« ПретходнаНастави »
of the single transferable vote. In this moiety some Bishops would find a place. The other moiety should, pending the creation of a Federal Legislature, contain some direct representatives of the Dominions, some representatives of Labour, elected perhaps by the Co-operative Congress, by the Trade Union Congress, and by the 'Free' Labour Council. Elected representatives of the Roman Catholic and the Free 'Churches should also be included ; as well, perhaps, as representatives elected by the Councils of Counties and County Boroughs. The nominative element should be rigorously excluded, for experience, notably that of Canada and Italy, tends to prove that of all devices this is the one least calculated to produce the desired object-a Chamber at once efficient and independent. It may be argued that some infusion of the nominated element is necessary in order to prevent deadlocks between the two Houses. This is an important matter, but the object can be better attained in other ways : by a joint session ; by a simultaneous dissolution of both Houses; or by a referendum.
These changes would probably have sufficed ten years ago ; whether they would satisfy the country to-day is perhaps doubtful. During the last ten years the political situation has fundamentally changed; changed also is the temper of the multitude. No one who has not mingled with the working folk of Scotland or the North of England can have any conception of their set determination not to allow themselves to be 'bossed
by the Lords' in future. It has been recently pointed out that it took the middle classes-nominally admitted to political supremacy in 1832—at least a generation before they could make effective use of their power. It took the manual workers
-admitted to the franchise in 1867—just thirty-nine years before they recognised the significance of the change, or were ready to take advantage of it. Down to 1688 or perhaps down to 1714 the English Constitution-despite certain checks and balances—was pre-eminently monarchical. From that time until 1906 the actual government was vested, notwithstanding the changes effected in 1832, 1867, and 1884, in rival groups of men who belonged, with insignificant exceptions, to a small and select class. In fine, England was essentially an aristocracy. During the last ten years the balance of forces has once more undergone a profound readjustment. Whether that readjustment will contribute to the stability of the Common
wealth and to the contentment of the people it is much too soon to say.
For the moment it is obvious that the new wine of political supremacy has mounted to the heads of men who are unaccustomed to strong liquor, to whom the wisdom of the ages is the doddering imbecility of age. They have yet to learn, in the only school where they can be taught, the hard lessons of experience. The next thirty years may, therefore, prove to be the most critical in our history. No effort should be spared to give to this young Democracy all the assistance which can be derived from efficient political institutions. The vanity and folly of individuals may render of none effect the wisest and soundest Constitution in the world. No safeguards can ultimately save men from themselves. But that does not prove the inutility of all safeguards.
Among political safeguards a strong and efficient Second Chamber is without question one of the most important. The existing Second Chamber has been reduced to the verge of impotence. It has lost faith in itself. It can never in its present form be reinvested with sufficient authority and power to enable it to fulfil the functions appropriate to its position. 'The best constitution of a Second Chamber,' wrote Mill in 1861, ‘is that which embodies the greatest number of elements 'exempt from the class interests and prejudices of the majority, 'but having in themselves nothing offensive to democratic ' feeling.'
To compass the creation of such a Chamber; to discover for it a basis which shall be at once intelligible and differentiating ; to secure to it the power of effective revision without the power of control; to render it amenable to permanent public sentiment and yet independent of transitory phases of opinion; to erect a bulwark against revolution without interposing a barrier to reform—this is one of the most vital and immediate, as it is one of the most perplexing, problems which to-day await solution at the hands of British statesmanship.
J. A. R. MARRIOTT.
No. 462 will be published in October.
OCTOBER, 1917 No. 462
INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM AND WAR
I. L'Internationale socialiste a vécu. Par OMER BOULANGER,
conseiller Communal Belge. Paris : Ollendorf. 1915. 2. The Future of Democracy. By H. M. HYNDMAN. Allen and
Unwin. 1915. 3. Socialism and the Social Movement. By WERNER SOMBART;
translated by M. EPSTEIN. Dent. 1909.
AMONG the bubbles pricked by the war is the 'Red n 'International,' so called to distinguish it from the * Black International,' the Church of Rome. The Red International was the instrument of international socialism, and it represented very large aims and lofty aspirations ; but at the hard touch of reality it collapsed, revealing itself as a showy film devoid of solid contents. It may fairly be called a bubble without offence, for many of its most earnest supporters in different countries have said as much. The world at large, which had never taken it very seriously or paid much attention to it, witnessed the collapse without surprise and with little interest. But the Russian Revolution and subsequent efforts to promote peace on the basis of international socialism have brought the movement into the field of actual affairs and given it a new claim to public attention. Many who never gave international socialism a thought before are now regarding it
with various feelings, ranging from mere curiosity to angry resentment. And in truth it does call for examination in this tremendous political and social upheaval in which we are involved, and the outcome of which no man can foresee. Is it a real force or not? And if it is real, what part is it likely to play ? To answer these and other questions which suggest themselves at the present juncture of affairs, it is necessary to examine the movement in the light of its origin and development.
The international note was first definitely struck in socialism by the famous communist manifesto drawn up in 1847 by Marx and Engels. This document ended with the exhortation which has been much quoted of late, ' Proletarians of all lands, 'unite!' The idea was not altogether new. Previously the socialistic movement had been carried on, mainly in England and France, for many years, during which all the root ideas and most of the catchwords were evolved. The English and French movements were on lines broadly parallel, though different in detail, and the active minds in each took a certain interest in the other. There was some exchange of ideas, and though they had no thought of definite concerted action, internationalism was already present in germ. Saint-Simon had glimpses of it, and Mr. M. Beer, in his ‘History of British · Socialism,'* says of the National Union, formed in 1831 on a revolutionary trade union and socialistic basis, that it 'fos"tered international solidarity with particular ardour. It cele• brated the anniversaries of the French Revolution and of the · Polish insurrection, opposed Palmerston's foreign policy, which • it severely stigmatised as dictated by the Tsar. This is very interesting at the present time. There is indeed a remarkable parallelism between the currents of thought in that day and in this. Many passages might be quoted from such papers as the 'Crisis,' the ' Pioneer,' and the ‘Poor Man's Guardian,' which read as though they had appeared last week. The same arguments and the same phrases were then in common use.
Marx, who was a schoolboy of twelve at the time of the National Union, came into a field already strewn with the
* This scholarly and valuable work, which will supersede all others, has not yet been published. It was passing through the press when the war broke out and stopped publication. But the writer possesses a copy in proof, presented by the author.
ideas he utilised. He was an adroit and diligent gardener. He picked up one here and another there, in Germany, France, Belgium, and England, put them together, planted them out, made a flower-bed of them, and posed as their discoverer ; but they had all been sown by other men. Internationalism was one of them. It was in the air in 1847. Europe was seething with revolution, and Marx was the very man to act as a go-between. He had no nationality, having abandoned his own and adopted no other. He was a refugee in England, to which he came from Germany by way of France and Belgium. From Germany he brought Hegel's conception of history, perverted to fit Feuerbach's materialism ; in France he imbibed the revolutionary spirit ; in England he picked up the economic basis of socialism. It took him many years to work up these elements into the extraordinarily involved tangle of inconsistent theories presented in ‘Das Kapital,' which owes its vogue largely to its obscurity, on the Lucretian principle :
Omnia enim stolidi magis admirantur amantque,
Inversis quae sub verbis latitantia cernunt.' But that was after he became 'scientific.' There was no obscurity about the communist manifesto. It urged in trumpet tones concerted violent revolution by the proletariate' in all countries for the overthrow of the existing order of society and the substitution of communism. It was drawn up for the Communist League, an association of continental refugees in London, and issued in Brussels in several languages early in 1848. It may have done something to fan the flames of popular excitement in that revolutionary year, but the risings which took place were primarily political, and no international action was attempted. Nevertheless the manifesto marked the beginning of a definite movement. It contained all the essential principles on which international socialism has subsequently been based. It laid down the theory of the class war between 'bourgeoisie' and 'proletariate,' which characterises the present epoch in all western countries and involves the international solidarity of the proletarians, who have only to unite in order to throw off their chains.
The next step was the creation of an organisation to give effect to these principles, and the birthplace of this also was London. The year was 1864, when the International Association of Working Men was formed. This is now known as the