The Rise of the Democracy Part 15

_From the Drawing by S. Begg._]

Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman exceeded all previous records of the last century by making twenty new peers in less than two years--1905 to 1907--and Mr. Asquith maintained this vigorous policy by thirteen new creations in the first year of his premiership. Already many of these peers, whose t.i.tles are not more than six years old, vote with the Conservatives. Great Britain is now the only country in the world that combines a democratic form of government with a second chamber of hereditary legislators, and many proposals are on foot for the reform of the House of Lords. While the Conservatives are more anxious to change the const.i.tution of the Upper House, and to make it a stronger and more representative a.s.sembly, the Liberals prefer that its power of veto should be abolished. No Act of Parliament was required to abolish the veto of the Crown on Acts of Parliament, but the growth of a democratic public opinion did not prove strong enough to end the veto of the Lords on the Bills pa.s.sed by a Liberal majority in the Commons, and therefore the Parliament Act was pa.s.sed.

THE POPULARITY OF THE CROWN

The popularity of the Crown has become increasingly wider and more general in the years that have seen the British people steadily taking up the work of self-government. The fear of a hostile demonstration by the inhabitants of London kept William IV. from visiting the Mansion House in 1830, and the death of that monarch in 1837 evoked no national mourning. Queen Victoria, unknown to the people on her accession, had the very great advantage of Lord Melbourne's political advice in the early years of her reign. Her marriage, in 1840, with the Prince Consort--who himself learnt much from Melbourne--brought a wise counsellor to the a.s.sistance of the throne. "I study the politics of the day with great industry," wrote the Prince Consort. "I speak quite openly to the Ministers on all subjects, and endeavour quietly to be of as much use to Victoria as I can." The Prince Consort saw quickly that "if monarchy was to rise in popularity, it could only be by the sovereign leading a good life, and keeping quite aloof from party." The days of a profligate court and of "the King's friends" in politics were past and gone; the royal _influence_ was to succeed the royal _prerogative_.[87]

The aloofness from political partisanship has been faithfully maintained by the successors of Queen Victoria, and great as the royal influence may be in the social life of the wealthier cla.s.ses, it is certain that no such influence operates in the casting of votes by the people at Parliamentary elections. No one suspects the King of desiring the return of Liberals over Tories, or of favouring the Tory programme rather than the Liberal; and this neutrality is the surest guarantee of the continued popularity of the Crown.

For some years in the late 'seventies and early 'eighties of the nineteenth century Republicanism was the creed of many ardent working-cla.s.s Radicals in England. Charles Bradlaugh was its chief exponent, and both Mr. Joseph Chamberlain and the late Sir Charles Dilke were regarded as Republicans before they entered Gladstone's Ministry in 1880. The Republican movement waned before Bradlaugh's death. He himself was "led to feel that agitation for an ideal form of government was less directly fruitful than agitation against the abuses of cla.s.s privilege; and in the last dozen years of his life, his political work went mainly to reforms within the lines of the Const.i.tution."[88]

With the rise of the Socialist movement in England in 1884-5, and the celebration of the Queen's Jubilee in 1887, Republicanism became utterly moribund, and nothing save an attempt on the part of the sovereign to take a definite side in party politics, or a notorious lapse from the morals required of persons in office of State, could revive it.

The interest in Socialism was fatal to the Republican movement, because it turned the enthusiasm of the active spirits in democratic politics from the desire for radical changes in the _form_ of government, to the crusade for economic changes, and the belief in a coming social revolution. The existence of monarchy seemed a small and comparatively unimportant affair to men and women who were hoping to get poverty abolished, and the landlords and capitalists expropriated either by direct revolution, or by the act of a House of Commons, dominated by working men with Socialist convictions.

The national celebrations at the Queen's Jubilee in 1887 marked the beginning of the popular revival in pageantry and official ceremonial. In the Church of England this revival began some forty years earlier, and it has, in our day, changed the whole conduct of public worship. The revival of Roman Catholicism in England with its processions and solemn ritual has been equally significant. By gratifying the common human instinct for spectacle and drama the monarchy has gained the popular affections.

The Whigs scoffed at pageants and symbols; the earlier Puritans had proscribed ceremonial as savouring of idolatry, and feared any manifestation of beauty as a snare of the devil. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, England began to throw off the shackles of Puritanism, and to lose all interest in Whiggery. The new democracy was neither coldly Deist, nor austerely Republican. It has shown no inclination to inaugurate a reign of "pure reason" in religion or politics, but has boldly and cheerfully adopted symbolism and pageantry. Friendly societies and trade unions have their badges, banners, and b.u.t.tons. The Roman Catholic Church grows in popularity with the working cla.s.s, and in many towns and cities the Church of England and the Salvation Army are distinctly popular. On the other hand, the Nonconformist churches confess annually to a decreasing membership, and Secularist and Ethical societies have but the smallest following.

The royal processions and the pageantry of monarchy have provided a spectacular display that average human nature enjoys. The symbols and trappings of monarchy must be shown if the sovereign is to be popular; they add to the gaiety of life, and people are grateful for the warmth of colour they impart to our grey streets. The sovereign in encouraging the renewed and growing love for pageants and ceremonial has discerned the signs of the times. Modern democracy does not desire that kings or priests shall rule; but it does require that they shall on State occasions and in the performance of their office, be clad in kingly and priestly robes, and by their proceedings enrich the dignity of public life, and the beauty of public worship.

THE DEMOCRATIC IDEALS: SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORM

The rise of Socialism in the 'eighties not only diverted the attention of working-cla.s.s leaders from political reform, but it subst.i.tuted for the destruction of monarchy and the House of Lords a reconstruction of society as the goal of democracy; and the Socialist teaching has been of enduring and penetrating influence.

Fifty years earlier in the nineteenth century, Robert Owen had preached a Socialist crusade with strenuous persuasion--but, ignoring politics, he outlived the temporary success of his cause. The utopian Socialism of Owen flourished and died, as Chartism, under different treatment, flourished and died.

The "scientific" Socialism of Karl Marx was planned on stronger foundations. It brought a message of hope; it revealed how the change was to be wrought that would "emanc.i.p.ate the workers of the world from the slavery of wage service"; and it insisted that this change was inevitable.

On the Continent, and more particularly in Germany, the Social Democratic Party has gained an enormous working-cla.s.s support, and every election adds to its strength.

In England the Social Democratic Federation--now the Social Democratic Party--was founded in 1884 by Mr. H.M. Hyndman; but in spite of its untiring efforts, it has never won the sympathy of the trade unions, nor the confidence of the working-cla.s.s electorate. Its Parliamentary candidatures rarely attract attention, and it is not a force in Labour politics. Nevertheless, indirectly, the influence of the Social Democratic Party has been very considerable. Mr. John Burns, and many another Labour leader, have pa.s.sed through its ranks, and a social conscience has been made sensitive to the miseries of the poor, largely by the voices--that will not be silenced--of this comparatively small company.

The Fabian Society also began its work of educating public opinion to Socialism in 1884, but, unlike the Social Democratic Federation, it made no proposals for the creation of a Socialist Party or the organisation of the working cla.s.s into a separate political party. Mainly, its influence can be seen in the increase of statistical knowledge and of State interference in the conditions of life and labour in the working cla.s.s.

The Independent Labour Party was not formed till 1892, and while professing Socialism, it has aimed rather at securing the return of labour members to Parliament, and to local governing councils than at the conversion of the working cla.s.s to a dogmatic social democracy. Often frankly opportunist and experimental, the Independent Labour Party and its offspring, the Labour Party in the House of Commons, have followed the national custom in politics of attacking and redressing evident evils, and have done this with considerable success.

But while the Socialists have compelled the attention of all cla.s.ses to existing social ills, and have made social reform the chief concern of all politicians, the idea of a social democracy steadily recedes from the political vision, and the conscious movement to Socialism falters.

Socialist workmen in Parliament or on city councils soon find themselves absorbed in the practical work of legislation or administration, and learn that there is neither leisure nor outlet for revolutionary propaganda. The engrossing character of public work destroys the old inclination to break up the existing order, for the Socialist member of Parliament, or city councillor interested in his work, has become part of the machinery responsible for the existing order, and without losing his sympathy for the labouring people is content that the amelioration of society shall come, as it now seems to him it must come, by slow and orderly stages and without violence. The very return of so many Labour members to Parliament and to local councils has damped down the fires of Socialism, by placing in positions of authority and responsibility, and thereby withdrawing them from the army of disaffection, the ablest leaders of the working-cla.s.s movement. The Labour member who cannot settle down to legislative or administrative work, but attempts to play the agitator's part in the House of Commons or the council chamber, is generally doomed to banishment from official public life, and is allowed to remain an agitator.

Mr. John Burns may be denounced as a renegade by Socialist critics, but a working-cla.s.s electorate returns him to Parliament. Mr. Cunninghame Graham and Mr. Victor Grayson may be applauded for their consistency by Socialist audiences, but working-cla.s.s const.i.tuencies are loth to return such representatives to the House of Commons.

As Socialism quietly pa.s.ses out of the vision of the political world, and from a definite inspiration to democracy becomes a dim and remote possibility of the future, Social Reform takes its place. Not only in Great Britain, but throughout Europe, the social reformers or "revisionists" are gaining the mastery over the scientific Marxian Socialists in democratic politics. In Great Britain where "practical," or experimental, politics have always prevailed over political theory, the pa.s.sing of positive Socialist dogma is naturally more obvious. Social Reform is now the cry of Liberals and Conservatives alike. The old Liberal doctrines of _laissez faire_, unrestricted compet.i.tion, and the personal liberty of the subject are as dead as the Stuart doctrine of the divine right of kings. The old Liberal hostility to State interference in trade or commerce, and to compulsory social legislation has melted away at the awakened social conscience. It still has its adherents--Lord Cromer and Mr. Harold c.o.x repeat the ancient watch-words of Victorian Liberalism, and they are regarded with a respect mingled with curiosity, as strange survivals of a far-off age--but no popular echo follows their utterances. Pensions for the aged, better provision for the sick and the infirm, a more careful attention to the well-being of children, national health, some cure for dest.i.tution, and some remedy for unemployment--these are the matters that a Liberal Government is concerned about to-day. And the Conservatives are no less sincere in their willingness to help in these matters. Legislative proposals for social reform are treated as non-party questions, and the chief item in the Conservative programme, Tariff Reform, was adopted and is advocated mainly as a social reform, a cure for industrial evils, and the misery of unemployment.

Socialism proposed the abolition of poverty, and the common ownership and control of the land and the means of production, distribution, and exchange as the solution of economic questions.

Social Reform proposes to mitigate the hardships of life for the mult.i.tude, and, while leaving land and capital in private hands, to compel by taxation provision for the wants of the people. Its aim is the abolition of dest.i.tution by State a.s.sistance to voluntary effort, and the gradual raising of the standard of life. It does not propose to remove the cause of poverty.

Socialism would place the democracy in possession of the means of wealth.

Social Reform requires the State to tax wealth and provide for the people.

It promises a living wage, decent housing accommodation, an insurance against unemployment, and security in old age, and leaves the question of national ownership or private ownership to be settled by posterity.

LAND REFORM AND THE SINGLE TAX

Apart from the ideals of Socialism, the democratic ideal of a community owning the full value of its land was presented by Henry George, an American economist, in 1879, and his book "Progress and Poverty," was at once received with enthusiasm by certain reformers in England and America.

George visited England in 1881, 1884, and 1889, and his visits resulted in a strong movement for the taxation of land values. This movement has been inspired by an ideal of a democratic community as definite as the Socialist ideal, and it has grown steadily in popular favour as the justice of a tax on land values has been recognised. "Progress and Poverty" is the bible of the Land Reformers, as Marx's "Capital" is (or was) the bible of Socialists. It is claimed that a tax on land values is the true remedy of social and economic ills, and that democracy can eradicate the root-cause of poverty by such a tax. In this belief the followers of Henry George have preached the Single Tax, as it is called, with unquenchable fervour, and the Liberal Party has been gradually won over--if not to the Single Tax, at least to a tax on land values. Many Conservatives, too, favour the taxation of land values in cities, and all the princ.i.p.al munic.i.p.alities have pet.i.tioned Parliament in favour of this method of taxation. But it is the democratic ideals of Henry George that have been the life of the movement for the Single Tax, and but for these ideals the movement would never have become a living influence towards democracy, or inspired a social enthusiasm.

The charm about the Single Tax propaganda is that its ideals of democracy do not discourage the practical politician and the average citizen from supporting what seems a necessary and reasonable proposal. Without committing themselves at all to Henry George's full scheme for the total abolition of land monopoly by a tax of twenty shillings in the pound on all land values, and without abandoning the common British suspicion of the doctrinaire and the political idealist, the ordinary shopkeeper and householder are quite of opinion that urban values in land can be taxed legitimately for the benefit of the community, and that democracy would do well to decree some moderate tax on land values for the relief of the overtaxed non-landowner.

So the taxation of land values is presented by its advocates as a social reform more radical and democratic than all other social reforms, as a reform that in fact would make democracy master of its own land, and the people free from the curse of poverty; and it is accepted by the great ma.s.s of working people as a just and useful method of raising revenue for local and imperial needs.

Socialism, social reform, the Single Tax--various are the ideals of a democratic people at work at the business of government, and various are the means proposed to establish the democracy in economic freedom.

CHAPTER IX

THE WORLD-WIDE MOVEMENT: ITS STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS

EAST AND WEST

The movement towards democracy is world-wide to-day, and the political const.i.tutions of the West are desired with fervour in the East.

For generations there has been agitation in Russia for representative government, and men and women--in countless numbers--have sacrificed wealth, reputation, liberty, and life itself in the cause of political freedom. On the establishment in 1906 of the Duma, a national chamber of elected members, there was general rejoicing, because it seemed that, at length, autocracy was to give place to representative government. But the hopes of the political reformers were short lived. The Duma still exists, but its powers were closely restricted in 1907, and the franchise has been narrowed, to secure an overwhelming preponderance of the wealthy, so that it is altogether misleading to regard it as a popular a.s.sembly.

In Egypt and in India the Nationalist movements are directed to self-government, and are led by men who have, in most cases, spent some years at an English University, or have been trained at the English Bar.

Residence in England, and a close study of British politics make the educated Indian anxious for political rights in his own country, similar to those that are given to him in Great Britain. In England the Indian has all the political rights of a British subject. He can vote for a member of Parliament, he can even be a member of the House of Commons. On two occasions in recent years, an Indian has been elected to Parliament: Mr.

Dadabhai Naoroji sat as Liberal M.P. for Finsbury, 1892-5; Sir M.M.

Bhownagree as a Conservative for Bethnal Green, 1895-1906. Back in his native land, the Indian finds that he belongs to a subject race, and that the British garrison will neither admit him to social equality, nor permit him the right of legislation. Hence with eyes directed to Western forms of government, the Indian is discontented with the bureaucracy that rules his land, and disaffected from the Imperial power. But so many are the nations in India, and so poverty-stricken is the great mult.i.tude of its peasantry that the Nationalist movement can touch but the fringe of the population, and the millions of India live patiently and contentedly under the British Crown. Nevertheless, the national movement grows steadily in numbers and in influence, for it is difficult for those who, politically minded, have once known political freedom, to resign themselves to political subjection.

In Egypt the Nationalist movement is naturally smaller and more concentrated than in India and the racial divisions hinder its unity. Egypt is nominally under the suzerainty of Turkey, though occupied by Great Britain, and now that Turkey has set up a Const.i.tution and a Parliament, patriotic Egyptian politicians are impatient at the blocking out by the British authorities of every proposal for self-government.

As in India, so in Egypt: it is the men of education who are responsible for the Nationalist movement. And in both countries it is the desire to experiment in representative government, to test the const.i.tutional forms in common use in the West, and to practise the responsibilities of citizenship, that stimulates the movement. The unwillingness of the British Government to gratify this desire explains the hostility to British rule in India and Egypt.

j.a.pan received a Const.i.tution from the Emperor in 1890, and in 1891 its Diet was formally opened with great national enthusiasm. It is a two-chamber Parliament--a Council of n.o.bles, and a popularly elected a.s.sembly--and only in the last few years have the business men given their attention to it. Although the Cabinet is influenced by j.a.panese public opinion, it is not directly responsible to the Diet, but is the Ministry of the Mikado. The resolution of the j.a.panese statesmen of forty years ago to make j.a.pan a world-power made Const.i.tutional Government, in their eyes, a necessity for the nation.

In Europe, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark all possess democratic const.i.tutions, and only the removal of s.e.x disabilities in the latter two is needed to achieve complete adult suffrage. Finland established complete democracy nine years ago, and, with equal electoral districts, complete adult suffrage, and the free election of women equally with men to its Diet, is a model democratic state. But the liberties of Finland are gravely threatened by the Russian Government, and there is no security for the Finns that their excellent self-government will be preserved. In Germany, with universal manhood suffrage, the struggle is to make the Government responsible to the elected Reichstag.

The British self-governing Colonies show a tendency of democracy to federate. The Australian Colonies are federated into a Commonwealth, and their example has been followed by the South African Colonies. New Zealand and Australia are at one in their franchise, which allows no barrier of s.e.x; but South Africa still restricts the vote to males. In Australia the working cla.s.s are in power, and the Commonwealth Prime Minister is a Labour representative. There is no willingness to grant political rights to those who are not of European race, either in South Africa or in Australia; and the universal republic dreamed of by eighteenth century democrats, a republic which should know no racial or "colour" bar, is not in the vision of the modern colonial statesmen of democracy, who are frankly exclusive.

Only in New Zealand does a native race elect its own members to Parliament--and four Maori M.P.'s are returned.

TYRANNY UNDER DEMOCRATIC FORMS

Experience has proved that democratic and republican forms of government are no guarantee that the nation possesses political liberty.

Mexico, nominally a republic under President Diaz, was in reality a military autocracy of the severest kind. The South American Republics are merely unstable monarchies, at the mercy of men who can manipulate the political machinery and get control of the army.

It is too early yet to decide whether the const.i.tutional form of government set up in Turkey in 1908, or the republic created on the abolition of monarchy in Portugal in 1910, mark national movements to democracy. In neither country is there evidence that general political freedom has been the goal of the successful revolutionist, or that the people have obtained any considerable measure of political power or civil liberty. Ambitious and unscrupulous men can make full use of republican and democratic forms to gain political mastery over their less cunning fellows, and no machinery of government has ever yet been devised that will safeguard the weak and the foolish from the authority of the strong and the capable.