By the Way
The dear old Beershop of London continues to provide us with innocent fun and amusement. He was ready to break stones “if necessary,” and we laughed. Then he talked of leaving his palatial residence and living in a bug-hutch, and again we laughed. Next he “spake unto the multitude” concerning the shekels of gold which it pleaseth the Lord to add unto him, and declared that he wouldn’t accept “another blessed shilling” if it were offered, and this noble renunciation for his country’s sake so tickled us that we laughed again. Now the dear old mugwump tells us (“Daily Chronicle” Dec. 5) “I only wish I had more money to invest in War Bonds myself.” I hope for Christ’s sake the powers that be will regard this as a withdrawal of the Renunciation of the Blessed Shilling, and give him another five thousand to devote to this Godly purpose. What a fellow-feeling the Bishop must have for the boy who stole his father’s money to buy a Bible (Ibid) !
We have on many occasions read in the British Press how the unspeakable Hun (German specimen) has deliberately destroyed property. One has only to call to mind the names of Louvain, Rheims, and so on. Seeing, therefore, the condemnation that has been meted out to the hooligans abroad by the apostles of gentleness resident here, one would at least expect to find them behaving in a most exemplary manner. But what do we find ? Time and time again we read of meeting places being smashed up, and people being injured who have attended such places. Let me quote a recent case—
“As the result of a disorderly “pacifist” meeting at Leadgate, Durham, men, women, and youths wrecked the Labour Party’s quarters, smashing the windows, doors, and furniture. The building was set on fire, but the flames were quickly extinguished.”—”Reynolds’s,” Nov. 11th, 1917.
In view of these things I am instructed by Christ to add: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
We live in a topsy-turvy world ! A short time ago Dr. Addison, speaking at the prize distribution at the Charing Cross Hospital Medical school, said that “to-day there was greater need than ever for the best that any of them could do.” He went on to say that “statistics showed that the annual wastage of the civil medical population was between 900 and 1,000.” Now in view of the dearth of doctors at the present time and the “greater need than ever” for their services, the following intelligent method of utilising “our” national resources is impressive.
“Dr. R. C. Fairbairn, of Hampstead, who was recently tried by Court-martial for refusing to obey the military orders on the ground that as an officer of the R.A.M.C. his chief duty “would not be the alleviation of suffering, but preparing men to return to the slaughter, was sentenced to two years, and not six months as stated.”—”Daily News,” Nov. 11th, 1917.
One other point in Dr. Addison’s speech is worth noting. It confirms what the Socialist has stated over and over again in those far-off days of peace. Here is his indictment of capitalist society :
“It was evident that there were no fewer than a million elementary school children who were seriously handicapped in the race for life owing to some defect or disease which for the most part we knew was preventable.”—”Daily News, Nov. 2nd, 1917.
He might have gone further and referred to that vast number of Army rejects, the undeveloped and generally unfit, the result of Mal-nutrition and a state of chronic poverty, but that would have been, as it were, “rubbing it in.” However, in spite of all the make-believe which is going on at the present time—the maternity centres, the baby clinics, and so forth—and the fulminations of capitalist reformers, we make bold to say that there is no remedy under the sun for these “preventable” evils other than that to be found in the common ownership of the means of life—in a word, Socialism.
The latest cry of a section of the Press is “Bolo.” Whether “Bolo” is he, she, or it I cannot say. But whenever there is some mishap, whether in Wales with the miners, in Russia or in Italy, the parrot cry of “Bob” is raised. In this connection the following extracts may be interesting.
WHO ARE OUR BOLOS?
Names and Facts Wanted by the “Daily Mail.”
“The ‘Daily Mail’ wants the names of every known pacifist or active friend of Germany in your city, town, or village. . . . the names of every speaker or writer who favours Germany, with all you know about the sourEC of his income, the societies to which he belongs, and the relations he has, or has had, with Germany.”— “Daily Mail,” Oct. 25, 1917.
“I know the Germans intimately. From childhood I have travelled extensively throughout most of the German States. I have many German family connections.”—Lord Northcliffe in the “New York Times,” Sept, 39, 1909.”—”Daily News,” Oct. 30th, 1917.
“All letters on this subject should, be addressed in strict confidence to ‘B,’ The Daily Mail, London, E.C.,” runs an announcement in that journal. This one might term the Russification of England.
The profiteering patriot has been having a good time of late, but in order to pacify an outraged public a prosecution takes place now and then. We read of controlled tea at 2s. 4d. per lb. being sold at 5s., and butter exceeding the maximum by 8d. per lb. Perhaps this is “Boloism.”
The acrobatic performances of the Labour Member for Leicester, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald,. are really amazing. In the early part of October, speaking at Loughborough, he said, “They wanted no patched-up peace, or peace at any price, which would bring war in ten years time.”
Then came the Peace Debate in the House of Commons on the 6th November, and from the “Daily Telegraph” (7.11.1917) Parliamentary news I cull the following :
“Mr. RAMSAY MAcDONALD (Lab., Leicester) said that they wanted it to be made perfectly clear to the Allies and to the enemy that this country had definite war aims, and that the success or failure of the war was dependent upon how these war aims were carried out. This country must not be allowed to make peace on account of war weariness. The second danger was that when a country entered into war there was a grave risk of losing the sense of its direction in carrying on the war. Therefore the country should lay down quite clearly what its war aims were and stick to them.” (Italics mine.)
The “Labour Leader,” (8.11.1917) which refers to Macdonald’s “powerful speech,” contains no reference to the passage quoted above, but records this interesting gem :
“Our original war aims held up before the people a bright flag of ideals. Why should they now be sneered at as of minor importance ? . . . The business of the Cabinet was not to make speeches telling the country to ‘go and fight,’ but to supplement with their brains the magnificent physical efforts of the men in the field.”
From the above it would appear that Ramsay Macdonald is developing into as keen a supporter of the war as the most rabid jingo.
An interesting story was recently told by an applicant for exemption from military service. It concerned the Secretary of the British New-Guinea Development Co., who said he had solved a difficult labour problem in New Guinea. Here follows the story :
“In the ordinary course of things the male islanders left all the work to their womankind. Recently the Australian Government prohibited women labour in the plantations. The males could not be tempted to work for money, and be hit upon the idea oi offering fancy decorative things, such as beads, gaudy clothes, dogs’ teeth, and musical instruments. To get these things men engaged themselves ta work for a twelvemonth, and when they returned to their villages they inspired others with the ambition to do likewise. By this means a large amount of useful and necessary work was done.”
The case was adjourned for inquiries. But the story is not an unreasonable one, for we have read in times past of the crafty cunning of the profit-seeking capitalist who confers the benefits and blessings of Christian syphilization on the half-savage native.
At a meeting ol “Comrades of the Great War,” held at the Mansion House on November 13th, a rather untoward event took place. “Comrade” Beresford’s speech was punctuated by several remarks made by members of the National Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Sailors and Soldiers, which resulted in their being ejected for interrupting. The Lord Mayor then delivered himself of the following :
“This only shows the appalling manner in which German money can even find its way into this Mansion House.”—”Daily News,” Nov. I5th, 1917.
A day or two later the Lord Mayor expressed regret for having made the observation above quoted, and confessed his ignorance of the existence of such an organisation. How sublimely innocent ! Any opposition to the wily schemes of our masters is now-a-days greeted with the cry of “Bolo” or “German money.”
On the subject of the show and banquet columns of print have appeared in the various newspapers. The hollowness and cant of the economy campaign stands out as a sham, and it appearr to be a case of for Christ’s sake pull your belts in or we may not be able to guzzle. The plea that the banquet was necessary because of the speeches that were to follow is a pitiful one, as is the announcement that 300 poor people partook of the husks that the swine couldn’t eat—I mean the crumbs that fell from the rich men’s table. One titbit from the Press is illuminating:
“It cannot be said that the authorities have shone in the controversy over the Lord Mayor’s banquet, for the result is that the banqueteers have had all the discredit of attending in war time a function whose reputation for guzzling has become historic, while they have not had the solid advantages that flow from Guildhall feasts. We have read that some of the guests actually “felt hungry” after the meal, poor things ! Well, they have the consolation of knowing that in thousands of workers’ homes throughout the country that is no uncommon state of things.”—”Reynolds’s,” Nov. 11th, 1917.
The value of example has indeed been lost on this historic occasion. Deeds, not words, my masters !
Some interest has been aroused of late in the huge war-time profits made by wholesale drapers and the question has been asked as to whether the charge of profiteering that has been brought against them is well justified. Some claim that this prosperity is due to a thriftless public, and that entreaties to practise economy have gone unheeded by women who form the bulk of the customers.
Here are a few illustrations of the rise of profits:
“The Fore-street Warehouse earned a profit last year of £63,200, which compares with £25,300 for 12 months before the outbreak of war.
Bradbury, Greatorex & Co.—£50,300, an increase of £19,000 on the pre-war figure.
Messrs. Foster, Porter & Co.—Last profit £49.300 compared with £23,900 for 1913.
Messrs. John Howell & Co., of St. Paul’s Churchyard easily quadrupled their profits, which last year amounted to £42,200 as against £10,600 for the year preceding the outbreak of war.
Messrs. Pawsons & Leafs in the same period increased their profits from £7,600 to £35.850. The last figure is arrived a.t after making provision for the excess profits duty and the income tax.
Messrs. Devas, Routledge & Co., also greatly multiplied their profits, while those secured by Jeremiah Rotherham & Co. rose during the three years from £59,700 to £137.000 an increase of over £77,000.
In 1913 the profits of Messrs. Crocker, Sons & Co. amounted to £8,900. For 1916 they were £24,600 after providing for the excess profits duty.”—”Daily Chronicle,” Oct. 23rd, 1917.
The “Chronicle” adds: “Whether in many cases the actual bulk of the goods exchanged has been very much greater than in pre-war times is uncertain, but the turnover, as many directors have boasted, has been much greater, because the value of the goods sold has been doubled, trebled, and probably in some cases quadrupled.”
Another interesting tribunal case recently appeared in the Press. The following report of a case heard by the Marylebone Tribunal a few days ago was given in the “West London News” of November 17th :
“An application was made on behalf of Lord Beresford for Mr. C. Dyer, aged 27, single, a valet, I Cumberland-place.
Dyer is one of three menservants, and there are seven maidservants.
The Director of Recruiting had already exempted him for two months pending the decision of the tribunal.
The application was unanimously rejected.”
This affords a fine object lesson on how the master class view the appeals for “economy,” the need for “all” to be engaged upon “work of national importance,” and so forth. Ten servants to look after his lordship’s household, and “we” are at war ! Ugh ! What a nation of hypocrites !
THE SCOUT