HC Deb 12 April 1872 vol 210 cc1183-210
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the organization of the International Society, and to move for Papers, said, that in prefacing the remarks which he had to make upon the subject, he must admit that he was possessed with a fear that but few hon. Members were much acquainted with the nature of the question which he was about to bring before them, although he trusted that he should be able to convince them that it was one that deeply affected the gravest interests of this and other countries. The House would probably be aware that representations had been made to Her Majesty's Government by nearly every country in Europe directed against the International Society; and that the reason why those representations had been made to the Government of this country was, because London was, as he should be able to prove, the head centre of that iniquitous Association. He wished it to be clearly understood that he made this Motion with no ill-feeling towards the trades unions, or towards any of those societies in which the interests of the employers or the employed were specially concerned. No doubt, from time to time, trades unions had been led into excesses which everyone must deplore; but those associations had been accepted and approved by the Legislature, and by the general opinion of the country. Neither did he bring forward the question with any want of confidence in the working men of England. He had had the honour of saying, in the course of the debate upon the Ballot Bill, that he had the fullest confidence in the loyalty of the working men of the country; and, indeed, had any doubt upon the subject ever been entertained, the spectacle that was witnessed a few weeks ago showed what a strong feeling of loyalty had been developed throughout the length and breadth of the country, and justified the most perfect confidence being placed in our working classes. He would even go further, and would say that the great majority of those who had joined this Society in this country—and their number was 180,000—were totally ignorant of the principles it was intended to carry out, which were carefully concealed from them while they were giving their subscriptions and lending their names in support of the Association. Those principles struck at the root of all morality, of all civilization, of all the rights of property, and of all belief in God. These were solemn and grave charges to bring against a society in that House, but they were well founded, and he should be able to prove them by unquestionable evidence; and that evidence he would venture to say was confirmed by the fact that the Society was creating a feeling of terror over all Europe with the exception of our own country. The principles of the Association, moreover, had already been denounced in eloquent and striking language in articles which had appeared in October last in The Edinburgh and in The Quarterly Reviews. It would be interesting to trace the Society from its foundation, and through its successive developments, until it reached its present dimensions. Strange to say, it originated during the Exhibition of 1862, when the workmen belonging to the different countries were collected in London; but it was not actually founded until the 28th of September, 1864, at a meeting held at St. Martin's Hall, when it obtained the title of "The International Association of Working Men." At that time its formation and proceedings had been looked for abroad with great interest, and one writer had gone as far as to say that the Hall of St. Martin, where it was formed, would be celebrated in history. The Society, as originally constituted, was founded upon the principles of the trades unions, and no political element was then introduced into it; and, therefore, those who then joined it did so in perfect innocence of its ultimate objects, which were even at that time well known to its foreign supporters. The explanation of that moderation was to be found in the language of one of their writers, which was to the following effect— We think that the founders of the International acted prudently in the first instance, when the Society refused to entertain political and religious questions; for the first object was to unite all the working classes in one common bond without alarming society. The 4th Article of the Association said that the Council General should sit in London, and should be composed of workmen representing the different nations which had joined the Association. The first president was Odger, the secretary was General Cremer, and the treasurer was Wheeler. So far, both in the names of its leaders, and its ostensible principles, the matter did not sound very-formidable. But this Society, which had started with these moderate views, soon after rapidly developed itself; for in a paper called Le Progrès de Siècle, published in January, 1870, it was said— What we require is liberty and equality for all—a social revolution. And by a social revolution we intend not a miserable surprise made in the dark, but our object is a revolution which shall uproot all our institutions. It is a night of the 4th of August, 1789, that we want. Let him show how the Society had worked. Only last week a M. Eugéne Dupont was arrested in Paris, to which he had gone secretly from this country. Now, that M. Eugéne Dupont was a member of the Commune, and also a member of the International Society. He should be able to show that those two associations were in reality one, and that the International Society, located in London, had given orders to the Commune to burn Paris, and to murder the Archbishop of that city. At the Congress held at Brussels, 1868, M. Eugéne Dupont said— The Revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were only revolutions of form, and not radical ones. We require the whole social question raised; we want no Governments, for Governments crush us with taxation; we want no armies, for armies massacre us; we want no religion, for religion stifles the intelligence. We are not Socialists on system; we are simply and purely Revolutionists. We appeal to the masses. Our principle, the rights of labour; our means of action, organization; our object, a social revolution. But the clearest exposition of the views of the Association was made at Geneva, July, 1869, when the Congress met under the presidency of the Russian Socialist, Bakounine. There it was said that— The International proclaims itself Atheist. It demands the abolition of all forms of worship; the institution of science for faith, and human for Divine justice; the abolition of marriage, and, above all, the abolition of the rights of inheritance. While the Volksstimme, the International organ at Vienna, wrote— For as the red flag is the symbol of universal love, let our enemies beware lest they turn it into the symbol of universal terror. Under the head of England, the same paper called England the cradle of the International, and said that the important centre was always in London; it was from London that the impulse was given; the Council General was the tree from which sprang all the ramifications of the sections and federations. M. Tolan, one of the defenders of the International, who was put on his trial in France, said he well knew it was generally believed that all its members were under one order; that in London, for instance, it was sufficient for the president to raise his finger to command obedience over the whole surface of the globe. In 1870, M. Eugene Dupont, Corresponding Secretary for France, wrote thus from the head centre, London, in the name of the Council— Although the revolutionary initiative should start from France, England alone can serve as a lever for a social economical revolution. England is the only country in which there exists really agricultural labourers, and where land is concentrated in comparatively a few hands. It is the only country where the contest of classes and the trade unions have acquired a certain maturity; it is the only country in which any important commercial change acts on the whole world. The English have all the materials essential for a social revolution; what they require is the revolutionary ardour. It is only the Council General that can give this, and accelerate the revolution in this country, and so over the world. The place where we can strike the great revolutionary blow is Ireland. Here, the position of the Association is quite clear. Our first object is to force on the revolution in England, and with this object we must strike a great blow in Ireland.—By order of the Council General of the International Association, the Corresponding Secretary for France, EUGENE DUPONT.—London, 1st January, 1870. Now, he concluded that the International Society had instigated the atrocities which were recently committed in Paris. He had in his hand a publication which had gone through several editions. It had been signed by all the officers of the General Council in London; and he presumed that it would be accepted as a manifesto declaring the objects, the feelings, and the principles of that Society. The manifesto, issued after Paris had been the scene of the horrors he had mentioned, was as follows:— CIVIL WAR IN FRANCE. ADDRESS OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKING MEN'S ASSOCIATION, 1871. In all its bloody triumphs over the self-sacrificing champions of a new and better society, that nefarious civilization, based upon the enslavement of labour, drowns the moans of its victims in a hue-and cry of calumny, reverberated by a worldwide echo. The serene working men's Paris of the Commune is suddenly changed into a pandemonium by the bloodhounds of 'order.' That was published in England, had been translated into every language on the Continent, and sold, he was sorry to believe, in tens of thousands. He now came to the execution by the Commune of the 64 hostages, with the Archbishop of Paris at their head. The manifesto proceeded— With regard to the execution by the Commune of the 64 hostages, headed by the Archbishop of Paris—when Thiers, as we have seen from the very beginning of the conflict, enforced the humane practice of shooting down the Communal prisoners, the Commune to protect their lives was obliged to resort to the Prussian practice of securing hostages. How could they be spared any longer after the carnage with which M'Mahon's Praetorians celebrated their entrance into Paris? Was even the last check upon the unscrupulous ferocity of bourgeois Governments—the taking of hostages—to be made a mere sham of? The real murderer of Archbishop Darboy is Thiers. He now came to the burning of Paris. The pamphlet, from which he was quoting that exposition of the objects and principles of the International Society, went on to say— In war, fire is an arm as legitimate as any. Buildings held by the enemy are shelled to set them on fire. If their defenders have to retire, they themselves light the flames to prevent the attack from making use of the buildings. To be burnt down has always been the inevitable fate of all buildings situated in the front of battle of all the regular armies of the world. But in the war of the enslaved against their enslavers—the only justifiable war in history—this is by no means to hold good. The Commune used fire strictly as a means of defence. They used it to stop up to the Versailles troops, those long, straight avenues which Haussmann had expressly opened to artillery fire; they used it to cover their retreat, in the same way as the Versaillese, in their advance, used their shells, which destroyed at least as many buildings as the fire of the Commune. It is a matter of dispute even now which buildings were set fire to by the defence, and which by the attack. And the defence resorted to fire only then, when the Versaillese troops had already commenced their wholesale murdering of prisoners. Besides, the Commune had, long before, given full public notice that, if driven to extremities, they would bury themselves under the ruins of Paris, and make Paris a second Moscow. That was the way in which the burning of Paris, and the murder of Archbishop Darboy and his fellow-victims, which sent a thrill of horror throughout the civilized world, were defended by persons, some of whom he regretted to say were Englishmen. Again, they said— After Whit Sunday, 1871, there can be neither peace nor truce possible between the working men of France and the appropriators of their produce. The iron hand of a mercenary soldiery may keep for a time both classes tied down in common oppression. But the battle must break out again and again in ever-growing dimensions, and there can be no doubt as to who will be the victor in the end—the appropriating few, or the immense working majority. And the French working class is only the advanced guard of the modern proletariate.…. Working men's Paris, with its Commune, will be for ever celebrated as the glorious harbinger of a new society. Its martyrs are enshrined in the great heart of the working class. Its exterminators history has already nailed to that eternal pillory from which all the prayers of their priests will not avail to redeem them. When all that proceeded from Englishmen, and was translated into French, Italian, and Spanish, and circulated far and wide, was it surprising that other countries asked us to do something to save them from that which might again produce bloodshed, misery, and ruin? He would read only the names of the English members of the General Council by whom the document from which he had quoted was signed. The first edition was signed by Mr. Odger and Mr. Lucraft; but he would do both of those Englishmen the justice to say that when they saw it in print they were ashamed of the document they had approved while it was in manuscript, and they withdrew their names from it. Mr. Odger, at Newcastle, repudiated it, and expressed his regret that he had signed it. Although Mr. Odger and Mr. Lucraft had withdrawn, the General Council still included several Englishmen, as would be seen from the following names:— M. T. Boon, Frederick Bradnick, G. H. Buttery, Caihil, Delahaye, William Hales, A. Herman, Kolb, Frederick Lessner, Lochner, T. P. Macdonnell, George Milner, Thomas Motters-head, Charles Mills, Charles Murray, Pfander, Roach, Rochat, Rühl, Sadler, A. Serraillier, Cowell Stepney, Alfred Taylor, and William Townshend, The following were the corresponding secretaries:— Eugene Dupont, for France; Karl Marx, for Germany and Holland; Frederick Engels, for Belgium and Spain; Hermann Jung, for Switzerland; P. Giovacchini, for Italy; Zévy Maurice, for Hungary; Anton Zabicki, for Poland; James Cohen, for Denmark; J. G. Eccarius, for the United States; Hermann Jung, chairman; John Weston, treasurer; George Harris, financial secretary, and John Hales, general secretary. Many more documents might be produced in support of the same views, but he would not detain the House. The language of M. Dufaure, in supporting a Bill directed against the International in the French Assembly, in describing the nature of the Society, however, was plain and full of significance. He said, in replying to the objection that "mere affiliation could not be a crime, although assemblage and subscriptions might be illegal"— That is a complete mistake. The wilful offence is an affiliation. I am asked where is the proof of the offence to be found? I have here a card, which the Assembly will permit me to read and explain; it is a card of the International. This card is delivered by the central committee in London, and it is signed by the six secretaries of that committee belonging to the various nationalities—Belgian, French, German, Spanish, English, and Swiss. It is delivered with a number to each member of the Internationale. Now, how is it that a great number of those unhappy men, who have been arrested in Paris or at their homes, and who have been sent before the Councils of War, have been found possessed of these cards? Does not the possession of such cards and memorandum books as we have heard of constitute a better proof of the offence than meetings which can be avoided? We hold that to be the crime. You affiliate yourself; you consent to accept this fatal card. It is accompanied by a small book, which sets forth the obligations you have undertaken. You, a Frenchman, accept engagements towards this society; you renounce your soul as a Frenchman. You become the servant and the slave of those who have signed your card, and you think that although you have agreed to that, we ought not to regard it as a crime—we who believe that the International Association is a permanent menace to European society. And, moreover, it should never be forgotten, in reference to the action of the International upon other countries, that there was a meeting held between the leaders of the International and the Commune before the burning of Paris; and in the decree of the Commune which commanded the destruction of the Column of the Place Vendôme, the approval of the International is signified. It was also noticeable that a man of extreme Republican opinions, such as Mazzini, was yet one of those strongly opposed to the International; but everyone knew—and even his strongest enemies were willing to admit—the high and irreproachable personal character of the man, just as everyone now admitted the same of Garibaldi. Well, Mazzini, who had long been known for his regard for the interests of the working man, published shortly before his death, in The Romadel Popolo, a long article addressed to the Italian workmen. He wrote— Now, from the natural movement of workmen has sprung up an Association which threatens to falsify this movement in its object, its conduct, and its spirit. I allude to the International. This Association, founded in London some years since—which I from the first refused to join—is governed by a Council. This International has exercised a predominant influence, especially at the period of the last insurrection in Paris. The principles laid down by the chiefs and the influential members of the International are the following:—1. The negation of God. 2. The negation of the country and of all nationality. 3. The negation of all rights of property. Let hon. Members remember that the centre of that Association was in London, and he could produce the publication in which these views were promulgated. The International judged that it could not permit this disavowal of the Society to pass unnoticed, and the eminent Russian, Bakounine, was charged with the reply. It was headed—"The Answer of the International to Mazzini." It commenced with recognizing the purity, the nobility, the greatness of Mazzini's life and character, "which, however," it adds, "was compatible with great errors." It continued— Unfortunately, the revolutionary programme of the Italian patriot contained one principle, essentially false, the belief in a God. Mazzini reproaches us with not believing in God; we reproach him, on the contrary, with his belief, or rather we do not reproach him, we deplore his error, for truly we can no longer be deceived; for under the banner of God, from Napoleon III. to Bismarck, from the Empress Eugenie to Queen Isabella, are arrayed all the emperors, all the sings, all the privileged classes, all the bloodsuckers of industry, of commerce, of the bank, all the police, all the gendarmes, the gaolers, the executioners, not to omit the priests—those black police over men's souls. Here behold the army of God. And arrayed in the opposite callings, what is there? We who deny God, the divine origin of kings, and the principle of authority, and who are by this fact the true believers in humanity and human freedom. It is not the first time that Mazzini has hurled his accusations, his injuries, his calumnies against us; and as the illustrious patriot has had the misfortune to place his acts, even the most revolutionary, under the protection of this fabled God, so that he has sacrificed to this belief the real emancipation of his dear Italy, is it surprising that he is indignant with us who turn our back on God? He calls us Materialists and Atheists, and he says well. And if a sentiment of pride is permitted to poor creatures who, like waves of the sea, rise to sink again into the great ocean of life, we are proud of the name, for Athenism and Materialism represent the truth, or rather the basis of all truth, and it is the truth we seek for, and nothing but the truth. The Divinity established on a celestial throne, has become the curse of humanity, the ally of tyrants, of imposters, of all the tormentors and robbers of the human race. He thought he had now said enough to prove to the House that it was not without cause that he had called their attention to the subject. We might smile at such bombastic nonsense, and say it meant nothing to us; but when these papers emanated from London, were translated, and circulated all over the Continent, was it surprising that foreign Governments should take alarm? Not only that, but it must, he thought, be borne in mind that the systematic spread of Atheism and Infidelity was no slight matter; and that although it might mean nothing to us now, still the day might come when we should bitterly regret that we had permitted such an infernal Society to exist in our midst. The feeling of foreign Governments as to our indifference—evinced by our repeated refusals to applications made on their part for assistance in putting the Society down—was his justification for bringing the matter forward, and good would have been done if he only succeded in eliciting from the Ministry a strong expression of sympathy with the countries who thought themselved menaced by the proceedings of the International. He would, to give the House an idea of the extent of the organization of the Society, further say that the estimate of the number of members in France alone reached 500,000, who paid a halfpenny each per week to a fund which amounted to £100,000 a-year; but he was unable to state the amount received from the 180,000 constituting the English contingent, but no doubt it was something considerable. Not very long ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, whether he would lay upon the Table the Correspondence which had passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government about the International? A month had elapsed since then, and although the right hon. Gentleman promised that it should be laid upon the Table, it had not yet been presented to the House.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD

said, the Correspondence was laid upon the Table last night.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

thought that under the circumstances the production of the Correspondence ought not to have been so long delayed.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD

said, it was in print, but he did not know whether it had been circulated or not.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

remarked, that however that might be he had been lucky enough to get it; but he had not got it from the noble Lord, to whom he owed nothing. He ought also to mention that he had only got the Spanish Minister's request, and not the reply of our Government. Senor de Blas, the Spanish Minister of State, said— Social order is menaced in its very foundations by the International, which breaks up all the traditions of humanity, erases from thought the very name of God, of the life of the family, and of inheritance; which also erases that of nations from the civilized world. Senor Blas added— To arrive at a satisfactory result, it is necessary that measures should be taken by common 'accord.' This accord is required by the very nature of the Association, from its character of universality. To put down the evil, it is necessary that all Governments labour to the same end; all are equally interested. It is, therefore, to be hoped that in view of the gravity of the circumstances every State will benevolently and sympathetically lend its aid to the work of defence against the International. He should like to know what answer was made by Her Majesty's Government to that appeal. It was only received about two months ago, and although we might treat the subject with indifference, it was clear that politicians on the Continent did not, and it was no wonder that the Journal des Délats should say— We shall see with infinite satisfaction our Government entering into negotiations with foreign States to modify the International principles of extradition. It is repugnant to us to see Vermuth, Gaillard, and our worst criminals welcomed in London. To show how the operations of the Society were spreading, he would quote a resolution forwarded to the secretary of the International, by the Republican Club at Taunton, It was in the following terms:— The members of the Taunton Republican Club beg to express their deep gratitude for your great and unvarying kindness for the noble army of martyrs, the French Communist refugees, and beg to express their sympathy with the glorious objects and aspirations of the International. Another indication of the growth of the Society was the fact that it had just started a newspaper, which announced that the time had arrived for unanimity on the part of the useful classes; and that it ought to be made known to the noblemen, usurers, generals, bishops, admirals, lawyers, and those kind of people who composed our Parliament, that the people, the real wealth-makers of England, were tired of all their jobberies and crimes, and that it was time for them to make way for the rule of the people by the people for the people. The article he had just cited concluded—"Organize, Organize, Organize!" No doubt such language might seem sufficiently absurd, but it was capable of working very disastrous effects. The police in Germany were using every means to follow the traces of this International, in presence of these audacious resolutions of the Socialistic Congress. Further hesitation was impossible. The men had thrown down the gauntlet to all human civilization, and the last resolution of this Congress of democrats was to proclaim that it is the sacred duty of all workmen to become members of the revolutionary propaganda, with the avowed object of sapping the foundations of all society. He had studied this question carefully, and was deeply impressed with the conviction that, even if the Society were unimportant at the present moment, an Association which desired to abolish marriage, denied God, and all right of property, and preached assassination, ought to be vigorously denounced by every honest man. Some consideration also ought to be shown to other countries; and it had been well said that we could not, and that we ought not, to shut ourselves out from all external relations with the outer world. Last evening, when Earl Granville announced that every facility would be given to Englishmen to visit France, he said that the abolition of passports was a proof of the kind feeling of France towards this country; but when publications such as he had quoted were allowed to appear in England, it could hardly be a matter of astonishment that Frenchmen should be pained and distressed by the attitude of the Imperial Parliament. He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would, in his reply, speak so as to show foreign countries the good feelings England entertained for them in this matter, even if he could not promise to take steps for the suppression of the Society; and that his answer would be one satisfactory to all who loved their homes and who venerated the Constitution under which they lived.

DR. BREWER

said, he thought that on reflection the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. B. Cochrane) would see that his speech was not founded on sound policy, for nothing was more prejudicial to the authority of a Government than an attempt to put down the exercise of the right of free expression of opinion, unless that expression of opinion were supplemented by an overt act of treason. In this country, Republican opinions were held only by a miserable minority; and he had yet to learn that there was any chance, by the action of any Government, of stifling or suppressing the free expression of opinions held by any minority, however constituted, of our fellow-countrymen. Moreover, if they were those of the majority the action of the Government would be altogether altered. But they were little more than playthings; and the great desire of the Republican minority was precisely that which had been accomplished through the instrumentality of the hon. Gentleman. All they wanted was publicity, and by denouncing them in the House of Commons more was done for them than could be effected through the papers which the hon. Gentleman had been reprobating with so much indignation. The only possible way of putting down principles of this kind was by a policy suited to the age, and, above all, by progressing in national education, which could alone correct those excesses into which liberty was apt to degenerate. He bitterly regretted that such a debate should have been inaugurated, for there had always been a great distinction made by the wisest in this country between an agreement to commit an offence and the offence itself, and he regretted that a course should have been taken in the present instance which would only serve to add fuel to a fire which otherwise would die a natural death.

MR. EASTWICK

said, he thought it was evident that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had not studied the subject, or read the writings of the Internationalists, for if he had he would never have used towards them the word "Republican." In fact, the distinctive principle of the Association was, that there should be no such things as Republics or States at all. He also entirely differed from him as to its importance, although he saw that M. Louis Blanc the other day, as well as the Government in their reply to the Spanish Minister, seemed to treat the question as being of little consequence. He wished, however, to state, in a few brief words, his reasons for supporting the Motion of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. B. Cochrane), and he was glad that that hon. Gentleman had brought the subject under the notice of the House. He (Mr. Eastwick) was sure that he valued as much as any man the fact that this country had been for centuries a safe asylum for the victims of religious and political persecution, and he was glad to remember that at various epochs of our history England had derived great advantages from the immigration of a considerable industrial population flying from the severity of foreign Governments, who met with a kind reception here. He need only mention the influx of the Flemings in 1570, and the 50,000 refugees who came from France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. He rejoiced, therefore, that political exiles should here breathe the fresh air of liberty, and have accorded to them, if they desired it, all the rights of citizenship. But to quote a maxim which had been mentioned by the Communists, with as much respect as it was in their nature to feel for anything—"There are no rights without duties, as there are no duties without rights." Now, if political refugees were to enjoy all the rights of free citizenship in this country, it seemed to him to be their duty to respect the laws, and acquiesce in the order of things established here, with which Englishmen were content. More than that, he thought it their duty not to commit acts which must certainly exasperate our neighbours, and end by embroiling us in war. Now, let the House see how far that duty was recognized by the members of the International. He passsd over the sayings and writings of some of the least violent fanatics, who would certainly be soon cleared out of the way by the real leaders of the party, and he would take the principles avowed by Michel Bakounine, by Malon and Schwitzguebel. These men were the true leaders of the International, and they would carry through their work without pity and without remorse, or perish in the attempt. Let them hear Bakounine first. He said— The business of the International is eminently political; but only in the sense of the destruction of all that is political by the abolition of States. For the complete realization of its work, it must destroy all existing institutions—State, Church, forum, banks, Universities, Government, armies, and police—these being only so many fortresses raised by privilege against the proletariat. We must overturn these institutions throughout the world. He tells us that to obtain these ends the masses must be organized— To subvert an order of things which they detest, and crush to atoms all military and civil opposition. He took the above quotation from The People's Almanack for 1872, published by the Communist leaders, which also contained an article denouncing the Bible and Christianity. Malon, in his Third Defeat of the French Proletariat, said— There is nothing in common between the Liberalism of the bourgeois and the Socialism of the workmen. What is it to us whether a Thiers, a Gambetta, a Jules Favre, or a Louis Blanc be in power? Our business is especially in the Propaganda. We shall not make a bloody war unless we are forced; but we shall pursue the struggle for the overthrow of society by strikes and combinations, until our final victory. But as in every depth there was a lower deep, so was it also with the Commune. The writings which he had cited were put forth in decent language for the sake of the Propaganda, and were meant for ears polite. It was the music and singing before the Temple of Jagannath; but in the gloom within sat the filthy idol—monstrous, bloody, obscene. He held in his hands a number of the modern Père Duchèsne, printed last year, and bearing the date 23 Germinal, an 79, whatever that might be, for it was not worth calculating. Here they had the veritable Commune; here was the workmen's god, who was to reveal himself to all when the knife and the cannon had cleared the way for the new Avatar. He had heard it said that this infamous production of a band of miscreants was printed in London. That was matter for inquiry. If it were so he supposed our course was plain; we could not have one law for Holywell Street, and another for the protegés of Mr. Frederick Harrison. The Pére Duchèsne must remove his quarters to Newgate or Broadmoor, whichever might be thought most suitable for his crimes, for there could be no doubt as to what should be done with publications which outraged all sense of decency. But the more serious question remained—were we to allow the masses to be indoctrinated with crime and treason, and organized to attack society and overturn all government? It might be said that Englishmen were too wise to listen to these doctrines, and that even the most ignorant and debased would shun ces reptiles venimeux, as they were styled by their own countrymen. Well, he thought it was a matter for calm consideration how far we might allow these incendiaries to go on with their work, knowing that they would some day try to burn London, as they tried to burn Paris; knowing that one of them—Cluseret—in a time of riot here, offered to put himself at the head of a civil war. But he wished to know if we were indifferent to what these men could do against ourselves, whether we were justified in allowing them to organize bloody insurrections against the Governments of our allies? Were we to persevere in telling France and Prussia that we would keep these men among us, free to arrange combinations for the overthrow of the Governments of those countries? Would Her Majesty's Ministers, who had just accepted it as a duty not to allow an armed vessel to be equipped here, if it were suspected to be intended to take part in a war between our allies—would they permit open war—including assassination, perhaps—to be levied and arranged in London against all countries and Governments? If they had determined to accept that responsibility, let them declare it, in order that the nation might know the fact, and decide whether it, too, was prepared to incur civil and foreign war in such a cause. What did the Government say in reply to the Spanish Ambassador? Simply that they— Not only regretted, but highly condemned, any attempts on the part of foreign refugees in England to incite insurrection against the Governments of their respective countries. Now, such milk-and-water language as that was, in his opinion, more calculated to excite hostility among foreign nations than to soothe their feelings; and he, therefore, hoped they would hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department some indication of measures that would sweep away this monstrous and detestable Association.

MR. FAWCETT

said, that he had devoted considerable attention to the subject under notice, and that to him it seemed to have been lost sight of during this debate that the International filled two functions. Its first was political, the second social and economical; and he believed the latter function to be far the most important of the two, and deserving more attentive consideration. With regard to the political aims and views of the International, he had a right to assume that neither the present Government nor any Government which could exist for an hour, would think of going in the slightest degree beyond the law to suppress an organization because it might happen to hold political opinions with which the majority of the country disagreed. If it could be shown that the members of the International had done illegal acts they might be punished; if it could be shown that they had published works of an indecent character, which came within the provisions of Lord Cambell's Act, let them be punished; but he must object to the introduction, by implication, in reference to indecent publications of the name of a gentleman who, whatever his political opinions might be, was a man of high honour and great cultivation—he meant Mr. Frederick Harrison. He wished, as an intimate friend of that gentleman, to repudiate the slightest insinuation which could be cast upon his honour and his delicacy of feeling. He thought he had a right to assume that the Government would be strong enough, if they found that the members of the International had done an illegal act, to pursue the same course which they would adopt with respect to any other person guilty of illegal acts, irrespective of their political opinions. But anyone who had studied the organization of the International must come to this conclusion—that it was an organization which had most important social and economic aims; and that was the point which he asked the House to consider. The International was undoubtedly a certain phase of economic and social force which was now prevalent among the working classes in this country. He had been told that the International had not many members in England—that it did not number more than 90,000. But whether it numbered 90,000 or 190,000, or more than that, it would not in his mind detract from its importance. He believed that the opinions held by the International represented certain ideas prevalent among the working classes, and unless these views could be resisted, they were likely to produce incalculable mischief throughout the country. If they wanted to encourage those opinions and propagate them, what would they do? If they attempted to suppress them by law, they would give them a false and factitious importance; but if, on the other hand, they wished to suppress or discourage them, let them trace calmly, dispassionately, and in a kind spirit, the causes which had given them birth. He would endeavour to show the social and economic ideas which were at the bottom of this International organization. Their growth was not so strange a phenomenon as might at first sight appear. A quarter-of-a-century ago certain ideas were prevalent in this country. From a thousand platforms the working men were taught to look for their social and economic regeneration in an increase in the production of wealth; and they were assured by every-day orators that if they extended the railway system, introduced free trade, and increased our imports and exports, in the course of a few years the lot of every workman would be different, that pauperism would be extinct, and that the age of gold and plenty would come to the labourer. Well, for 25 years there had been an unprecedented increase of wealth, our imports and exports had increased far beyond the expectations of the most sanguine, and yet what was to found? Why, they found that pauperism was not extinct, and that as the country became more wealthy the gulf between the rich and the poor widened, and the day was as remote as ever when plenty would be brought to the door of the struggling working man. What was more natural than, when the working men found these predictions falsified, that there should be a re-action? What was more natural than that there should be a re-action against the ideas which were prevalent a quarter-of-a-century ago; that they should look about for new remedies; that having lost faith in the old nostrums they should seek for other means of lessening that misery and poverty and pauperism which everyone deplored? A quarter-of-a-century ago Socialism assumed a certain form of development, but there was a most fundamental distinction between the Socialism then prevalent and the Socialism which was now the characteristic of the International. Twenty-five years ago Socialism was the combined effort of individuals urged on by visionary enthusiasts, and if the schemes they proposed failed, no one but themselves suffered; but with respect to the Socialism of the International, it was found that having lost faith in the old remedies they thought that their regeneration was to be worked by reliance on State help and appeals for State money. A letter recently published by the secretary of the London branch of the International set forth distinctly the programme of the Society. Their first article was that the State should buy up all the land and all instruments of production, and let them at a reasonable price to the people. The second article was that the State should regulate the hours of labour; the third article was that the State should provide gratuitous education; the fourth article was that the State should lend capital to co-operative associations. And then, as a coping stone of the edifice of State intervention, it was proposed that the whole Revenue of the country should be raised by a graduated tax upon property. It might be stated that that programme was so unsound that there was no chance of its producing any mischief. He believed that there was very grave danger that these doctrines might assume, and actually were assuming, increased significance in this country, for no attentive observer could fail to remark that the demands for State intervention were rapidly enlarging and acquiring more serious proportions. Why did he say that he apprehended danger from these economic doctrines? In the first place, he feared that they might get a false and unnatural importance from unwise attempts to suppress them. And next, he feared that the tendency that was shown by the working classes to rely upon State intervention might at any moment, and was at the present time, receiving a powerful stimulus from politicians anxious to obtain popularity, and from Ministers and ex-Ministers trying either to gain or to retain place. It was said that the ideas of the members of the International were absurd autumn some tribune of the people But what did they find? Why, every was found going to Lancashire or Yorkshire, and deluding the working classes by telling them that it was the duty of the State to regulate the hours of labour. He also found a powerful section telling the people that it was not the duty of parents to pay for the education of their children whom they had brought into the world, but that the State ought to find them gratuitous education. Looking to higher and more influential quarters, what was the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year but one embodying the first principles of the International? What did the right hon. Gentleman then teach the people? He told them that if they wished for additional expenditure to carry out their views they were not to pay for it, but that it was to be paid by a limited class, and paid solely by a tax imposed on property. That was the view of the International. What did an ex-Cabinet Minister, the right hon. Member for Droitwich, say in his address as President to the Social Science Institute? Every working man who heard him went away from the hall with the belief that he had the authority of an ex-Conservative Cabinet Minister for the opinion that it was the duty of the State to provide the working classes with comfortable homes and wholesome food at reasonable rates. Knowing that these things took place, he believed the danger to be greater than it was supposed to be. Let them take up the measures that were introduced in any Session, and it would be found that many of them were vitiated by this fatal mistake—that they encouraged the working classes not to rely on their own feelings of self-dependence, but only on the State for ameliorating their condition. The more firmly and strongly that feeling was resisted, the better would it be for the future of this country. But it might be said, you object to the programme of the International, yet you admit that there are great evils to be remedied; and no one could be more convinced of the unsatisfactory condition of England in many respects than himself. Nothing deserved more serious attention than this fact—that as the wealth of the country increased the greater and deeper was the separation between the very rich and the very poor. We had a great load of pauperism and great misery. All these facts he was as fully prepared to admit as anyone. Were we content to remain satisfied with the state of things which existed? He was as anxious as anyone to see the state of things improved; but what he wished particularly to impress upon the House was this—If the working men in this country were taught to rely more upon the State, the only result would be that soon all that was bad in the country would become still worse. Our effort should be directed in entirely a different direction. We should do anything in our power to induce working men to rely on their own efforts and their own independence. He believed that much might be done in that direction. He believed that the Poor Law, charities, and endowments, as they had been administered bad done much to demoralize the people. In all these instances we had committed this mistake—that the bounty of the State, and of charities, and of individuals, had done most not for those who desired to help themselves, but for those who had done the least to protect themselves against the consequence of improvidence and imprudence. If he were to go step by step into the economic programme of the International, he believed he would not have much difficulty in showing, even the working men themselves, that if their ideas could be realized the only result would be to intensify the misery which it was sought to mitigate. With regard to the first article of their programme, to which the members of the International attached grave importance—namely, what was called the nationalization of land, he had held frequent communication with some of the leading members of the Society, and, after a great deal of trouble, had arrived at the idea of what they meant by that term. He wished the House to bear in mind that those doctrines to which he referred had obtained the enthusiastic support of tens and hundreds of thousands of working men in this country. They proposed that the State should buy up all the land and all the other instruments of industrial production at the present prices, and they thought that if they did so the people would be able to obtain land and those instruments at a cheaper rate. Now, a high financial authority had calculated that if the land of this country was bought, it would require something like £4,500,000,000. To raise such a loan as that it might be fairly assumed that the rate of interest would rise. If it rose only to 4½ per cent, the interest would represent £200,000,000 a-year. Now, if the land were let at its present price, it would only realize £150,000,000 a-year. Therefore, to begin with, as the result of that transaction there would be a loss to the nation of £50,000,000 a-year. But here we only begin to get into the difficulties of the question. There would be a loss of £50,000,000 a-year, supposing exactly the same price was charged as was now charged for the land. But if the same rent was charged as was then charged, why, of course, the people would be exactly in the same position as now, except that they would have lost £50,000,000 a-year by the transaction. They said that that was not the intention. They said that they wanted to put land and houses at a reasonable rent. Well, the more the rents were reduced, the greater would be the deficiency to be made up, and the greater the burden thrown on the resources of the country. But even admitting that the deficiency could be made up, see what difficulties would be produced. Supposing the State had the land, and was going to let it at less than its present value, who would be the favoured persons who would have the land in a favourable situation close to large towns, and who would be relegated to the moors of Yorkshire or the barren heaths of Devonshire? It was obvious that the only difference would be that in the end there would be brought into operation exactly the same force of competition, and that there would be placed in the hands of the Government an enormous and unprecedented power of political patronage—a power of rewarding supporters and of punishing opponents; and under such blighting influences England would not exist even for one generation. He believed that if he could go through the whole of the programme of the International, he could show that it would produce equally mischievous results. It was scarcely necessary to point out the mischief that would be caused by the Legislature dealing with the hours of labour. He was as much in favour of the Legislature regulating the hours of the labour of children as anyone, because children could not protect themselves; but if the Legislature was going to treat grown-up men as children, where was the interference to stop? In that case we should have the State meddling in every home, and life would become intolerable. Again, to educate children gratuitously would work most disastrously, because it would destroy all parental control on the one hand, and filial obligation on the other; and the people themselves would utterly neglect one of the first duties which they owed to their offspring. In like manner to lend State capital to co-operative institutions or other forms of social industry would be most injurious. They had seen that experiment tried in Trance. Many co-operative institutions had achieved remarkable success in Paris, but in no single instance, he believed, had a society succeeded which obtained loans from the State. Those societies alone succeeded which laid their roots deeply, strongly, and firmly in the soil of national development. In this country, too, when other people had interfered, such societies had generally failed, and those societies had attained the greatest success which workmen managed for themselves. If extraneous aid was brought in, the sentiment of self-reliance was lost, and in a few years there was inevitable failure; and that would be infinitely more the case if the industrial societies started by workmen felt that they could draw on the unlimited coffers of the State—those coffers being supplied, as they were to a certain extent last year, by a tax levied solely on the owners of property. Now, he believed that the remedies for the social and economic fallacies which prevailed among workmen were very evident. In the first place, what he had said afforded a strong illustration of how greatly the whole country was interested in the people receiving a sound and thorough education. But if he was asked how these particular arguments were best to be met, he would say by moral force only, for he had argued that question with workmen themselves, and he found that they did not respect a man the less for boldly speaking out his differences of opinion with them on that question. They were open to argument, and certainly appreciated anything like kindly sympathy. On the one hand, he felt perfectly certain that, if they wished to give the opinions to which he had referred an unnatural development, they could not do so more effectually than by straining the law in a vain endeavour to suppress them. While, on the other hand, he was of opinion that if they did not calmly reason with such persons, but turned upon them weapons of abuse, those weapons would, sooner or later, inevitably recoil with disastrous effect upon those who employed them.

MR. BRUCE

said, he would not join with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer), who had condemned his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. B. Cochrane) for bringing this subject forward. If he were disposed to find fault with his hon. Friend, it would rather be for having painted only the darker side of the doctrines of that Society of which the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had given the complete picture. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight had insisted specially on those doctrines which led to the abrogation of the laws of marriage and the destruction of religion; but he would ask his hon. Friend, sensible as he had shown himself to the utmost of the virtues of his countrymen, whether he thought that it was on account of these doctrines that the International Society had gained its present hold in this country, or whether it was not rather for those economic reasons which had been mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton? But before going further, he wished to allude to this point, how far those doctrines had taken root in this country, as well as could be judged by the number of members of the International. Now, the hon. Member for Brighton had put the number at 90,000, while the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight had reached 180,000; but he (Mr. Bruce) considered that in arriving at what was the correct number a great deal would depend on what was considered as membership. If they included all the trades unions which had joined the International for the immediate purposes of trade, and without entertaining any of those terrible opinions to which his hon. Friend had adverted, the number of members would far exceed the largest estimate which had been made that evening, for from inquiries he had instituted be believed that it would probably exceed 600,000. But that meant the societies taken collectively, and not individual members who had joined the International. Now, what was the actual number of members of the Society who might be supposed to entertain more or less the opinions to which his hon. Friend had called attention? On that point he had the most authoritative evidence. His hon. Friend, in reading the address of the International Society to the Communists of Paris, mentioned, among others, the name of John Hales, who was at that time secretary of the international, and had from the first taken a very prominent part in its affairs. Mr. Hales entered some time ago into a controversy with two of the leading Republicans of this country, Mr. Brad-laugh and Mr. Wade, in which he said—"I can prove that the International has more than 8,000 bonâ fide members in England who have paid subscriptions." That was the statement of a man not desirous certainly to underrate the importance of the Society of which he was secretary. And now he would refer for a moment to the larger numbers which he had before mentioned, and which had caused alarm in some minds. Ever since the publication of the documents to which his hon. Friend alluded, the number of trades unions connected with the International was stated on good evidence to have decreased. These trades anions had, it was notorious, joined the International for purposes most intimately connected with the policy of their own societies. What were they constantly accused of doing? By their constant strikes, of driving capital from this country and of obliging it to seek employment in parts of Europe where labour was cheaper. But one of the great objects of trades unions was to unite in one common bond all the working men of Europe, in order that the rate of wages night be as high on the Continent as in his country, and that capital might lave little to choose between the one and the other. Again, when strikes occurred in this country, one of the first efforts of the masters was directed to introduce foreign labour. But it was Dart of the policy of the trades unions to unite with similar bodies abroad, in order to defeat that attempt. Those, as his hon. Friend would admit, were comparatively, if not entirely, innocent objects, which the working men of this country had a right, if they thought proper, to pursue; and it was his firm belief, and, he thought, the belief of everyone who had thought on the subject, that the men who in their corporate capacity had joined the International by no means entertained the dangerous, social, and religious opinions justly attributed to it, nor even the economic fallacies which his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton had so powerfully argued against that evening. His hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight, having shown how dangerous was the propagation of the doctrines of the International, and having pointed out that the Central Committee resided in London, asked the Government what steps it had taken to prevent danger to this country and to other countries on the Continent. He would not for a moment insist that the doctrines of the International were not of a dangerous tendency. They were the growth of a soil richer in economic and political fallacies and in speculative enthusiasts of all descriptions than England had ever been. In the accounts of those Congresses, however, which had been held abroad, it would be observed that the English section which had attended had been taunted for their incapacity to hold enlarged and general ideas, and for their narrow adhesion to trade interests instead of adopting large cosmopolitan views. It was certain, at the same time, that the members of the International had established themselves here, because they knew that greater freedom existed in this country than in others, and therefore that there was greater impunity for the declaration of opinions. But while he was not at all disposed to underrate the mischievous character of the Society, he thought, so far as this country was concerned, that it was not by measures of repression and by forcing these people to join in secret societies that dangerous ideas could be put down. His hon. Friend had said—"What is the use of education, when thousand of papers like this are disseminated among the people?" His answer was, that education was not only the best, but that, in combination with a sound religious teaching, it was the only thing to prevent the spread of such doctrines. The Government of France had lately passed a law which involved in one common censure the acts of societies like the International and the proceedings of societies like our trades unions. It was not for us to censure them for doing so, and we should remember that France was exposed to dangers far greater than any we incurred, and that they were the best judges of the course they should pursue. The hon. Gentleman who brought the subject forward and the hon. Member for Penrhyn (Mr. Eastwick) seemed to consider it the duty of the Government, either to enforce the existing law against the projectors of dangerous opinions, or else to strengthen the law. He (Mr. Bruce), however, was convinced that any attempt to put down the International Society by any means having the least appearance of force, would be far more disastrous than the evils arising from a permission to discuss its doctrines freely; and he further believed that the existing laws of this country were amply sufficient to check any unlawful and extravagant consequences that might arise from their so doing. This country was not only a land of liberty, but a land of order; and if its own subjects—or if foreigners, to whom we had given a generous hospitality—were to abuse their position either by conspiring against the State, or by making this country the basis of their operations against other countries, there were laws which would be enforced against them. Whenever sufficient evidence was given of such designs, there would be no want of readiness to apply those laws; but he was also bound to say that, while he knew of the existence of these dangerous opinions, he was unable to discover anything which had been done by those who held them to bring them within the reach of the law. He was, therefore, satisfied that the best method that could be pursued was that suggested by the hon. Member for Brighton, and that when this debate was read by the working men of this country it would have some influence in combating the opinions which had been referred to. It was by arguments of the sort that had been used, and not by denunciations, however just in themselves, that we could hope to eradicate doctrines which, if allowed to spread, might become dangerous. Reference had been made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) to the Correspondence between the Court of Spain and Lord Granville, and it had been stated that the language used in that Correspondence was not worthy of the occasion. That Correspondence, however, was now before the House, and would, no doubt, be read by hon. Members to-morrow; and when it was read, he believed that in the opinion of hon. Members on every side of the House the answer given by Lord Granville to the appeal of the Spanish Minister would be admitted to be, not only the best, but the only answer which any English Minister could possibly make on such a subject.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he understood that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), in his (Sir John Pakington's) absence, had referred to an opinion alleged to have been expressed by him in an address delivered in the North of England last autumn to the effect that Parliament ought to provide the working classes of this country with better food and better dwellings. He (Sir John Pakington) said he should be very sorry if it were to go forth that he had ever committed himself to an opinion which he held to be so erroneous. What he had said on the occasion referred to, and what he now said, was that two of the most serious disadvantages from which the labouring classes of this country suffered, were the want of obtaining better food upon more reasonable terms, and the want of being able to obtain better dwellings for more reasonable rents. If Parliament, therefore, by any legislation could in a legitimate manner facilitate those important objects, he knew few purposes to which legislation could be better applied; but he never entertained any idea so erroneous as that it was the province or duty of the Government or Parliament, or that it would be otherwise than most dangerous for them to endeavour to provide these things themselves.

MR. EASTWICK

said, he also wished to correct another misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member for Brighton. In the course of his speech, he (Mr. Eastwick) had spoken of the protegés of Mr. Frederick Harrison, to distinguish the French Communists and other foreigners—to whom he meant his remarks to apply—from British workmen, members of the International. He did not believe that the latter would endorse the odious doctrines he had condemned, and therefore he did not refer to them at all.