ment of policy as the enunciation of a kind of religious belief. A statement of policy is a humdrum affair, and, moreover, requires explanation and argument, whereas religion requires neither; it is a matter of faith, not of argument. Thus, Mr. Thomas in the opening chapter asserts positively that although "there is nothing Utopian in his vision," the only subjects for discontent in England when Labour's rule is established will be the weather, the state of the crops and dyspepsia," but no man will have occasion to protest against the conditions under which he is expected to live," and every man will have "an opportunity to improve his lot if he wishes to do so. There will be no profiteers, no unemployment, no slums, no hungry children," no excessive number of hours, no shirking of work, no "right to live upon the accumulated wealth of another," and the right to the best education and to the "higher civil service' will be secured to all. These promises are followed by a picture of a nationalized England of which it is enough to say that it is a description of the Millennium. He tells us that all this will not happen immediately on Labour's accession to office, but it is clear that he thinks this new world order is realizable in the comparatively near future.

The first question which must occur to anyone on reading this is: "Is the man who wrote it serious?" It seems incredible, unless we take into account the psychology of the Labour leader. There are multitudes in the ranks of Labour who are well-educated, clear-thinking men and possess an adequate knowledge of history, without which no man is fit for public life; but few of these come to the front. Most of the actual leaders are very different; their outlook on life has never been broadened by study or knowledge of the world, they have been brought up with one idea -the superiority of Labour (whatever that term may mean) to anything else in the world; they think they have got hold of some new thing in the wretched hotchpotch of Socialistic theories which forms their intellectual equipment, that it is only prejudice and vested interests which oppose them, and above all they suffer from that fatal drugging of the mind which comes from continual speechmaking, theorizing, avoidance of facts because they are awkward, sentimentality, and in general playing to the gallery. A few years of such life turns a naturally honest man into one who is simply incapable of discerning truth from falsehood or reality from sham, and these leaders are also peculiarly susceptible to the vanity which such a life engenders. The public have hitherto supposed Mr. Thomas to be a leader of a different

type from this, but he appears to have succumbed to the same demoralizing influences. Otherwise he could not state in cold print his deliberate opinion that the regeneration of the world could be brought about by the return to power of the political party to which he belongs. But at the same time such a statement explains a good deal; it explains the absence of reasoning and of argument in the book, for clearly the regeneration of the world is a moral rather than an economic or political process, and will be effected by ideas rather than by legislation. Nothing is more curious than the kind of mysticism which pervades the writings and speeches of many Labour leaders. There is an inherent virtue in "Labour" which renders it capable of regenerating the world because it is not actuated by the base motives of other human institutions. Mr. Smillie, with some lack of humour, also informs us that he set out some years ago to regenerate the world; and precisely the same idea of regeneration through Labour domination may be seen in Russian Bolshevism. In reality, if people would only realize it, the goal of Mr. Thomas and of Lenin is identical, the differences between them are merely in method; both have evolved a new religion, the worship of Labour, and that is the reason why it is as useless to argue with them by reference to hard facts, to the science of political economy or to history, as it would be to argue on the same lines with any other religious fanatic.

The impression that Mr. Thomas's book is really a religious work is increased by Chapter II, entitled "The Right to Work and the Right to Rest," which, we are told, "should be the common heritage of humanity." This phrase is typical demagogy. It is intended to convey the impression not only that when Labour rules every man will be granted the right to work and the right to an old age pension at sixty, but that humanity has a natural and inalienable right to these things, of which it has been deprived by an iniquitous Capitalist system. If such a right exists, the working man is under the present system grossly wronged, and he has a right to tear down this system. Thus is "the divine gospel of discontent" preached. But there can be no such thing as a right unless the power exists to grant it. An honest man, who was foolish enough to utter this meaningless phrase, would endeavour to show by facts and figures the possibility of carrying out such a policy, but no man who combined honesty with modesty, knowledge and a sense of humour would assert positively that this stupendous economic and industrial problem could

be solved at all. The utmost he would do would be to indicate in what manner the attempt should be made. Will it be believed that the only ray of light, if it can be called such, shed by Mr. Thomas on this matter is the information that the rich will be so heavily taxed in order to effect it that they will be compelled to work? The problem of unemployment is thus to be solved by adding to the labour market all those who do not belong to the salaried or wageearning classes, and the additional revenue is to be obtained, as we shall find later on, by imposing a greatly increased super-tax and death duties as well as a capital levy. That this will ultimately dry up the sources of revenue must be clear even to Mr. Thomas, for if every man's income is reduced to the level which will compel him either to work or starve, there will obviously be no more super-tax or death duties to receive. How the necessary revenue will then be obtained he does not tell us; but apparently this confiscatory taxation is to be accompanied by the Nationalization of Shipping, Mining, Engineering, Land, Transport, Liquor Traffic, Heat, Light and Power, Industrial Insurance, Canals and Harbours, which will not only give a considerable impetus to industry, but the individual as well as the public purse will feel a remarkable benefit." Why this benefit should result is of course unexplained, but, astonishing as it may seem, we are told that all these changes "will not have the effect of displacing the capitalists in favour of the workers as the privileged class," and he even devotes some space to proving that a capital levy will hit the capitalist less than the excess profits duty, and that the employer of labour will find his best friend in the Labour Party. Now, this is plainly nonsense. If every rich man's income is to be reduced to the level which will compel him to work, there can be no difference between the capitalist and the worker. All are on the same level. This is Communism; and the sole difference between Lenin's Communism and that of Mr. Thomas is that the first effects it by massacre and organized starvation, and the latter legalized robbery.

After this brilliant attempt at clear thinking, our author indulges in a brief rhapsody on the history of Trade Unionism, the striking success of which leads him to conclude that "not only is Labour fit to govern, but the needs of the country demand that it shall govern... . the old political parties are empty of ideas. . . . The Labour Party is ready and willing to open the door. way into an era of progress and sanity." The history of

and lead the

an institution, Trade Unionism, which once served a beneficent purpose, but a large part of which has now become, under leaders of the type of Mr. Thomas, one of the greatest dangers to society and one of the principal causes of mental darkness and of industrial stagnation, is thus represented as a justification of the most exaggerated hopes. Again, it is interesting to note the almost religious phraseology in which the coming era is referred to, and we need not be surprised to find ourselves, on reading further, in the realm of miracles and of superhuman agency, where mere mundane facts and figures are of no account.

66

፡፡

We are next favoured with a description of Labour's - relations to the Constitution. Naturally, the Monarchy forms the first subject for consideration. Everybody will be delighted to learn that the King is not to share the fate of the Czar of Russia." With feelings of genuine relief we go on to read that "loyalty to the King . is more a religious than a political attitude." Mr. Thomas's attitude to everything is more religious than political, but it is evident that the word has a different meaning to him than it has to most other people, because he adds significantly that so long as the King adopts a constitutional attitude the question of Republic versus Monarchy will not arise.' The religious attitude kindly assumed by Labour to the Monarchy is therefore dependent on the King adopting a course which it is pleased to consider constitutional. After all, says our author, "if he fails to perform his duties he can be brought to book," and "what he may lack in the way of personal endowments is largely compensated for by a strict and severe training." He is also surrounded "by skilled and well-qualified advisers." He can, therefore, do no great harm, and so long as he is a popular figure he may as well be kept. Such is the religious veneration of Labour for Monarchy! It is to be hoped that all those who believe that Monarchy is not a sentiment or a tradition but a principle will take due note of the loyalty and "religious attitude" of this "moderate" Labour leader towards the Sovereign. Labour, while prepared to put up with an hereditary Monarchy, is, of course, not prepared to countenance an hereditary Upper Chamber. Mr. Thomas need hardly have told us this. No person in his senses could suppose that Communism is compatible with either Monarchy or aristocracy in any shape or form. Nor are we surprised to learn that he "has failed to discover any evidence that the House of Lords represents aristocracy of brain.' We are then treated to an attack on the Second Chamber.

First of all he says that the troubles of the Peers are of their own making, and he instances their attitude to the first Lloyd George Budget and to the Home Rule Bill. Of all instances these would really seem the most unfortunate that Mr. Thomas could have chosen to prove his point. The opposition of the Peers to the Land Clauses of the Lloyd George Budget has been overwhelmingly vindicated by the fact that events have proved them to be unworkable and they have been dropped. Incidentally they were the chief cause of the lack of houses from which Labour is suffering to-day. As to Home Rule, the attitude of the Peers prevented civil war in Ireland. Surely Mr. Thomas is hardly wise to remind Labour that the outcry against the House of Lords is based upon two of the greatest services that House ever performed for the nation! He further stultifies himself by stating that "it is a curious and ironic fact that during the war "the real guardians of the people's liberties were to be found in the Upper House." It might not be quite so curious and ironic if Labour leaders would only study the history of their own country. But the best is still to come. Having, to his own satisfaction, proved the utter futility of the Second Chamber, he remarks that "Lord Astor felt so keenly on the subject that a Bill was promoted to relieve him of the necessity of being compelled ... to exercise an hereditary right which he himself felt he was not fitted for." If the House of Lords is really such a despicable assembly, why should Lord Astor have felt unworthy to sit in it? There is something very bewildering about this line of argument.

Our author's views on the kind of Second Chamber which he would like need not detain us, inasmuch as the forces which manipulate Mr. Thomas are not in the least likely to allow him to have any Second Chamber at all; for, as he admits with engaging candour, "there are very natural differences of opinion in the Labour Movement regarding the value of a Second Chamber." He is more interesting when he comes to the subject of "the possible relationship between a Labour Cabinet and Trade Unionism.' There is, he says, no need to suppose that "Cabinet Ministers would be mere delegates from their Unions. Nothing could be more grotesque than this theory, and no Cabinet which put it into practice could exist a Session." Now, the Labour Party is practically entirely composed of delegates from Trade Unions, and the Trade Union Congress is represented in the House of Commons by a Parliamentary Committee which carries out its behests. Moreover, the

VOL. LXXVII

4