The Pillory
“‘What we want now is money. Get it—honestly if you can, of course—but get it. . . We will take all of it we can get for our present electoral contests.’
After this barefaced appeal will the S.D.F. candidates still pretend to be shocked at the suggestion that they are being financed with Tory money ?” Camborne Liberal Election Leaflet
The above leaflet is a specimen of the stuff which was distributed at Camborne. . . A number of similar leaflets against the S.D.F. were issued during the recent elections. Justice comment,17.2.06.
If the “similar leaflets” contained the same sort of “stuff,” wherein lies the cause for Justice’s complaint ? The “stuff” is reproduced from the columns of Justice It is Justice’s own particular “stuff.” What are we to conclude ? Is it that in Justice the “stuff” is “literary matter” and only becomes “stuff” when used against the S.D.F. ? If so, who is to blame—the writer of the “literary matter” which is “stuff” or the reproducer thereof ? Justice should be more explicit. However, “stuff” is a good word. Let it stand.
“. . . Our only hope lies in successful political action. Yet the majority of our organisation seems wholly destitute of political aptitude. . . I feel I have done all the good I can do in the detail work of the organisation.” H.M.Hyndman, resigning from S.D.F. E.C. Aug. 1st, 1900.
“If any branch of the S.D.F. thinks proper to nominate me and the delegates choose to elect me, I am quite ready to rejoin the Executive of our organisation.” H. M. Hyndman, Feb. 3.06.
The question now arises—is this change of view due to the improvement of the S.D.F. or the deterioration of H.M.H. ? The evidences of the former are not very perceptible ; and the enthusiastic S.D.F-er will indignantly repudiate the suggestion that his organisation ever changes. “As it was in the beginning,” etc. On the other hand the same enthusiast will let off all sorts of rhetorical fireworks in protest against the suggestion that H.M.H. has deteriorated. Ah! Well! It isn’t the only S.D.F. problem the S.D.F-er cannot solve.
“. . for the man of cool, calculating, reflective mind, there had been Bernard Shaw’s candid acknowledgement on a Burnley platform that through all these years Hyndman had been right in his uncompromising course, and the tactical error had lain with the Fabian pursuing a permeation which did not permeate.” Justice, 20.1.06.
“The Fabian Society is always right. . . The stupendous and abysmal incapacity for public affairs (of the Social Democratic Federation) and the absence of all sense of proportion and even of humour . . are beyond all words . . I apologise to the universe for my connection with such a Party.” Bernard Shaw, 2.2.06.
No comment necessary except, perhaps—! !
“He (Keir Hardie) has pursued a very difficult course with indomitable courage and unswerving independence and steadfast fidelity. . . His position as leader of the new party . . will call for the constant display of those qualities by which he has gained the position. The right man in the right place.” Justice, 17.2.06.
“Keir Hardie is now a statesman. He thinks of peddling reforms in periods of generations.” Justice, 11.2.05.
“The genial Keir . . . weaves ‘facts’ out of imagination in somewhat alarming style, and suppresses inconvenient others in a manner worthy of a Liberal or Tory cabinet minister.” Justice, 10.6.05.
“We Social Democrats . . . are ready and eager to render them (the new Labour members) any assistance we can outside the House of Commons. . . They have undertaken a very heavy responsibility. We hope and believe they will rise to the level of the occasion.” Justice, 17.2.06.
“It is not easy to see what useful purpose they (the Labour members) serve . .They rally to the support of the opposition and vote steadily against the Government at the bidding of the Liberal Whips; but that any ordinary capitalist Liberal could do. . Things have come to a fine pass when a Liberal paper complains of the supineness of the Labour members.” Justice, 20.5.05.
“The fact is these Labour members have mistaken their position. They no longer regard themselves as agitators . . . To them the House of Commons appears . . a sort of haven of rest, entrance into which is the guerdon of a life’s work accomplished. Their constant prayer appears to be ‘give peace in our time, O Lord.’ They are clothed with dignity as with a garment and they object to having their ease disturbed.” Justice, 3.6.05.
“Even the most friendly critics . . speak with ill-disguised contempt of these elected persons who pose as the representatives of the great working class, yet, as we have repeatedly pointed out, will neither do anything for the people themselves nor, if they can help it, will let anybody else do any thing . . Crooks, Henderson, and Shackleton, of the much advertised Labour Representation Committee, display equal caution, not to say pusillanimity and cowardice . . The ‘Labour Party’ as it stands, or grovels, in the English House of Commons, is merely an appendage to the capitalist parties, whose politicians use it systematically to gull and humbug the workers.” Justice, 27.5.05.
So we are to “hope and believe” that the men who for years have been only distinguished from capitalist members by pusillanimity and cowardice and supineness ; who have done nothing for the people ; who formed a grovelling appendage to the Liberal Party ; will rise to the level of the occasion. And why ? The pusillanimous cowards of the last Parliament have been returned to this. Only there are more of them. Are the new men better than the old ? How ? Does Justice want us to play the fool game of waiting for results we know are sure ? Is experience no use at all ? Or is Justice’s change of front intended to pave the way for the return of the S.D.F. to the L.R.C. from which so many of its members regret having withdrawn and whose financial and other assistance they so earnestly desire for their own candidates ?
“NO SLAVERY UNDER THE FLAG.
THIS INFAMOUS CHINESE LABOUR ORDINANCE MUST BE IMMEDIATELY’ REPEALED.”
“The word slavery had been employed, not so much as an accurate representation of it, as a descriptive term.” Lord Crewe.
“They all knew that at the time of the elections many things were said which ought not to have been said. I do not dispute that the Chinese were well treated and well fed.” Lord Ripon.
“What they were now doing was not finding some way of getting out of the question of Chinese labour. They had to avoid even the appearance of being unfair to any section of the community, because anything done at the present moment would leave behind it the root of bitterness, which might be fatal to the prosperity and happiness of the Colony. At the present time they had not the information necessary to enable them to come to a decision. The particular method by which they would obtain their information they had not yet determined upon.” Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.
Note to the working class—Sold again !