from the Bank of England and the collapse will come! Thirty years ago Walter Bagehot wrote as follows :-

" The amount of our cash is so exceedingly small that a by- stander almost trembles when he compares its minuteness with the immensity of the credit which rests upon it.”

Already the Bank of France has on two or three occasions saved us from a ruinous panic by lending us bullion, in tines when the demand was a mere bagatelle to that which could be artificially created if any great power were anxious to ruin us. Provided it is willing to risk a few millions, we are as completely at the mercy of a hostile power as though our navy were at the bottom of the sea-Nay, more, it has even become profit- able for speculators to alternately stimulate and depress industry. In 1896 a New York clique, by withdrawing £10,000,000 from our old reserves actually brought about the fall of Consols and other gilt-edged securities to the extent of £100,000,000 ! Whatever may be said of our ability to protect our country from invasion, there is no question as to the power of any nation- or even any great financier like Mr. Pierpont Morgan or Mr. Rockefeller- to bring on a panic which would bankrupt the nation, political parties,

and yet on this point our statesmen, our

indifferent ! and our Press are all equally ignorant or

The questions of currency, credit, and banking have always been presented to the public from the one standpoint of the banker and investor. The ordinary man is not supposed to have sufficient brains to comprehend monetary science, and the scheme remains as it was originally created-a system of banking run by bankers in the interest of shareholders. The interests of the producers of every commodity save gold, as well as those of commercial and tradesmen generally, are altogether secondary in financial circles. For instance, Lord Avebury recently con- gratulated the members of the London Chamber of Commerce upon the ease with which the English banks had weathered the financial storm. Evidently Lord Avebury and his fellow- bankers are in complete ignorance of, or are extremely callous to the hardships entailed upon our manufacturers and tradesmen by reason of the rise in the bank rate. The truth is that the banks weathered these financial storms entirely at the expense of the producing classes, and their safety was and always is assured by their power to tax the community by raising the rate of discount upon loans. It is safe to say that the losses which are inflicted upon the business men of the country through the sudden and frequent changes in the bank rate, are enormously greater than any profits which accrue to the banks. The fact that money and credit constitute the mechanism of trade is eclipsed (in the opinion of the money-lenders) by the more important fact-that loans are the creators of dividends. The knowledge that every £1 rise in the bank rate costs the producing and trading classes about £500,000 per week, is only interesting to those who control our finance because they realise that this tends to swell the dividends of bank shareholders. It is surely time that these things should be known and discussed, and as there are thousands of commercial men who know just enough to wish to know more, launch “The Open Review.”

it has been thought necessary to

All considerations surely justify the appearance of this journal, with a right on the part of its founders to expect the support of many thousands of those who are compelled to “ stand the racket ” of our present harassing industrial conditions. Let me here remark-in order to settle a question which has already been put to me by many subscribers-that “The Open Review” is in no sense a bi-metallic organ, nor has it any connection with any financial, political, or business organisation. In publishing it, its founders have no policy except that of arousing the public, and particularly the producing classes, to the perils and burdens to which our financial system exposes them.

Although dealing principally with financial subjects, “The Open Review ” will afford a field for the free discussion of all topics of public importance, such as Socialism, Free Trade, Tariff Reform, Education, Woman’s Suffrage, etc., etc.

The reluctance of the Press to allow frank discussion is not confined to the subject of finance. As Mr. Hilaire Belloc says : “There has fallen upon our Press a mixture of convention and terror which makes it impossible to print quite simple truths.” Contributors will find in “The Open Review ” an absolutely free arena for combating error and establishing truth.

After urgent solicitation on the part of many friends, I have consented to conduct “The Open Review " (which for the present will appear as a sixpenny monthly)-until such time as its circulation and importance are sufficient to engage the services of one abler and more experienced in this particular field of journalism.

The FIRST NUMBER OF THE OPEN REVIEW will be published in APRIL. and the Proprietors urge those who are interested in the objects of THE OPEN REVIEW to forward their subscriptions to the Publisher without delay, and to draw the attention of their friends to this announcement. A supply of prospectuses for distribution will be forwarded on receipt of a postcard.

SUBSCRIPTION TERMS. -12 Months, 7/- post free ; 6 Months, 3/9. All remittances and requests for supplies of prospectuses should be addressed to the Publisher, THE OPEN REVIEW, 14, Red Lion Court, Fleet

Street, London.

The NEW AGE MARCH 18, 1909

Let me take a parallel case. If a Liberal member of Parliament, who called himself “A True Socialist ” (as most Liberal members do), and who was a quite patent hypocrite and impostor (as nearly all Liberal members are), were to say to me : “of course, I quite approve of Socialism; but, after all, what will it actually do for the people ?” I should not be so foolish as to reply: “You are not sympathetic enough to be told.,” for that would be to play into his hands. I should give him his answer at once, full, direct, and decisive. I should say: “This and this would it do. It would guarantee to every worker economic independence and the full reward of his labour. It would abolish poverty and all its attendant evils. It would rid us of the idle rich, and of the unemployed poor. It would mean food, clothes, houses, pleasures for millions of the people.”

I repeat that I am in favour of Women’s Suffrage. I am in favour of it, as I am in favour of a number of minor political reforms- equal electoral districts, for instance, and the abolition of plural voting. But when I am asked to regard it as the most important question of the day; when, for example, THE NEW AGE brackets it with unemployment, I say: “If I am to take that view of it, I must be shown, not merely that (like equal electoral districts) it is reasonable, but that (like the solution of the unemployed problem) it will produce profound and far- reaching social results. ” And I asked what those results were to be.

Miss Tina did not tell me; nobody told me. All Miss Tina could say was that I was not sympathetic, and that I was probably an enemy to her cause. Well, suppose I am ? Is that any reason for avoiding my challenge? What should we say of an English general who should observe : “The Germans are, I fear, not sympathetic enough for me to attack them “? CECIL CHESTERTON.

P.S.-Miss Tina, in the course of her article, alludes ironically to “that noble animal, Man.” May I recall to her mind, and to the minds of other Suffragettes, the well- known opening of a schoolboy’s essay? ‘(The Horse is a Noble Animal, but if irritated, he will not do so.”

* * * To THE EDITOR OF "THE NEW AGE.”

What should we say of an English general who confided his plans to the Germans?

BEATRICE TINA. P.S.-My reference to that noble animal, Man, was ironi-

cal. Of course, his differences from the noble animal are manifold. For instance, the horse, when irritated, kicks straight out, to hurt. Mr. Chesterton, when irritated, begs to remind the suffragettes that though he personally is in favour, etc., other men “will not do so,” and, anyway, they’d better be careful !

* * * LET VICTOR GRAYSON LOOK OUT!

To THE EDITOR OF " THE NEW AGE." It is evident that the N.A.C. are whipping their forces

together for the I.L.P. Conference at Edinburgh. An ex- member of the N.A.C., who has some reputation for “political sagacity,” was recently heard to say:-

‘(Well ! we’ve shut Grayson up, anyhow! And anything I can do, either at the Conference or before it, that will get his salary stopped by the I.L.P., I shall do it.”

There can be no objection to anyone who thinks Grayson is wrong, saying so ; but there is no need to go shouting round about it.

However, there is a more dangerous method than this. At one of the strongest I.L.P. branches the meeting for the election of delegates was held this week. They are entitled to 15 delegates. The local executive recommended that only four delegates should be sent, owing to the expenses. One of the delegates would be chosen by the Fede- rated clubs. The secretary must be one, of course, and when the local M.P. and the local chairman were nominated free the remaining two places, there was no chance for anyone else.

When these three had been elected, the chairman an- nounced that two comrades, man and wife, were going to Edinburgh, at their own expense. Could they. have credentials? Being most excellent persons, and having done ster- ling good work, of course this was allowed, and they became delegates, non-elected and paying their own expenses, which many others would gladly do if they could

afford it. It was then moved that a comrade who has not lived in the town for 12 months but who was also going to Edinburgh at his own cost, should also be allowed to have delegate’s credentials, and this was carried. All this may be done without any collusion or wire-pulling, but as four of the six can easily afford their own expenses, and the other two merely represent the official element, it brings democratic representation very nearly to the point of farce.

It is all Lombard Street to a china orange that these six delegates will vote exactly as Hardie and Co. ask them. Therefore, let Victor Grayson look out! Especially as the distance, and the extra day’s Conference, will make this Conference, even more than others which could be named, an almost entirely middle-class Conference, composed of those whom the official gang can turn round their fingers.

Grayson’s backers are a fine, sturdy lot, and will put up a good fight, but if many branches are as well (?) represented as the one mentioned, they will be hopelessly out- voted, as they appear to be out-manoeuvred.

EDWARD HARTLEY. * * *

A LUKEWARM SUFFRAGIST. To THE EDITOR OF "THE NEW AGE.”

I am that hateful thing--” a wobbler “-a person who can’t make up her mind whether she wants what she has a right to. Of course, I refer to the vote. And this is why I am lukewarm, and why every decent suffragette who knows me would (if she got the chance), to misquote Scripture, “ spue me out of her mouth.”

Has the average advanced and enlightened London woman the very faintest conception of the narrow-minded stodginess of the average middle-class suburban and provincial woman who would be enfranchised under a limited Bill? Has she? Well, I have, and that is why I am lukewarm.

I am a Socialist, and want to put an end at once to the damnable condition of things under which hundreds of thousands of our fellow human beings crawl through life from birth to the grave. I don’t want it to be any longer possible for me to be made physically sick when I get into town of a morning-after a night spent in a comfortable bed, and with a comfortable breakfast inside me-by the sight of a man (“for a man’s a man for a’ that “) crawling with vermin, half covered with filthy rags, staring into a Lockhart’s with the eyes of a starving beast! If a limited Bill were passed! and my stodgy friends enfranchised, will this state of things be remedied? I venture-in spite of Mr. Keir Hardie’s figures-to think not. The average enlightened London woman more often than not comes of fairly enlightened and advanced parents. She lives more or less among women of the same thoughts and ideals-she meets them at her club, at lectures, debates-she does not, as I do, live in the middle of a typical middle-class family of the middle ages, for we are a type. I have eleven uncles and aunts, and between forty and fifty first cousins, who all read the “Daily Telegraph in the morning, the “Globe” in the evening, with the " Record ” and ‘( Observer ” for light Sunday reading. We are fairly representative. We boast a general, a K.C.B. (we are snobs), two colonels, a major, a judge, barristers, two canons, and several very ordinary clergymen. We also have amongst us (but we don’t boast of them) two cousins, who, having taken to drink, have married barmaids, and are no longer referred to aloud. Perhaps they are prayed for-but I doubt it. Our girls teach in Sunday school, help with Bands of Hope, make clothes for the poor, and, if the parlourmaid is seen going out in a cheap edition of a lace colour we are wearing-well, we no longer wear ours.

My aunt is a fairly large landowner. She gives coals and blankets to her almshouse people, pensions her old servants, and in other respects leads a truly Christian life.

“Those dreadful unemployed, dear,” she says, “why, I told James to let one of them chop some wood, and would you believe it, he refused ? Drink, my dear, drink ! Don’t talk to me about Socialism. We educate the children, and now, actually, they want us to feed them. Quite absurd. In my young days they got on very well. And besides, dear, the Bible tells us ‘ the poor have ye always with you.’ ”

‘Yes aunt,” I interrupted, ‘(but finish the quotation, ‘ but Me ye have not always.’ If we had Christ’s spirit, we shouldn’t have any poor.”

( Oh ! well, dear, of course, we all know you are an Atheist ! ! ”

SPECIAL OFFER to Readers of of THE NEW AGE ” as an Advertisement. 20.000 10/6 DIAMOND STAR FOUNTAIN PENS, Fitted with 14-ct. solid Gold Nib, for 2/6. returned if not fully satisfied. Pine, Medium, Broad or J Points. Twin-Feed and Spiral to regulate Flow of Ink. 15/- SELF-FILLING & SELF-

UNTIL WITHDRAWN, sent on approval on receipt of Postal Order. Your guarantee--Money

CLEANING PER- an instant. Non- FECTION FOUN- leakable, Marvel of TAIN PEN, Fitted simplicity. Every with 14-ct. solid gold part guaranteed and Nib, for 10/6. Fills and cleans itself in

replaced free within 2 years.

Any of our Readers desiring a really genuine article cannot do better than write to the Red Lion Manufacturing CO., Ltd., 71, High Holborn London. W.C., and acquire this bargain. No other Pen like it for Reliability. Steady Flow. and Smooth Writing Agents Wanted.



MARCH 18, 1909 THE NEW AGE _-

And these aunts of mine would have the vote? How, poor dears, are they to know what to vote for? Will the

Daily Telegraph,,, the ‘( Globe,,, or the “ Record ,, teach them?

If only some of my estimable relatives would invite, say, Mrs. Despard, Miss Pankhurst, and a few other ardent suffragettes down for a week-end, I venture to think Mrs. Despard and Miss Pankhurst, at least, would come back to town on Monday morning with just a tiny seed of doubt implanted in their minds as to the wisdom of a Limited Bill. But perhaps Mrs. Despard and Miss Pankhurst are suffragettes only-not Socialists. ADULT SUFFRAGE.

* * +

SWANSEA SCHOOL DISPUTE. To THE EDITOR OF “THE NEW AGE.”

I beg to draw the attention of your readers to the very extraordinary statement made by Mr. Runciman in the course of the debate in the House of Commons on Thurs- day last in connection with this matter. According to the “Times ,’ report of that gentleman’s speech, the Minister for Education used the following words :-

“ The case really turned on. a matter of fact-was or was not the local authority in default. The only way to prove this was by testing the teacher market; and if it had been impossible to get teachers at the salaries offered by the local education authority, then they might have said that the local authority was in default.”

Ignoring all other aspects of this quarrel, I would ask your readers to consider very carefully what it is that Mr. Runciman meant by this test. The teachers-and anyone who knows anything about teachers knows that they are grossly underpaid-in the school in question were paid a certain salary by the managers of the school. The local education authority, for some reason or other, into the merits of which I do not propose to enter, refused to confirm this salary. Mr. Runciman then declares that if other teachers cannot be found to take less than was demanded by, or offered to, the teachers already employed, “it might have been said that the local authority was in default” in refusing to pay that salary. Now, there are always a number of teachers out of employment, and it is quite certain that the local authority would have had no difficulty whatever in obtaining teachers who were prepared to accept less salary than the teachers employed in this school; and it is quite certain that they could obtain yet other teachers willing to accept less than this batch of teachers; and so on, until they reached the stage at which they were employing men and women to educate children at a salary insufficient to maintain them in a state of decency. The hand of the sweater is over all the land, and a cry has gone forth that the hand of the sweater must be cut off. It comes as a horrible shock to find that a Liberal Cabinet Minister should stand up in the House of Commons and publicly declare that the social-economic theory held by the sweater is a genuine test of any dispute concerning wages.

A MEMBER OF THE FABIAN NURSERY. * *

DO SOCIALISTS NEED AN IMPERIAL POLICY? To THE EDITOR OF “THE NEW AGE.”

I can see that at no distant future Imperialism will play an important part in the history of this country, and that political parties will have to formulate their ideas regarding the attitude they will adopt towards the Colonies. I can quite see that we in the Socialist and Labour movement who have had to fight for our existence, had no time to devote our energies upon this question, but there may have been some in our ranks who were fortunate enough to travel, and see for themselves how things stood. However, the rank and file have no conception of what view the Socialist and Labour movement in various parts of the Empire takes ‘on this all-important subject. Further, as there is going to be an Imperial Labour Conference in 1910 it behoves the movement here to make itself acquainted with the views and opinions of the workers across the seas. I am not in any way a sentimentalist, but I realise that sooner or later this question will be thrust upon us by our opponents, and I want our people to be ready for such an occasion when it arises. Personally, I believe that we can formulate an Imperial programme that will tend towards establishing a Socialist Empire, and I am leaving shortly for South Africa, Australia, and New Zea- land for the purpose of making myself acquainted with the movement out there, and to ascertain, as far as possible, to what extent such a programme will appeal to the Colonies. JOHN T. Fox.

.+ , WEBER AND DEBUSSY.

To THE EDITOR OF THE NEW AGE.” Mr. Herbert Hughes may conceivably find a reason for

Mr. Franz Liebich’s association of Weber with Debussy at the Aeolian Hall in Mrs. Franz Liebich’s monograph on Debussy (Lane, 1908), p. 9. “To Weber, Debussy is in-

vincibly drawn by his love of the fantastic, and by his power of describing it in music. He recognises that Weber was, perhaps, the first to concern himself with the affinity that exists between the unfathomable soul of Nature and the human soul. And most especially does he draw attention to the German composer’s use of legend, “thus prognosti- cating the happy influence it would have on music.”

GORDON BOTTOMLEY. + * *

CLERGY IN PARLIAMENT. To THE EDITOR OF “THE NEW AGE.”

Seeing that you wish us Socialist clergy to be qualified for Parliament, may I enlist your support for a preliminary step we are taking by trying to remove the present disqualification under which we groan, namely, from serving on City Councils. At present we are only allowed on London Boroughs and County Councils. I have the Bill ready, but it is difficult to get on with it because very few seem to care whether we are qualified or not. When we have got this through we can proceed to agitate for seats in Parliament.

Saltley. JAMES ADDERLEY. (Hon. Sec. Committee for Removal of Disqualification of

Clergy Bill.) * * *

DR. WALLACE’S SCHEME FOR UNEMPLOYMENT. To THE EDITOR OF “THE NEW AGE.”

If Dr. Wallace will put his proposal for a Co-operative Home Colony into practical shape, and find out how much the public will subscribe to such an object, without waiting for “Local Authority, ,, I think he may be able to do something on a small scale to show what can be done for the unemployed to get them back to the land and keep them there under fair and happy conditions.

I will gladly subscribe a sum of £5 to start a fund to pur- chase land for such a colony, and will help in other ways, if possible. But let us do something. F. O. LOESCH.

Expert Tutors. Low Fees. Special commercial and Literary courses.

J. B. RATHBONE, A.C.P., Phoenix correspondence college,

GUILDFORD. BY POST, HATED BECAUSE DREADED. JUST EXPELLED

From Camberwell Free Library Reading Rooms, By Order of the Borough Council with the applause and assistance of the Free

Churches Council. “ THE FREETHINKER,”

Published Thursdays Edited by G. W. FOOTE.

m TWOPENCE PIONEER PRESS. 2, NEWCASTLE STREET, E.C.

MISCELLANEOUS ADVERTISEMENTS. ADVERTISER aged 41, cultured and broadminded, of advanced

principles, occupying responsible position in London, wishes to make the aquaintance of a refined lady, under 40, independent financially, willing to lead a simple and useful life and join advertiser in devoting personal energy and means to propaganda of New Thought and to social work generally,-Apply in strictest confidence : Box 10. NEW AGE.

A LADY, fluently acquainted with French, German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, and some Oriental languages, earnestly desires some

immediate work either of translation or teaching. write Box 50 C.O. NEW Age. AUTHORS; WANTED PLAYS; for the West End, America,

and France. Address DUSE MOHAMED. Manager: DRAMATIC AUTHORS EXCHANGE : 8 Rupert Court. Piccadilly Circus. London. W. BOARD AND EDUCATION FOR GIRLS. Home in

connection. with Classes for Day-pupils. Vacancies. Healthful diet on humanitarian principles. -The MISSES MESSIEUX, Oak Dene, Hayward’s Heath,

CHELTENHAM. Board-Residence, Comfortable, Moderate. -3 Royal Well Terrace.

ESPERANTO- The International Language. Students Complete Set of Books, 7d. P.O. PIONIRA LIBREJO ESPERANTA, 46b, Hackford Road,

Brixton, s.w. FRENCH RIVIERA. -Boarders received for winter, sunny

comfortable house. (Alp.-Mar.)

Terms moderate. -Les Charmettes-Ermigate Antibes.

HOUSING QUESTION SOLVED.-Why not enter your own house, in an district, at once? NO DEPOSIT REQUIRED. Repre-

sentatives may receive deeds without further payment in case of death.- write for particulars, J. C., 177a, Longley Road, Tooting, S.W. SOCIALISM. -J. POINTER, 47, Lawn Street, Attercliffe,

Sheffield, asks for Week-night Lecturing Engagements during the Winter. THE SPIRITUALITY OF THE BIBLE PROVED BY THE

SPIRIT OF TRUTH. ZION’S WORKS, with Catalogue, in Free Libraries.

U UNITARIANISM AN AFFIRMATIVE FAITH,” “ The Unitarian Argument” (Biss), “Eternal Punishment ” (Stopford Brooke)

“ Atonement ” (Page Hopps), given post free.- Miss BARMBY, Mount Pleasant, Sidmouth.

WALLINGTON, Surrey. Attractive semi-detached villa excep- tionally well appointed with every labour-saving device, and long garden,

in charming situation, to be let or sold. £35 p a or £550 (freehold) Near two stations, City & West End in 26 minutes.-Full particulars of " D,” Melita House, Wallington.


THE NEW AGE PRESS NEW PUBLICATIONS.

THE REFORMERS’ YEAR BOOK, 1909. Crown 8vo, 288 pp. of small type* Wrapper, 1s. net. (Post, 1S, 3d,) Cloth, 2s. net. (Post, 2s. 3d.) The most complete book of its kind in the World. Thoroughly revised and enlarged. Contributed to by the best authorities.

Principal Contents : Sec. 1. Parliamentary. Sec. 2. Local government. Sec. 3. Trade and Taxation. Sec. 4. Imperial and Foreign Affairs. Sec. 5. questions of the Day. Sec. 6. Socialism (27 pages). Sec. 7. Trade Unionism and Labour (17 pages). Sec. 8. Women‘s Work.

Sec. 9. Co-operation. Who's Who Of Reformers (100 Biographies). SOCIALIST, Labour and Reform Press. Reform Societies. books of the year. Directory containing

Over 3,000 Names and Addresses

CHARLES DICKENS : The Apostle of the People, Crown 8vo, cloth gilt, 5s. net.

By EDWIN PUGH. 316 pp

“Not only a very interesting book about Dickens, but the only interesting book about Dickens. It ought to have a special interest for Socialists because Mr. Edwin Pugh is persistent and convincing in his argument that Dickens was essentially-in temperament, in feeling, in aspiration, and ideal-a Socialist.“ -The Clarion.

“An able and attractive book ; a book which has at least the one thing that is wanted in books just now, the note of the trumpet, the note of dogma and challenge.” -Mr. G. K. CHESTERTON in The Daily News.

IN THE HEART OF DEMOCRACY. By ROBERT GARDNER. Crown 8vo, cloth gilt, 3s. 6d. net.

" This is a striking book. The author starts from the hum- drum aspect of life as lived by millions of workers, and attempts

The Rev. J. R. CAMPBELL, writes to the author :-

to work out a philosophy of human society. The book is a re- “I am greatly impressed by your book which I am markable contribution to the solution of problems which are now reading. It is a valuable contribution to the litera- agitating many thoughtful hearts.“-The Publishers’ Circular. ture of a subject in which we are both interested.”

THE HUMAN MACHINE. By ARNOLD BENNETT. Crown 8vo, cloth gilt, 1s, 6d. net.

” This is a remarkably freshly written book, The author keeps US in his grip for the whole whole 109 pages he has decreed that we shall read. It might be imagined that the book is a psychological treatise. Nothing of the kind. The psychology is there all right, but it is put in such an attractive way that every man of intelligence will be drawn to read it, and, having read it, will be grateful for having his attention called to the book,“The British

LEADERS OF SOCIALISM. By G. R. S. TAYLOR. Wrapper, 1s. net.; cloth, 1s. 6d. net

“ Briefly, but with judgment and vivacity, Mr. Taylor reviews the panaceas which have been advocated by social reformers from Robert Owen to Robert Blatchford, points out their merits, and shows where they have failed.“ -The Scotsman.

CONTENTS :-Robert Owen, Saint Simon, Fourier, Louis Blanc, Ferdinand Lasselle, Karl Marx, William Morris, H. M. Hyndman, Sidney Webb, J. Keir Hardie, G. Bernard Shaw, Jean Jaures, Robert Blatchford.

THE PROBLEM OF PARLIAMENT: VICTOR GRAYSON, M.P. and G. R. S. TAYLOR.

A Criticism and a Remedy. By

(Post 1/2.). 96 pp. Wrapper, 6d. net (Post 7d.), Cloth 1/-

contents: The Problem Stated. Liberalism and Conservatism. Trade Unionism. The Socialtat Party. Programme and Tactics.

Socialism. The Socialist Societies. The Labour Party.

PORTRAITS, By JOSEPH SIMPSON, R.B.A. Nos. I and 2 now ready. I. -G. BERNARD SHAW. II. -ROBERT BLATCHFORD.

Price 2s. each. By post, securely packed, 2s. 4d. These portraits are reproduced in colour, the picture surface measuring about 10 x 9½ inches, and artistically mounted on

superfine mounts measuring 20 x 16 inches, ready for framing.

RECENT PUBLICATIONS STILL IN GREAT DEMAND. THE SUNLIT WAY AND OTHER POEMS, By GUY KENDALL. Fcap. 12mo, quarter bound,

gilt top, 1s. 6d net. (by post 1S. 8d.).

THE BURDEN OF WOMAN. By FRANK MOND and Others. 230 pp. Paper, 1s. 6d. net. (by post 1S. 8d.). Cloth, 2s. 6d. net. (by post 2s. 8d.).

THE COMMONSENSE OF THE WOMAN QUESTION, By MILLICENT MURBY. Wrapper, 6d. net. (by post 7d.) Quarter canvas, gilt, 1s. net, (by post 1S. 2d.).

THE LEGAL SUBJECTION OF MEN. By E. BELFORT BAX. An Answer to the Suffragettes. Wrapper, 6d. net. (by post 7d.) Quarter canvas, gilt, 1s. net. (by post 1S. 2d.).

TOLSTOY: His Life, Works, and Doctrine. By Dr. A. S. RAPPOPORT. Paper, 6d. net. (by post 7d.). Includes Tolstoy’s recent Challenge to the Russian Government, and Bibliography.

OUR CRIMINAL FELLOW-CITIZENS, By G. G. ANDRE, J.P. Limp canvas, 1s. net. (by post 1s. 2d.). THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF SOCIALISM. By H. M. BERNARD. Limp canvas, 1s, net. (by

post 1S. 2d.) HOW to LIVE ON 24 HOURS A DAY. By ARNOLD BENNETT. Quarter canvas, 1s. net. (by

post 1S. 2d.).

SOCIALIST PUBLICATIONS. We beg to inform our customers that we stock I.L.P., Fabian Society, S.D.P., and " Clarion ”

Publications, and also a large selection of Reform Books of other publishers. Post orders receive prompt attention. Callers may examine books freely and at their leisure.

NOTE NEW ADDRESS-

The NEW AGE PRESS, Ltd., 12-14, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London.

vol. 4 no. 21, march 18, 1909

Documents