MIA > Archive > Hyndman > England For All
Now does any one imagine that with our present restricted suffrage we are likely to carry in town or country the social changes absolutely essential for the well-being of the majority, or to reorganize our political machinery in a workable shape within a reasonable time? Those who think thus must be of a very sanguine disposition. When in history did classes who hold property and power give up any portion of their valuable and lucrative monopolies until they saw clearly that surrender would be less harmful than defeat? The natural inclination of so-called Conservatism is to make a dead stand against all reform; and only now and then does a man arise in any country who can persuade the people in possession that, if they wish to avoid an overturn, they must have a distinct constructive policy of their own.
Yet it is true that mere extension of the suffrage by itself does not suffice to bring about much beneficial change. In France manhood suffrage imposed upon the people the rule of Napoleon III, and his gang of gamblers and political thimble-riggers for twenty years. The master may have meant well enough in his way, but his men and their mistresses looked upon France as their fair prey. In Germany, as we see, universal suffrage has not prevented Prince Bismarck from maintaining the dominance of military Junkerdom over a well-educated and, in the main, peaceful people. In America the injurious influence of great capitalists is severely felt, though there the people have the power to put an end to their tyranny at once by combination at the polls. Even here in England we may observe the same slow action on the part of voters to bring forward social grievances. Wonders, for instance, were looked for from the Reform Bill of 1832. It would be quite amusing, if it were not a little sad, to read in the writers of the first quarter of this century what changes for the better would be made so soon as rotten boroughs were swept away, and the power of aristocrats shaken. Yet all this enthusiasm notwithstanding, fourteen years elapsed before even the Corn Laws were repealed – and that was a capitalist not a working-class measure, inasmuch as cheap food kept wages lower; and the Factory Acts were not passed, in a shape to be of any service, for sixteen years. Then, too, the man who did more than any other to force them on the legislature, in the face of the interested opposition of the capitalists, was a non-political aristocrat, the present Lord Shaftesbury.
So with the Reform Bill of 1867, which in the eyes of such a man as Mr. Lowe involved nothing short of revolution. What great measures for the advantage of the community at large have yet resulted from that? Ireland, no doubt, has secured some attention; and the School Boards have commenced the work of education; but on the whole it is surprising how little has been achieved in fourteen years. Still, it is impossible to doubt that pressure from without would assume a very different shape if every man in the British Islands not a felon were entitled to a vote. It is fair to assume that no further change is pressed on now with vigour, because the mass of the present voters have got all they want.
For though it is the fashion to say that the Reform Bill of 1867 gave power to the democracy, there is little evidence of that as yet. To this day the working class is outvoted by the shopkeeping class; and the preposterous absurdity of three-cornered constituencies has been foisted on us by political theorists, to make matters worse. The extension of the borough franchise to the counties will, no doubt, make a difference to the agricultural labourer, and facilitate the dealing with the land; but that only puts the increasing working class in the towns at a greater relative disadvantage. Manhood suffrage is really the only logical outcome of any arguments in favour of the extension of the suffrage at all. Those who make the wealth of the country have the right, if anybody has, to vote as to how it should be governed. Drawbacks to such an extension there are, of course; and elsewhere, as has been already remarked, mere universal suffrage has not secured the social advancement which might have been hoped for. But unless those who suffer most under present arrangements have at least the means of putting forward representatives definitely pledged beforehand to redress their grievances, the very motive power for reform is lacking alike in Parliament and in local assemblies. We are now in a vicious circle. Shut men out from voting, and a minority unjustly controls the country: give the vote to all, and there is the risk of wholesale corruption, as well as that ignorance should become the ultimate court of appeal.
What probability is there, however, that, under any circumstances, free compulsory education to remedy this ignorance – or the enactment that bribery shall be felony, to put a stop to corruption – will be carried in our existing Parliament with the present suffrage? The idea is by no means confined to the Conservatives that universal education must involve a very inconvenient growth of independence, which will render men and women disinclined to supply menial positions in the old-fashioned way. Possibly, too, the workers of the community would begin to inquire into the reasons of the present excessive disparity of wealth, which would be more inconvenient still. School Boards are already too expensive for some. The contention that really complete education is the duty of the State for the protection of the common interest, is looked upon as little short of socialism by the well-to-do, who of course wish their children to start lightly handicapped with a good education in the race of life. The old hierarchical notions indeed still go on, and people who have to fill the lower stations ought to be mere animals, without too much knowledge to make them anxious for higher things. In this matter England is still far behind countries which in respect of political intelligence and political training are greatly our inferiors. We who have hitherto led the way in so many European improvements, need not surely look any longer across the sea to find that Frenchmen and Germans have more share in the government of their country than ourselves. More than ever important is it then, as the first step towards the organization of democracy, that all who add to the wealth of the country shall have a voice in ordering how taxation should be levied and spent. Manhood suffrage could alone supply the power to carry out genuine reform.
But other mere mechanical changes are needed at the same time. That a Parliament should last six years without a dissolution, has been found to be a matter of serious inconvenience to the State at large. Men who know that they are irremovable for so long a period trust to national forgetfulness to cover over their blunders. Many instances could be given of this calculation, and its effects upon the course of public business. Triennial Parliaments, or, better still, a retirement of one-third of the members each year, would keep the House of Commons thoroughly in harmony with the constituencies, and quicken the general interest in political affairs. Equal electoral districts necessarily follow upon manhood or adult suffrage. Any other arrangement would inevitably bring about in a new form that injustice which we wish to get rid of. The right of all to a vote once conceded, no man can claim a greater share in representation than another.
In the same way payment of all election expenses, whether parliamentary or municipal, out of the public funds, is essential. Wealth has already far too much influence, without making political life almost impossible to the poor man, and especially to the working class. Why should a man be called upon to pay a vast fine in order to fill a public office for which his countrymen think him qualified? The working class can never hope to be fairly represented till this has been carried at the least. In the same way, payment of members is but justice. Unpaid work as a whole is bad work, done as a rule for social aggrandizement, personal advancement, or the like. A representative ought to feel that he is the servant of the State, quite open to form his own judgment, but still as much a part of the general executive as any Minister. Moreover, this mere money business must act as a drawback, or almost to the exclusion, of poor men. Few can afford to throw their whole time into the House of Commons work, on Committees, &c., without remuneration. Those who do, have generally contrived as a body – landlords, capitalists, railway directors, &c. – to reimburse themselves in some way at the expense of the country at large.
These four points therefore are imperatively needed as the means towards a better organization:–
They are but means to an end; yet it is humiliating to remember that they were demanded in 1848 by a powerful organization, and now here we are in 1881 still without them. Englishmen have lost pluck under middle-class rule. The influence of the perpetual money-getting seems to have exercised a weakening effect on every portion of the body politic. Nowadays, any sturdy demand for plain rights is styled revolutionary; and a sort of cant patter-song of moderation is chanted by both parties, who on all these matters are practically at one. It does one good at such times to breathe the free bluff air of downright agitation, when men call a spade a spade, and a trimmer a useless flabby creature, to be thrown into the political gutter as soon as may be.
For the definite issue we are now debating has been led up to for at least three generations. The shock of the Revolution in France enabled the upper and middle classes here to set back reforms till our day, which were recognized as essential in a far different state of things by such a man as Lord Chatham. Now we see on every side nations beginning to govern themselves wholly for the sake of the people. That government of the people by the people of which noble Abraham Lincoln spoke on the battle-field of Gettysburg as the cause for which men fell there, is the cause which we have yet to fight out peacefully here.
For at this present moment, whilst we are discussing the expediency of this or that step, a process of centralization and decentralization is going forward, which, unless we take means to understand and take advantage of it, will land us all in administrative anarchy. Universal suffrage, giving vent to direct personal interest, but harmonized and consolidated into a general effect for the public good, must be the basis of that new social and political period on which we are now entering. By itself it can do nothing; but it is surely possible, at our stage of political development, to combine the full satisfaction of the wishes of the people, and the improvement of their social position, with the ideal of a great country leading European development by virtue of true sagacity and vigour. It is such an ideal of public advantage that can alone stimulate men to sacrifice their individual crotchets to attain a great end.
To stand still is out of the question. Parliament, as every one can see, no longer holds the position in public esteem, or is able to carry on its work, as it did. How far the House of Lords and the House of Commons may require remodelling is a point on which men differ. That great changes are needed, all are agreed. The House of Lords stands only by reason of its past. Many hesitate to attack it, as the City hesitated to remove Temple Bar. It is antiquated and cumbrous, and unquestionably blocks the way; but there are still historical associations which induce men to shrink from a definite agitation for its overthrow. Besides, it is at the present time the best debating club of its kind in Europe. There, on great occasions, the traditions of oratory, which are beginning to fade from the House of Commons, may still be found as a living force. But it is sad to see so much ability fired into the air. Their lordships only exchange their ordinary attitude of well-bred indifference and drowsiness for a more active interest when some reactionary motion has to be affirmed to no purpose. Young men who grow up in that dull atmosphere early acquire an apparent consciousness of their own uselessness. Why should they longer suffer, poor fellows, from this hereditary boredom? It would be charitable to relieve them from so false a position as that which they now hold. A closer contact with the moving forces of English political life might perhaps develop in some of them a worthy ambition to lead, instead of languidly attempting to dam back, the current of their time. This at any rate is certain, that the time is rapidly passing away when a caucus of territorial magnates can play at being superior creatures to their fellow-countrymen, and amuse themselves by retarding legislation which the mass of Englishmen have decided upon.
To sweep away any institution altogether is, however, scarcely our English way. So long as it can be advantageously modified we cling to the old form. That the hereditary principle must be done away with as an anachronism and an absurdity would be admitted by thousands, who would still wish to have a second chamber – not to interfere with or hamper the direct representatives of democracy, but to maintain a continuity in general policy which such a body as a reformed House of Commons could scarcely command. Here, of course, is the great difficulty of our party system of Government, and it can never be lessened save by the formation of some great consultative assembly, in which representatives of all portions of our great commonwealth and dependencies find a seat. It may be that the American Senate, devised by men who had thoroughly studied the dangers of waves of popular excitement, is too powerful a body for us to wish to constitute a similar check upon the Lower House; for the Senate in the United States, owing to its method of election, the personal reputation of its members, and the authority accorded, is the powerful House, and with us, if parliamentary government is maintained in its present shape, the House of Commons can scarcely fail to be supreme. The danger of deadlocks with us, however, would not be nearly so great as in our colonies, where the power of the purse is divided.
What we need in place of the House of Lords is a Great Council for the public discussion and revision of treaties, the maintenance of a constant survey of our foreign relations – which will be greatly facilitated when the present system of secret diplomacy is put an end to – and a regulation of the policy towards our great colonies and dependencies, in conjunction with direct representatives from them. These duties are now not performed at all; and during the last twenty years we have had but too many occasions to lament that lack of continuity in our policy which at times makes us the laughing-stock of the world. Such a great consultative and deliberative council might worthily take the place which the House of Lords held when it was really a power in the State. Now it is merely a nuisance; and the sooner a change is made which shall bring the second chamber once more into a useful sphere of existence, the better for the stability of the Constitution in its best sense. Such a modification would indeed, though radical to start, be highly conservative in the best sense in the long-run. The abler men would probably welcome a change which whilst, as we see in France, it makes no great difference in their social distinction – for certain classes cling to lineage as something to worship – freed their hands and enabled them to enter into the real political strife of the day without restraint.
The future of the House of Commons is a very different matter. At the present time, partly by its own fault, and partly by the force of circumstances, that noble historical assembly has also lost influence with the people, because it has grasped at more power than it can conveniently handle, and is far too slow to suggest any reform of itself. Did any body of men, by the way, ever reform themselves? That is really the difficulty we are at present in. There is no power outside the House of Commons to reform the House of Commons; and to hear some members talk, one might suppose it was still the collective wisdom of the nation. Such scenes, however, as those which occurred with regard to the Irish members, the voting on the Bradlaugh oath, and the hopeless block of legislation – occasioned not so much by obstruction, though there has been a great deal of that without the justification which the Irish members could claim on the Coercion Bill, as by the endless flood of conversational small talk which men of no special knowledge or ability seem to think they owe to their constituencies – have gradually convinced the country that a complete change in the functions of Parliament can alone right the existing state of things.
Neither manhood suffrage nor the reform of methods of election will put an end to obstruction, check silly garrulity, or remove the excessive business with which the House of Commons is cumbered. And here we come to a point at which much difference of opinion must necessarily arise. That greater powers should be given to local assemblies to deal with many matters which now come before the House of Commons, may be admitted without dispute; but how far the authority of these local assemblies should extend is, a matter of difference. Irishmen demand home rule, or even separation; Scotchmen and Welshmen have no such anxiety to obtain parliaments to themselves. But with manhood suffrage in full force, it is clear that the rights of the people will be far more completely protected than they are at present, and that power could be more safely handed over to local authorities. National and federal parliaments can scarcely be organized till there is a demand for them. The Irish do make the demand, and the possibility of meeting it without actual disruption is a pressing question at this moment.
In England, Scotland, and Wales, however, the county, the municipality, the township, are old well-understood divisions, and to them, under one or other of the numerous schemes which have been before the public, might be handed over the jurisdiction in respect of many matters on which the House of Commons has at present to be consulted. Such representations, properly elected to transact the rapidly growing business of the whole population, would take an amount of petty work off parliament, with which it ought never to have been saddled. All this, of course, will shortly be attempted; and with the power of the democracy brought to bear for the collective advantage, the old local bodies will be invigorated with fresh life. County assemblies and municipal boards will then perhaps cease to be, as they so often are now, mere inefficient and corrupt vestries. It is unreasonable that the House of Commons should undertake to settle what these local bodies could equally well arrange for themselves. A wide scheme of decentralization, carried out with a view to interesting the whole population in their local business, would but serve to strengthen the House of Commons for dealing with affairs now pushed aside by less important matters to the injury of the whole community, and raise again the character of its debates.
It is remarkable, indeed, that as wealth, power, and political influence have been concentrated in the hands of the upper and middle classes local vigour has to a certain extent died down. In the future the municipality, as we can already see, will have far wider duties to undertake than those which they perform at present. Gas, water, artisans’ dwellings – these, instead of being left to individual companies will be undertaken by the local bodies, as also the providing of parks and recreation-grounds. When full power is vested in such corporations and county boards to take what land is needed at a valuation for the purpose of either building or permanent leases for agricultural purposes, a far greater amount of interest will attach to the improvement of the management, and men of a superior character will be anxious to take part in the business. All such decentralization, in the sense that these bodies are given great powers without applying to Parliament, will also act in the direction of peaceful development, and give the working classes that impetus towards social improvement by their own energy which is so manifestly necessary.
At the same time, though municipal and local business may form a good training for local administration, it by no means follows that a good vestryman or alderman makes a good member of Parliament when obligations beyond the range of a three months’ bill are under discussion. It is remarkable indeed that in such matters working men, who literally do not know whether their present week’s wage will be continued the next, have a far wider idea of their duties, and take a much higher view of the position which a great country like ours ought to assume in its dealings with its dependencies and foreign powers, than mere mercantile men. The latter are far too apt to consider everything from the immediate pounds, shillings, and pence standard. Will such a policy increase immediately the national turn over? then it is excellent. Will it involve doubtful expenditure for a great moral principle, or serious political agitation for a great future national benefit? such a proposal must of necessity be unsound. This sort of reasoning is well enough up to a certain point, and the kind of intelligence which develops it – Lord Derby probably has that sort of capacity to the highest degree of any man living – is most careful to secure economy in local affairs; but where business of national or imperial importance is involved, such counsellors are feeble and dangerous.
Now as in the management of general municipal improvements and county affairs of all kinds, local energy, and even, in the wide sense, personal objects ought to be allowed fair play, so in these more general concerns, where the necessity for a greater centralization is manifestly increasing, a reformed House of Commons should exercise far more direct control, delegating its authority, as at the present time, to a great officer of State and his department.
All can see quite plainly that in certain matters management by the State is essential to efficiency. It is perhaps a question whether the post and telegraphs ought to be worked at a profit; but no one doubts nowadays that the business is on the whole better and more cheaply done than if it were in private hands. Blunders are made, no doubt; but mistakes are easily complained of and remedied. Obviously the railways must sooner or later follow the same course. This is one of the reasons why local business should be removed from Parliament. It destroys the sense of perspective for members to have constantly to adjudicate on petty private bills, when matters of really great national concern ought to be continually before them. Nothing more shortsighted was ever done by an English Parliament – middle-class business men, too, let us remember – than the turning over of the great new highways of the country to monopolists for ever. This is what has been – nay, what is being, done to the permanent and growing disadvantage of the whole community. No idea seems to have entered the minds of our worthy rulers that this handing over in perpetuity was as mischievous a piece of folly as ever was perpetrated.
We Englishmen often jeer at Frenchmen for their fondness for paternal rule; and we certainly should not submit for a week to many of the restrictions on individual liberty which Republican France bears without a murmur. Their tariff also we regard as injurious, and many of their arrangements mistaken. Yet they were shrewd enough to see that to saddle coming generations with payments to private investors was a grave injury to the nation and a sacrifice of public property. As a result, within fifty or sixty years France will be relieved entirely of her national debt by the falling in of the railways, or transport at cost will be secured to the community. Now that is business; that is foresight for a people. Such an advantage we cannot secure, save by some great change in the right of inheritance or by purchase. The present system cannot be allowed to go on for ever. That the labour of succeeding generations should be eternally handicapped by payments to the labour of the dead, is too preposterous. If turnpikes have been found to be an intolerable nuisance, and fees for bridges have been done away, it is scarcely probable that we shall much longer put up with a system of railway management so entirely opposed to the interests of the mass of the people, as well as of the trading class, as that which now we suffer from. We are a long-suffering people, but we shall never stand that.
This question of monopolies is rapidly coming to the front. The old notion that competition would always come in to serve the community, has proved wholly fallacious. Combination has in many instances, perhaps in most, defeated the calculations of the legislature; and the power of the great companies to fight off those whom they consider intruders, has been exercised without any scruple whatever. All the recent evidence tends in the same direction. The railway companies treat their customers as if the public had been specially created by some beneficent providence for these monopolists to prey upon and get interest for shareholders. This view is natural enough; and we see in America that the system is carried yet further. Monopolies granted by the State are made the means of fleecing the community. Thus once more we have the illusory freedom of contract. The House of Commons, as representative of the people, allows a monopoly to be created, and then this monopoly is used to the public detriment. Unfortunately, the remedy is not so easy as might appear.
The total price of the railways at present quotations would exceed £1,000,000,000, and he would be a bold financier who should propose to increase the national debt by that sum at the present time. But private interests cannot be allowed to stand permanently in the way of the community at large. The right of interference has never been disputed. If the House of Commons had not been full of representatives of the Railway interest, steps would long since have been taken by the Government to secure for Englishmen at large far greater advantage in return for the monopoly granted. It is plain, for example, that the State could construct a railroad from London say to Liverpool or Manchester, at a very much less cost than the capitalized value of either of the existing lines. If the stockholders have not taken this fact into account, that is their own look-out. No Parliament nor any succession of Parliaments, could guarantee a monopoly against another company that showed good cause for the construction of a line, still less could it be assured against the State. Consequently when it becomes necessary, as it shortly must, to acquire the railways, no such absurd estimate of value need be made as in the case of the London water companies. Our tendency has been for the nation to show itself too considerate of so-called vested interests, simply because the classes which hold those vested interests have had the entire control in every way – to assume, indeed, when the State has to deal with them that some exceptional price must be paid. This is quite incorrect. When the decision is come to that for the national interest the railways should be acquired, it would be perfectly fair to purchase at a valuation, without any reference to a future monopoly-value, which does not and could not exist against the country at large. A special issue of terminable annuities might be made to cover the whole matter. But without entering on details, it is clear that such a notification as that lately issued with reference to workmen’s trains by the Metropolitan Railways will probably bring this whole question to a climax. [1]
That State management would pay, there is very little doubt. Improved organization would produce a profit by the reduction of working expenses. But far more important than any idea of profit, is the prospect, under proper direction, of cheapening transport, and securing for the working-classes really cheap travel in the neighbourhood of large cities. It is scarcely too much to say that sixpenny weekly tickets, available for any distance within ten miles, coupled with a well-regulated system of artisans’ dwellings, erected by the muncipality and let at rents to cover cost of construction, would completely change the whole life of great cities, reducing rents for unwholesome tenements, and gradually leading to a better condition in every respect. It is also by no means certain that the suggestion made by a Civil Engineer that a one shilling fare should apply to the whole United Kingdom, would not, in some modified form, prove as great a success as the penny post. In any case it is manifest that the Railways are the national highways, that in regard to the transfer of both goods and passengers they work for the shareholders and not for the community, and that consequently the business of the country is carried on at a growing disadvantage. Besides, the land and the railways are inseparably bound up together, and those who talk about dealing freely with the one without touching the other, overlook a most important feature in the whole business.
The chief objection to the acquirement of the railways even on terms which might seem highly advantageous from a financial point of view, would doubtless be the danger of increasing the power of the Government by the formation of so vast a bureaucracy. But this ought to involve no political danger, with full publicity and a distinct removal of the railways from the sphere of State patronage. Certainly the fear of what might happen in this way ought not to keep back the country from laying hands upon a set of corporations whose directors work their influence with the most perfect selfishness, using their railroads to help their politics, and their politics to help their railroads. That sort of see-saw is quite as objectionable as any bureaucratic taint. With the advance of democracy, and the reference of all questions to the people, it has become more and more clear that the Civil Service, as a profession, should be kept clear of politics and party. Where this is not done all sorts of mischief creep in; where it is, and full publicity is maintained – an essential point too – there the organization is a great gain to all. The right of representation of grievances by State officials must of course be fully secured.
Railways, then, like the control of mines, factories, and workshops, must be placed under the State – the former for management, the latter for supervision. These are matters which affect the entire national welfare, and can only be adequately dealt with by national ordinance. Manifestly rivers, canals, and drainage, fall under the same head. The neglect of these as a matter of national importance is really most astonishing. At present our rivers – the watershed and drinking source of the whole country – are treated as municipalities, or even as individuals, think fit. This too, though the urban population, as the late census clearly shows, is increasing in density almost to the danger-point. Decentralization in this matter is really ruinous to the public interest. Drainage works are carried out, sewage and refuse of the most unpleasant nature is disposed of, without much reference to the effect which the action of one town or one owner may produce in other directions. No doubt there are bye-laws and statutes, but they have never been properly put in force. The injury already done by this separatist system is enormous. For the future all arrangements affecting rivers or canals should be under the management of a public department, specially constituted to take in the bearings of the whole subject, whilst leaving to the county assemblies, local boards, municipalities, and even township vestries, the fullest powers of carrying out their own projects within the limits that concern only themselves.
As the powers of these local bodies to acquire land and other property can scarcely fail to be largely increased in the near future and their rights to make improvements extended, it is the more essential that to start with the due position of the central authority should be clearly defined, secured, and strengthened. Of the existing departments, or the proposal to create a Minister of Agriculture and Commerce, it is needless to speak here; that is a mere matter of convenience in separating functions now combined. But in all such matters the tendency towards the simultaneous operation of causes which tend to centralization, as well as those which invite the strengthening of local forces, ought not to be neglected. To create social or political machinery is beyond the power of assemblies or autocrats; to take care that the natural growth of a nation should be fostered instead of hindered is the true function of a statesman. Surely it is reasonable to foresee that the existing fierce competition will in many directions besides that of railroads develop into combination,and thus gradually be turned to the advantage of all.
There is no need to fear the crushing of individuality in all this. Rather will there gradually rise up a higher individuality, when each man can look to his own development as contributing to the advancement of all. But the success of any movement depends upon the mass of the people, and the readiness of men who ought already to have voting power to press forward earnestly the interests of themselves and their children. Nothing can be done unless the people are prepared to organize their forces. Here, however, are what seem the natural reforms demanded for the organization of the great democracy on which the future of England depends:–
To these may be added the social reforms previously advocated:–
By these means centralization and decentralization would have free play to work themselves out; a great pressure would be removed from our historical assemblies – both of which would be strengthened by a reduction of numbers and a more direct representation of the mass of the people and the interests of the whole empire.
Those who suppose that democracy tends to disorganization and anarchy quite misread the signs of the times. Wherever educated democracy has the freest play, precisely there will be found the most complete organization, both in public and in private affairs. The danger arises, if at all, from the opposite quarter. But Englishmen have clearly begun to see that in this direction only can their further development go on. The aristocracy had their day; and in 1832 their power was shaken, to be gradually sapped up to the present time. They have chosen to throw in their lot with the bourgeoisie, and to trade on the necessities of the labourer with them. For fifty years we have experienced middle-class rule: that now is tottering to its fall, with no record but selfishness in home affairs. Now comes the turn of England at large as represented by the men who are really the England of to-day. It is for them to see that their future is worthy of the greatness of their country, ensuring the physical and moral welfare of all by organization and self-sacrifice.
1. The infamous overwork of their servants by the Railway Companies as recently exposed, is alone enough to call for immediate State interference. The brutal greed of corporations was never exhibited in a more shameless form at the expense of both the men and the public.
England for All
Marxists’ Internet Archive | Hyndman Archive
Last updated on 30.7.2006