Mr W.R. Kennedy on Socialism
ADDRESS AT THE JUNIOR REFORM CLUB, Liverpool Daily Post Tuesday November 9th 1886
Last evening, Mr W. R. Kennedy, Q.C., delivered an address on "Socialism" at the Junior Reform Club, under the auspices of the Literary Society of that institution. There was a large attendance of members and their friends, among whom there were a number of ladies.
Mr E. R. Powell, M.P. occupied the chair, and in introducing Mr Kennedy said they were aware that that was the first of a series of lectures which the literary society of the Junior Reform Club hoped to give. The second was likely to take place in December. That evening they were to have a lecture from their friend Mr Kennedy, and they could not have a man better qualified to commence a course of able and instructive lectures on Liberal principles. He had a letter from Mr George Atkin-who naturally took a great interest in Mr Kennedy as he was the chairman of the Liberal interest in Birkenhead - and he had expressed regret at being unable to be present that evening. They all knew Mr Kennedy's qualities and abilities, and they were anxious to hear him upon this subject. It was certainly a coincidence that it should be on Lord Mayor's Eve, when the subject of Socialism had temporarily been somewhat connected with the ordinary Ninth of November celebrations, and there had been other occurrences lately which had given them special interest in the subject which however must always have an interest because the principles of Socialism would lie at the bottom of and must necessarily be connected with everything that worked for the the political well-being of the community (applause).
Mr Kennedy, who was received with great cordiality, at the outset said that one thing at least was agreed in the conflict of English politics- no responsible politician liked to be called a "Socialist" or to hear his policy denounced as socialistic. It was felt and acknowledged on all sides that there was nothing disreputable or inconsistent with political or social respectability in being designated a Radical or Tory. But if they called a politician a Socialist or his plans socialistic they would quickly discover that he resented the description as something offensive, and in the nature almost an imputation on his political sanity if not also on his morality. This epithet was understood generally to cast a stigma upon the political person or scheme to which it was applied- something outside the pale of political respectability according to the standard of the day. At the first when they considered the natural meaning of Socialism according to its etymology it would seem to be a strange and curious thing. By derivation the term "Socialist" should mean one who advocated the good of the societas - the community at large, one who tried to approach the exalted standard of Christian rule by preferring theinterest of his neighbour to self-interest. Nevertheless the popular mistrust of Socialism was not he thought substantially unjust. The best and worthiest of its public professors were amiable, emotional philanthropists genuinely possessed with sympathy for the misery which existed amongst us-men in whom the odour of charity seemed to have well-nigh burnt up and consumed the powers of patience and judgement. The worst of them he should judge to be clever men hardened sometimes by discontent sometimes by class or personal ambition to the manufacture of anarchy and rapine out of the passions which were generated in the uneducated masses by the pressure of poverty and the gnawings of distress.
Looking however at the times in which we lived he could not help thinking that Socialism in all its aspects deserved nay demanded close dispassionate consideration. Liberals especially were bound to examine such a phenomenon. A heresy did not make converts as Socialism had done at any rate on the Continent unless it had in it somewhere-distorted and disfigured though it might be and buried under a mass of repulsive error- a bit of truth a bit of what might be well worth the labour of digging for. He believed that in the study of Socialism they would glean both a salutary warning and a useful lesson. Socialism aimed at nothing less than the reconstruction of society through the industrial classes in whom undoubtedly our present franchise had placed the Parliamentary government. And of the forces of Socialism we had had very recently only too manifest evidence. Dating as an organisation only from 1848, Socialism had established throughout Europe and especially in the great labour centres of France and Germany, it had become a power. In England the progress of Socialism as a definite creed had as yet been comparatively insignificant. It had certainly not won the confidence of the best or of the bulk of the artisan class, and he trusted for their own sake that as a creed it never would. In this country the working classes as a body were too practical, as well as too sound morally to be led astray by the mirage of Continental Socialism. The men who had so independently and in such sober and orderly fashion reared and maintained the fabric of Trades Unionism were not likely to become doctrinaire revolutionists. Let us on our part deserve their sympathy and co-operation by zeal in mending our institutions where they were faulty and adding to them where they were wanting in the interests of the religious, moral, and material welfare of the greatest number, and so proving to the world that in England at any rate the problems which Socialism had propounded might be in the best interest of her people itself be well solved by far other means than by the dissolution of society which Socialism proclaimed.
He then gave a brief sketch of the outline of the movement which he said in this country might fairly be treated as beginning some thirty five years ago with the school of Christian Socialists amongst whom the late Charles Kingsley was the best known and most prominent writer. No-one could question the nobility, purity, and sentiments which inspired this school, or suppose that Maurice, or Kingsley, or Ludlow would be parties to a conspiracy against law and order, or the rights of private property. He could not doubt but that their efforts did good; and the good work that had during the last thirty years been done both by law and voluntary effort to ameliorate the condition of the poor, ought to be ascribed in no small degree to the influence of their teaching. At the same time it must be confessed that the reasoning both as to the causes of the evils which they sought to alleviate, and as to the philanthropic remedies by which they proposed to remove those evils, was radically unsound. Instead of ascribing the mischief to its true causes-to the disregard of natural laws and the science of political economy, bad land laws, to the neglect of thrift, of prudence, and of education-they ran a wild tilt at political economy. We might rejoice that the movement did not at any rate preach violence and in form sympathised rather with the moderate social democratic section of the Continental Socialists. But there, however, he was afraid our rejoicing must stop. The Social Democratic Federation of England aimed at the creation of a state based upon labour. Its own members however were not agreed as to whether the word "labour" should include thinkers and workers with the head or hand-labour only. Its programme spoke for itself, and he was content himself with quoting the summary of its merits which appeared in a published letter to Mr Hyndman from one of Liverpool's best citizens-a man as deeply respected for his wide and discerning philanthropy as for his commercial ability. Mr Samuel Smith (applause) thus described it-"The programme you send me advocates the confiscation of nearly all the property of the country, including the savings of the multitudes of hard-working honest people, and the sole means of livelihood of thousands of widows and orphans. I see no distinction between this wholesale robbery and the act of a thief or highwayman who robs an honest traveller, except that the crime you advocate is gigantic and the sufferers would be millions."
He (Mr Kennedy) did not think that the constructive idea of Socialism would take any deep hold upon the English workmen. The danger of the movement lay not in the fascination of its ideal, but in the leavening influence of the spirit which permeated its teachings-the attenuation of individual responsibility, the relation both to himself and to the family the notion that want of itself constituted a claim which the State should enforce against the the savings of their thrift; that the possession of wealth was as regarded the poorer man, an injustice; that the willing labourer had a right to have work found for him and not sufficient for his wants only but enough to support as many children as he desired to bring into the world; that there was a hostility instead of a community between capital and labour.
He granted that there were things that could be done much better by the State than by voluntary co-operation; there was no definite, distinguishable line by which we could divide the region of wise from unwise State action. But he was sure of this, that there was no department of social life in which State action should be less likely invoked or when invoked should be more jealously guarded than in the department of productive industry. Socialism in its professed anxiety to distribute wealth more, evenly threatened an interference which would in the long run leave very little to distribute by drying up the sources of distributable wealth (applause). But if Socialism had its dangers for society, its presence taught us lessons by which we ought to profit. First was the need of education-not mere elementary, but higher education. Besides educating by instruction, we ought also to educate by example. We must get rid of unjust laws, of man-made inequalities, of class privileges, of every legal obstacle such as our land system which stood in the way of improvement of the condition of the people. Let us meet Socialism by trying to live up to the standard of Christianity which we professed. The real truthwhich lay embedded in the Socialist insurrection against society was that society has disobeyed the Divine precept "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". We had enabled the English Socialist to argue for his revolution by pointing to the great gulf which our society presented-great wealth, great luxury, and idleness on the one side; great poverty and squalor and wretchedness on the other. Let us have greater simplicity in our life, greater generosity, more genuine and zealous sympathy with those who are neither rich nor fortunate; let us prove our respect for labour by cordial co-operation with the labourer; let us substitute the cause of brotherhood for the self-complacecy of patronage. Equality there could never be in this world whilst sin and folly continued to exist; but it was surely alike the sound policy as well as the religious duty of society as far as within it lay to make the rough places plain for hte poor, the helpless, and the weak. If we thus disarmed Socialism we should never need to fight it (loud applause).
Mr G. R. Haywood afterwards moved and Mr J. K. Young seconded a cordial vote of thanks to Mr Kennedy for his able and instructive address.
The Chairman in supporting the motion said Mr Kennedy had made a careful study of the subject and evidently was acquainted with all its literature and personages, and in concluding he had brought them round to what he supposed everyone present would take to be a sound conclusion upon any such subject. One fascination the subject had was its extreme complexity and the difficulty of getting as he might say ones knife into it and the feeling one had directly one began that it was no simple matter abd that you must follow it out by a very subtle train of reflection to arrive at a sound conclusion upon it. Let them take one example of its difficulties. It was constantly said and with great truth that the real foundation of English poverty was the intemperate use of alcohol. He believed that to be so and if they could by a magical stroke make everybody in this country sober that before a year was out the revolution in the condition of the people would be tremendous (hear, hear) If they could do anything to produce that would it be Socialism or Liberalism (laughter). Here they came he was going to say head over heels into the very crater of this difficult subject. Of late years the Liberal Party had arrived more he thought by a moral impulse than anything else at the conclusion that it was a part of Liberalism to lessen the temptation to drink and they had adopted that as part of their programme and they meant if they could to carry that out. But that only illustrated what Mr Kennedy with so much truth had pointed out-that they could not draw exactly a line between what was Socialism and what was Liberal legislation and they must to a large extent make it a matter of experiment to see how far they could carry the two things (hear, hear).
A similar compliment having been passed to Mr Russell for presiding on the motion of Mr C.W. Willmen the proceedings terminated.
On the same night the Irish National League had met in Liverpool for a banquet at the City Hall. Mr T. P. O'Connor eulogised on the great qualities of Mr Gladstone. At that banquet a letter was read out by Mr E. R. Russell MP for not attending as he would be at the Junior Reform Club for Mr Kennedy's speech on Socialism.
No comments:
Post a Comment