LABOUR IN POLITICS

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIII, Issue 12, 23 March 1905, Page 29

LABOUR IN POLITICS

DISCOURSE BY BISHOP DELANY

In \ic\v of the recent lively controversy on the subject, in Austialia— a controversy which had its echo in New Zealand— the following able discouise on ' Labor in Pnlih'V by the K'ght Rev Dr Pclany, f'oaduitorBisliop (,f 'ilobart, will' be of inteiest to our leadors. r l he discourse (which we take fiom the T<isuuiu<.;ii ' Monitor ') was recently di-lnered, by imitation, to the Zeehan branch of the Workers' Political League. The Right Rev. speaker .-aid:— Some months ago I was faired with a communication from this branch of the Tasmanian Workers' Political League, com cv ing the request that I would addict, s you on the subject of ' Labor in Politics.' I at once replied to your secretary that I would do so I felt that I cbiild not) well do less. The subiect is well before the public of this and the sister States ; it is subjected to wide and earnest discussion ; it has become a factor in our public life, and under all these circumstances any citizen has the right, if challenged, to set forth the conclusion at which he has arrived, provided he does so with the modesty which befits a fiee man. The inquiry, I take il, re^ohes. itself iiilo tv> o questions : we a.sik oui^clve^, in the first place, is it right that the sans of toil should combine for political action , ne\l, we face the query, whether the aims and methods of our actual Labor Party are right ai*d commendable *> It is far easier to answera nswcr the first of these questions than to give a satisfactory reply to the second. ] will do what is more respectful to you and to myself, I will give you, in all frankness, my individual views for what they are woith. As to the' claim of tho^e who live by the sweat of their brow to combine and organise -with a a iew to influence legislating I confers I d 0d 0 not perceive a shadow of argument to invalidate that claim. Supipose we li\cd under a difteic-nt political form, uncle.r some ideal autocrqey, whose ruler was animated and guided by the principles ol ccn-luncicd justice to each and all , m such a condition of things I should unhesitatingly condemn labor parties as unnecessary and mischievous But that i<3 not our case. Our legislation docs not emanate fi om the serene and benevolent heights of unselfish political philosophy We do rot look to any one supenor intelligence noi to the combined wisdom of a select few to formulate tin 1 liioiMires winch shall pass into working enactments Our law -Livers aie plain, mat ter-df-fat t men, who do not pi^tend U) diavv theii inspi: at ion fiom abo\e, vho a'l bit invaiiahly \ leld to the pressuic of their political <n. v onment , that is, of course, to the wishes of theii parliamentary supporters. Parliamentary Government is, etymologic-ally, as well as in the language of caricature, the go üm mi cut of the ' talkiig sLo;),' but the talk has bevome little more than pretence The actual work is di-e to di'tat'on fiom without. I do not deny that upon matters which do not r'dversely concern any important section of voters decisions are come to in virtue of their inherent reas-onableness, and to some extent in consequence of argument in their support , but for the rest— and the rest embraces what is the most important— it is voting power, not rhetoiic nor reasoning, that decides the issue. Now, in pailiamentaty assemblies, as we know t'nem 10-day, voting power is inseparable from paity strength. It is, indeed, a curious lesmlt in political evolution, this system of party rule , for it seems inevitably fated to involve the public weal in broils and in impediments to its ordeilv progress. Yet, rough and ready as it miav be, the results obtained from its use <-eem to justify it as an acceptable political form ; and in spite of complaints which are neither rare nor frivolous, it is likely to remain in force throughout,most of the civilised world for a long tiire. The ehietf difficulty in working the party system springs from the constitution of the parties themselves. In mo->t of the countries that have adopted parliamentary government in imitation of England, the parties as jet remain too numerous and variable for strong and orderly parliamentary rule. The reactionaries are many in all those countries, and they are 'dissatisfied because they inwardly distrust the efficacy and fitness of the parliamentary system Tn England, for a very long period, the system worked most effectively as a political engine ; so miuoh so, indeed, that neaily all the leading minds of Continental Europe yearned to see it transplanted to their respective countries. Yet it was in those days that the voice of the British people had comipaxatively little to do with the shaping of legislation.

The CJreat Landed Interest took and held the reins of power. A few great families agreed to differ, and divided the \oting battalions into two antagonistic bodies of Whigs and Tories, reserving to themjsclves and their political cieatures the final word cm the all-impoitant question of what was to become law. '1 he iranclme was \ery restricted. The voting was in the open. The landlord knew for whom the vote was cast. Hence, in the rural constituencies and in the boroughs the owners uf the ground were pellet tly secuie in forecasting the electoral l^sue. E\eri brilliant and conscientious men like Edmund Burke, and in much later days l\lr. Cladstone, owed their entrance to the House of Commons, not to the intelligent disci imination of a constituency, but to the mastery of a great landowner over his obedient voters. Yet, unless the reflected light of history is deceptive, that bygone system of pretended public opinion brought together parliamentary assemblies whose eloquence, power, and political wisdom we may scarce hope to see revived. We do not roally expect to fina* (Jhathanis or Burkos or (iladstones in houses recruited through manhood suffrage. If in the llou'sc of Commons the level of ability and political wrHom was slow in sinking, even after the great measures of electoral leform, that was due in no small degree to the tenacity with which, in England, \ested centres of power hold their own after legislation has theoretically stripped them. So late as thirty years ago trie House of Commons had to reckon with the Caveii'dishes and the Cecils as well as with the press and platform, and all the other agencies of popular instruction in public life. Mo^t probably the hold of those great houses upon the opinion of the country woiild have continued all but unweakened had it not bean for the singular evolution of one overmastering mind. Mr (iladst one's towering nersonality, his surpassing powers, his unique moral fascination for the masses, and the tireless energy ho threw into the task of inspiring them with the hopes ana prospects of a people uplifted and enlightened, and made happy in tneir homes, put it in his power for a few \ ears to measiure swords as the peonle's champion witn their hereditaiy masters. Tne giound he won ficlr the people remains theirs and affords footing for further advance. Since his disappearance fiom the political arena, the reactionary forces of landed interest and capital have dictated the law-making of England. The old so-called Liberal Party split up as soon .is a gieat measure of social justice touched the quick. r l hen all tho^e who had niasqiiciaded as lo\eis of their Fellow-man, but were in tiuth loveis only of the oomfoi Us of their caste, cut avvav from tine-hearted Liberals-, fiom (lie ni(-n who love to icgard in man a brother before all things else In tint fateful hour (iladstone would ha c triumphed on< c noie had the sons of toil throughout (Jreat Britain been schooled and organised, had they possessed the organisation which you are working to e\temd and pcifec'. You know how Gladstone was compelled to rdah^e, and how he did not sihring fiom declaring that it was necessary to look for suppoit in behalf of measures making for social justice, not to the classes but to the masses That maxim of modern parliamentary government was wrung from a most conscientious political expert. You might emblazon it uj on your political banner. <\ moment's survey of history will show you its justiTccititn I have mentioned one or two of the great names that adorn the page of English parliamentary history during the fifty or sixty years prior to the age of reform We still go to Burke and others of his time for pcUtical wisdom. Yet, although those great men w"ie I iberals in the true sense of the term, what were they able to 1o but enunciate sound maxims *> What v,as the condition of the masses in their day ? What dm it continue to be, in spite of those brilliant pageants in parliamentary debate ? Did not reform come from the npde awakening; caused by the spectre of 'insurrection 7 I low tardily and laboriously concession ca-'ie after ec ncession to mitigate the horrors of the fa'torv fp'd the mine Are we sure to-day that the noblest el oq i once of the senate would have wrung those dement ary concessions from the nolders of wealth, had it not been reinforced by the barbarous methods of strike and not ? They are barbarous methods, unworthy of civilised communities ; but to my mind the effective check to their recurrence is adequate representation of La! or on the floor of the Legislature. Let the clash of interests meet there. Let its shock be dulled by the force* of debate Let the common weal be spared the risl s of conflict ontside. When the franchise is high you may draw artificial party lines, and that was what was done in England and elsewhere urtder restricted representation. But universal suffrage inevitably leads to a demarcation of parlies ah ng the line which separates capital from Labor. In a civilised community you must

have Capital. Capital is the accumulated surplus production of brain power brought conjointly to bear upon nature's raw materials. It is essentially the property of civilised man. Defhiititn of Capital Savages are not capitalists^ because Ihey ha\e not the developed mind and the trained habit which ca.n sur>j»ly a community with enough and to spare out of nature's .store. It may be t.rged — indeed, it is urged — that this surplus belongs of right to the community as such, inespective of individual acquisition. We cannot coKTccidc this without denying that which is the most characteiv istic in man— l mean his personality. This is so profoundly rooted in Ruman consciousness, and so brightens as he grows, that the attempts of theorists will evei'be vain to get mankind to go counter to its claims and behests. Each man has a light as regards his fellow-men to the use of his faculties in so far as such use does not trench upon a like legitimate use of others in the exercise of theirs ; and with this rignt conies the right to the product of that legitimate exercise of faculty. lie may give it away, he may be reasonably compelled to part with it in lieu of "what he gets ; but in the firsit instance it is his. Reason and consciousness affirm this right of the individifel as against individuals au'd »ociety itself, arid every attempt to wipe it out once for all in polity or law will inevitably break down. The extreme views, then, attributed to certain socialises must be set aside as contrary to the dictates of human wisdom and human consciousness. But, after all, this is of little practical moment. Wo need not fear that any Labor Party here or elseu/here which has in it the principle ol political life, whLh can live for long ana achieve work— we need not fear that such a party will run away with the Utopian fancies m question. None of you would advance the opinion that the Legislature could justly enact the spoliation of any individual right or property. We need not tiouble ourselves with such bugbears. The practical matter is this : Capital is raitncr (livid; it tdnds to flow in definite directions, obeying laws of self-accumulation. We all know the adage that money makes money. The man who has a certain amount has also the power to make more in a higher degree than he who starts with nathing. W.itn the increase of I<he wealth possessed, the power to get is proportionately enhanced. Now, men are not born equal in either tiie capacity or the opportunities to a ml ass wealth Hence, one set has a clear advantage over the other in the ia^e of acquisition. This might not matter much, but the fact that in a highly civilised community, civilised as now understood, you have a vast rescnve of power in accumulated wealth, or capital. It necessarily tends, under tihe play of recognised economics, to accumiila/e in the hands of the clever or lucky few, giving them leal power, not alone for themselves, but likewise over '>l\» rest. This- congested power in the body politic can be no more healthy all round than blood congestion in the animal organism. Wealth must circulate, and not fitfully, in obedience to the capiice ol a few 'owners, if it is to confer and promote social health. Hence the nee/1 of legislation to ch"eck the congestion and irregular flow of the national life-current, to obviate the over*- reaching of the helpless as well as those economic crises whicih impoverish the masses. I observe that the advocates of capitalism meet complaints advanced in benalf of the masses wi'ih statistics meant to show how much the condition of workmen has imoroved within recent years That line of argument refutes itself. Everyone admits that in recent times great strides have been made in the poliAical emancipation of the people. Hence it is obvious to retort on the class of writers to whom I refer, that its former conditions "were so bad when tjhe workers had no political weight, the same would reiur were they to lose the franchise, or, what is equivalent, to neglect its use. The working classes would still be in the hapless condition of seventy or eighty years ago but for the fact that they are known to have votes, and may, under proper organisation, make their votes tell, and tell with an unpleasant surprise. Hence, for the masses, the great lesson to learn is the lesson of self-reliance. If the toilers wait for othefls- to improve their lot, they will find themselves doomed to repeated disappointments. Consider the Story of Irish Misery. For generations the tenant farmers had no effective representation in Parliament. They were brought to the polling booths to vote at the dictation of the landlord, for the game of parties went merrily on. One class of landlords swled with the Conservatives, another with the Liberals ; each looked to his party for the spoils of victory, but only for himself and his

friends. The frieze-coated multitudes were driven tamely to the otpen voting of those days. Their voices decided the fate of Ministers at Westminster, and secured office, emolument, and title for their irresponsible lords ; but iheir own precarious condition continued as unaffected as if they had been utterly deprived of trie franchise. If their, well-tilled fields ana gardens seemed likely to fetch a higher income for the landlord in turning tham into sheep runs and cattle ranges out of those tenants had to go. Out they went in hundreds of thousands as you all know. Out they went, some to starve, because the upper classes, the landlords, had no need and no care to develop any form of industry in Ireland. Others had the courage to cross the Atlantic, and the great London daily of that time, the 'Times " newspaper, in gleeful mockery, said that ' the Celt was going with a vengeance!' And so the thing went on. In three Irish provinces the people had not a shadow of law or custom to shield them. The Ulster farmers were protected by what was known as the Ulster Custom. All that went on. I saw it with my own eyes. I could tell you of its evil working. It went on until the downtrodden people awoke to the sense of the power which the newly-granted ballot-box, with its secrets, put into their hands. They were not able to send a representation to Westminster that could outvote their opponents, but they set their teeth in dead earnest, and patiently, resolutely, in solid phalanx, they wrung concessions, which were, I must add, ungraciously made, and, therefore, thanklessly taken. This, I think, serves sufficiently to show that in our parliamentary polity, e\ery class must look to itself for the assertion and maintenance of its rights. Irish landlords were not a wl'it worse by natural inheritance than the run of men. But, i(. will be objected, in these States, with" autonomous and highly democratic constitutions, what danger is there mat any class will fare like the tenant farmers of Ireland ? At home those tenants were under the heel of the landlord ; from abroad they were ruled by a Legislature and Executive indifferent at the best, if not hostile, to their rights. Here we have our Pail'fiment to ourselves ; we have a very extended franchise , we are protected by tne ballot. All this i>s true, and in so far your case is very different indeed from that of the farmers and laborers of Ireland. But arc tiiinas mute satisfactory even here? Anfl are we Mire that they will not become worse unless a keen eye is kept upon those who make and administer our laws. Ard what is the best way to keep that eye fixed noon them ? Politicians themselves make the reply. Do they not tell us that a good, vigorous Government implies a .strong, earnest Opposition '' The business of an Opposition is to scan closely the legislative propi amire, the details of administration, to keep the Government up to its duty. (To be concluded next week.)