THE REIGN OF HUMBUG. B RITISH manual workers as a class
dislike humbug more than any other quality. They like to know exactly " where they are," and they do not feel they know where they are when the person with whom they are dealing is dodgy or plausible, or particularly when he wraps himself in a cocoon of superfine phrases. This dislike of humbug is an aspect of the well-known common sense which has seen the people of this country through innumerable difficulties. The people, it is true, are slow at coining to a conclusion, but when in the mass they have reached it they are right in nine cases out of ten. One of the reasons for their slowness is that they do not always recognize at once that they are being humbugged. When, however, they do know for certain that they have been bamboozled by some glib person who has the knack of getting on good terms with an audience but who has no consistent policy, no knowledge and little experience, they show theii resentment. Whether or not much resentment is being displayed among the rank and file of Trade Unions just now we do not know, for this kind of feeling is not mail) Pleasurable. But we feel perfectly sure that if the pre valent practice of humbugging the working man continuer much longer there will be very wide and very sharp resent- ment indeed. The manual workers want in their leaders directness, honesty, consistency and perfect intelligibility— in a word, no humbug. Lowell once used a-. memorable phrase when, in defending a Statesman, he said of him, in words which seem to be restrained but are really eulogistic, " He is at least a man among men, not a humbug among humbugs."
We. might point to many instances of what we mean, but two will suffice : Take -filet the record of Mr. J. H. Thomas in regard to what_ is- called Direct Action. Some- times Mr. Thomas denounces Direct Action in. clear and admirable language, at other times he encourages it ; and we defy anyone to say with any conviction on- any given day what Mr. Thomas's convictions really are. On the whole, we think that he is opposed to Direct Action, and would talways speak. and act against it if he dared to do-so or if he were not the plaything of the emotions of his audiences, instead of being (as no- doubt' he super- ficially- seems to be) the stirrer up of enthusiasm. Mr. Thomas has unquestionably encouraged Direct Action in, the speeches he has delivered and the instructions he has issued with regard to the sending of munitions to Poland -and Ireland. He has behaved with consistent inconsistency, apparently because he is. afraid of some of the extremists. Yet if he had deserved Lowell's enconium,. he would have stood up to these extremists, for he must know that the deliberations of the chief executives of the various labour organizations might be conducted in a vacuum for all the interest they have for the ordinary manual worker. The ordinary worker knows little and cares less about Lenin's theories, or Polish aggression, or Ukrainian rights, or Irish Republicanism. After con- tinually saying one thing and doing another because in the presence of his enemies he would not take a line which he is strong_and able enough to take, Mr. Thomas found himself in a mess. The question of Direct Action in Ireland was referred to one Labour body after another —again by a process of humbug, for each body wanted to get the Old Man of the Sea off its back—and ultimately 'it was hoped tce-settle the matter, if such a bathos could be- called -a settlement, by what are-known as the Bristol Resolutions. These Resolutions declared that Labour could quite well- bring about the pacification of Ireland, though everybody else had- failed, and Mr. Thomas was deputed -to bear the . Resolutions to the _ Prime Minister. No doubt the. Marning Post was right in its surmise-that -the real motive -of' the Bristol Resolutions was to save. Mr. Thomas's face.
Mr. Thomas solemnly appeared before the Prime Minister as the representative of twenty thousand workers in Ireland, and asked for =mandate -mandate to -solve the ancient Irish conundrum. He- proposed to do what _Mr. Birrell' did, but to do it-more disastrously. Mr. Birrell's assump- tion that the. Irish were a harmonious and an amiable people who had only to be smiled- at and left to them- selves to become angels of beneficence ended in the slaughter and wreckage-of the Dublin - Revolution. The aftermath of that Revolution has been the unceasing, catalogue of assassination outrages and acts of _arson in Ireland. Mr. Thomas, in order that his face may be saved, -wants complacently.to -leave thousands of -innocent and loyal men and -women in Ireland absolutely without protection, although they are under daily - sentence of death. His suggestion that the trenendous responsibility as regards Ireland which rests 'upon-the Government and upon the whole electorate- of the United Kingdom. should be taken away- from these trustees and committed to the united intelligence of twenty thousand workers in Ireland —a mere remnant of the Irish Trade Unions who have been gradually elrifting away from their English- affiliation —was such .utter humbug that one wonders that Mr. Thomas could make-it with a -straight face. Perhaps, after all, some of these labour leaders do smile, like the Boman augurs, -when they pass one another in the street. It would be extremely convenient, of course, for Mr. Thomas to have the mess into which he has brought himself forgotten through the acceptance of- the Bristol Resolutions. There would then -be no time—so -great would be the new troubles—to remember his futility. He was reduced to such a parlous position as the Prime Minister discovered him in by a prolonged course of humbug. He could not avoid making Mr. Lloyd George a present of a most favourable battle ground if there was to. be a struggle between the Government and the Irish railwaymen. Mr. Lloyd George- could not possibly lose the battle. We only hope the workers will observe to what a dreadful terrain they have been led. Our next example of humbug is the denunciations by the Daily Herald -of extravagance at Ascot and other race- meetings. In its issue of last Saturday, the Daily Herald used language with which, so far as it goes, we are in absolute agreement about the vulgarity of individual extravagance when " half of Europe is on the verge of starvation." The Daily Herald describes Ascot as " revels on the brink of a volcano." It estimates that a day at Ascot as enjoyed by " Lord Tomnoddy and the Hon. Augusta FitzBoodle," who eat and dress appropriately -to the occasion, is no less than £82 5s. for the pair. " Quite a nice little sum," comments the Daily Herald; "and it does not include anything for drinks, or smokes, or bets, or gratuities. Nor are my lord's glad rags placed in the bill." The Daily Herald enlarges further upon the same subject in a leading article, where it estimates that during the four Ascot days two million pounds were spent. Up to this point we agree, but alas when we turn to the last page of the Daily Herald of the same date, we find an article by " Teraplegate "—would not " Starting Gate " be a better nom de guerre, but perhaps that has already been appropriated ?—in which we read a thorough-going incitement to the readers of the Daily Herald to bet. "Backers led off well when making Dunkirk favourite .for. the Highweight Stakes, as he got home all- right." . . . " Black Gauntlet was a rare morning tip." " There was a great tip for Starcast filly." . . . " Yet in -view of the big field backers showed rare pluck in accepting such odds." . . . " Diadem won in a canter by four lengths, thus bringing a brilliant meeting to a close by a brilliant performance." The account ends with tips for the next day's racing, and there is the usual " dead snip "—a horse to which an asterisk is: attached indicating that he is well worth punting upon. Poor Mr. Lansbury It is very sad, but there seems to be a dire fatality which prevents editors of extreme opinions and of highbrowed social ideas from keeping clear of incitements to gamble. Mr. Lansbury, the editor of the Daily Herald, when he publishes " Tero,plegate's " tips, cannot be- ignorant that he is sending them broadcast -to working - men and -not to Lord Toxv.noddy or Miss Augusta FitzBoodle, who, though no doubt it is a defect in them, .do not read the Daily Herald. Yet`Mr. Lansbury yields to some terrible necessity which he believes to be pursuing him. He would argue, we suppose, that he 'could not otherwise sell his paper satisfactorily. But that can only be because other papers—chiefly papers with extreme political opinions and highbrowed social ideas—are in. competition witle_him.. Why should he not -call upon the- Trade Union Congress, which is fond of passing resolutions, to pass a resolution dem= the prohibition of sporting tips in newspapers ? " e he was about it, he might even call for another resolution demanding the instant nationalization of horse racing. For if there -is a capitalistic sport, which is far and away above all others capitalistic, it is surely horse raring. -Yet. Mr. .:Lansbury, without a word of explanation, but -acting under the necessity which he believes to impel him, encourages this form of capitalism. The Daily .Herald's description exclaims upon the terrible contrast between the world-wide dearth- and the luxury of Ascot, and adds, " The legacies of -war, secret diplomacy, and concession-hunting are still draining the manhood and the wealth of the nation." Secret diplomacy and concession- hunting have been known to bring nations wealth, even though disreputably, but the -one tlsieg- which_is sure to bring the mass of the people to final and irretrievable ruin is- the- sort of _heedless gambling which Mr. Lansbury encourages. That is the way to drain manhood and wealth. Yet the truth is conveniently omitted from the Daily Herald's account. The pillory is reserved for Lord" Toranoddy and Miss Augusta FitzBoodle---whose ill-bred extravagance is -practised in so =small a class that it could have little effect upon the total prosperity of the country. The incitements to betting published by the Daily Herald and the Daily News, which now . also gives racing tips with a specially asterisked horse every day, and of course the Star, are draining the pockets of hundreds of thousands. Soon these papers will be demanding that the ruined men, shall be raised above " the starvation level " by further rises in • wages. Let not the working. men be humbugged. If " Templegate " and " Captain Coe " could rely upon their own tips they would not need any profession, and they would not be writing for the Daily Herald and the Star. We have never ourselves taken the view that betting is " wrong" for a man who can afford it, any more than it is wrong _for a man to spend_ any reasonable sum he can afford upon a luxury which brings Em pleasure or amusement. But the Daily News used to publish articles denouncing, betting as sinful. To publish those articles simultaneously with incitements to bet in the Star—both papers being owned by the same proprietors—was a- feat of supreme humbug. It would have been a comparable thing if the Spectator, when publishing articles on " Poisonous Literature," had pub= fished simultaneously leering and salacious articles with some such title as "'Round the Town." or " Spicy Tales from the Divorce Court." Such a number as the Daily Herald published last Saturday makes one feel sick. We would much rather read the ravings of an honest and consistent anarchist than such insufferable humbug.
Previous page
