avowed policy of the ruling classes and how it fared; and secondly, the policy adopted by the workers and how that fared.

In considering the policy which the ruling classes adopted we cannot do better than set down their view of the situation as it presented itself to one of their number about the year 1870. No one will dispute the capacity, foresight, and influence of the author we have selected, nor the accuracy of his judgment.

Writing in 1872 in the introduction to his "English Constitution," Mr. Bagehot maintained that 'cabinet government was possible in England because England was a deferential country'. 'The nominal constituency was not the real constituency; the mass of the "ten pound" householders did not really form their own opinions. . . The issue put before these electors was "which of two rich people will you choose"? And each of those rich people was put forward by great parties whose notions were the notions of the rich-whose plans were their plans.'1 But with the Reform Act of 1867 which "enfranchised unskilled labour too" there had been introduced an element of uncertainty, an uncertainty which constituted a grave and delicate problem for statesmanship. Would the new voters submit to the same wise guidance? "Will they defer in the same way to wealth and rank, and to the higher qualities of which these are the rough symbols and common accompaniments? . . . The future of this country depends on the happy working of a delicate experiment."

1 All these quotations from Bagehot can be found in Nelson's shilling edition, p. 12, et seq.

Such was the problem as it presented itself to Bagehot. It was not for him an insoluble problem but one which might be successfully overcome by foresight, tact, and a proper understanding between both parties as to how the new voters were to be handled. "In the meantime our statesmen have the greatest opportunities they have had for years . . they have to guide the new voters in the exercise of the franchise; to guide them quietly without saying what they are doing, but still to guide them. The leading statesmen in a free country have great momentary power. They settle the conversation of mankind. . . . And in settling what these questions shall be, statesmen have now especially a great responsibility if they raise questions which will excite the lower orders of mankind; if they raise questions on which those orders are likely to be wrong. . . . They will have suggested topics which will bind the poor as a class together; topics which will excite them against the rich. . . . What is mostly needed is the manly utterance of clear conclusions; if a statesman gives these in a felicitous way (and if with a few light and humorous illustrations so much the better) he has done his part. He will have given the text, the scribes in the newspapers will write the sermon. . . . But in all cases it must be remembered that a political combination of the lower classes, as such and for their own objects, is an evil of the first magnitude. . . . So long as they are not taught to act together, there is a chance of this being averted, but it can only be averted by the greatest wisdom and the greatest foresight in the higher classes."

...

It is no small tribute to Bagehot's foresight, and to his

accuracy in gauging the temper of the English people, that this plan of campaign should have met with such astonishing success. The very ease with which it has been carried through, after having been so openly avowed, is almost beyond belief. Bagehot had said in effect: "We have conferred all the forms of power upon the masses; but it is essential that we should retain the substance of it. We must only seem to abdicate." And so it remains to-day. It is from the "English Constitution" that every new generation of the ruling classes has learnt its first lessons in statesmanship at the Universities, and who can doubt that they have been taken well to heart?

One thing only was needed. That was a more extended and less intermittent machinery to enable the leaders to keep up a continuous din of "manly utterances". This has been provided first by an extension of party organisation with its campaigns and trumpetings throughout the whole country; and secondly by the complete capture of the daily press with its enormous resources for clever advocacy. Add to this the extension of a centralised and bureaucratic system of education, the whole spirit and tone of which is a mere replica of the wisdom and prejudices of the politically dominant class, and the machinery is complete. The sons of the people become not the spokesmen of the people, but their enlightened instructors.

If the cumulative effect of these influences be considered, it will be seen that, all tending towards the same end, they constitute a driving force of tremendous power. Nor was there any popular cohesion or initiative of any moment to counteract it or challenge its progress.

*

Now although too much importance cannot be attached to the adoption and steady pursuit of this policy, nevertheless the present plight of the workers owes infinitely more to the folly of the masses themselves, the complete absence of any clear vision, and the general poor quality of their leaders.

The facility with which these leaders could be duped, side-tracked, flattered, cajoled, browbeaten when obstinate, and (when all else failed) bought over, passes all belief. Nor did they learn even by experience, but became still more pliable. For while the rulers learnt to rule more and more easily, as conjurers by practice reduce the obstinacy of their art, so too did the warriors of the people learn, as rats in a trick cage will learn by repetition, to co-operate by releasing the spring with greater ease. Or like clay brought to obedience, they gave way more easily at each attempt to the moulding of the political potters. Who can be surprised, then, that to-day there is a revolt from the political brethren altogether?

There are many indeed who doubt the possibility of retrieving such a defeat as these men have brought upon us. But it is not yet too late. It is therefore of capital importance that by contrast with false policy the principles of effective action should be clearly demonstrated. This will involve a consideration of the main lines of the policy that was actually pursued.

The first extension of the suffrage after the Reform Act of 1832 came some thirty years later-1867. There was

Between 1867 and 1884

a further extension in 1884. came the rise of that principle of legislation which is known as Collectivism. But it was not till the nineties that the working classes first turned definitely to political activity.

Now the thing of importance to note is that the period of 'democratic' reform was roughly coincident with the period of Collectivist legislation. And both still go hand in hand.

Bearing this in mind, let us begin by running over the cardinal points of the situation as it presented itself to the reformers.

First, they saw the overwhelming economic advantage of their owners and masters.

Secondly, they were anxious to redress this inequality. Thirdly, they had just secured the vote-the weapon of political power.

Fourthly, they hoped to be able by the superiority of their political voting power to redress thoroughly their economic inferiority.

Now it must never be forgotten that whatever be the policy which the reformers adopted, the test of success in every case is the degree to which it checked the advance of the proletariate system and gave it a set-back. No other achievement was or is of any value.

It was not till the last decade of the nineteenth century that the workers definitely turned to independent political activity. So that they have now been fishing in that pool for some fifteen years. It was thought that great numbers would gradually find themselves attracted and at last converted by the unique quality of the Labour pro