war.

There were many causes for it. But no one will deny that much of the trouble arose from the belief sedulously fostered by an active group of propagandists in the industrial arena that it was hopeless to expect Parliament to take any interest in the workers' grievances. Political action by the workers themselves was systematically discredited and discounted. The mass of the organised working class movement never lost faith in the Labour Party, and made full allowance for the difficulties under which their Parliamentary representatives worked. It is nevertheless true that the propaganda of "direct action" among the workers tended seriously to undermine belief in the efficacy of political methods. The opportunity of the anti-parliamentarian propagandists will recur if in the immediate future the Labour Party, by reason of its own weakness or the stubborn resistance of other parties and classes, is unable to fulfil the expectations of its followers. One good reason for beginning now to build up a strong democratic party in Parliament, with a programme of social and economic reforms carefully thought out in advance, is that such a party, having the confidence of the organised movement and conscious of its strength, will be able to prove that political methods are effective, and that Parliament can be made to legislate for the good

of the people as a whole rather than for the benefit of particular classes. The Labour Party can rehabilitate Parliament in the eyes of the people who have been wearied by the unreal strife of the orthodox parties, and by the cumbrous working of the Parliamentary machine in dealing with pressing and urgent questions of reform. The Labour Party sets out to prove by actual experiment and achievement that the Democratic State of to-morrow can be established without an intervening period of violent upheaval and dislocation.

The Revolution which the Labour Party seeks to bring about in this country will not be effected by means of bombs and bayonets. It will be, however, quite as thorough-going in its results as any violent convulsion involving the use of armed force can posssibly be. It means a radical change in the attitude of Parliament towards questions of social reform, a speeding up of the legislative machine, a resolute independence on the part of the Labour Party in Parliament. It means further a complete overhauling of the administrative machine. Experience has shown us that the great administrative services, swathed in red tape, hampered by tradition, conservative by instinct, saturated with class prejudice, are a more effective check upon the reforming impulse than even a Parliament dominated

by aristocratic and capitalist influences. We have no use for the Circumlocution Office. We want to see the Civil Service democratised. The Diplomatic Service, in particular, is an aristocratic preserve which offers no opportunity for a career to any man unless he possesses a private income of at least £400 a year, however well qualified he may otherwise be. The abolition of such a barrier is a democratic duty. In addition, we desire to bring the Foreign Office more directly under the control of Parliament, and to give the peoples' representatives larger powers of criticism in regard to foreign policy. So also with other Government Departments: we believe that their efficiency, energy, and enthusiasm for the public welfare will be greatly increased by an infusion of the spirit of democracy. Labour's aim is to establish democratic control over all the machinery of State. It can be done without a violent break with the past. Labour desires to make a swift and smooth transition to the new order, working along constitutional lines, not seeking to introduce innovations for the sake of novelty, but solely for the purpose of promoting political and social liberty and putting an end to oligarchical government and the domination of one class by another. To effect this transformation of the legislative and administrative machine it will not be necessary to spill blood.

CHAPTER VIII

FREEDOM

It is a tragic paradox that in the great struggle for freedom and democracy the British people have been required to surrender many of their cherished liberties. The nation's willingness to submit to restrictions imposed by authority upon the right of democratic self-determination which has been its chief pride and boast for many centuries is a more convincing proof of its resolute intention to achieve victory than even the sacrificial service of the men in the field and the workers at home. It is questionable, indeed, whether many of the limitations upon freedom were necessary; but it is indisputable that only a people motived by the purest patriotism, and resolved to allow nothing to weaken the national will, would have accepted them. At any other time the State's encroachment upon the domain of private liberty would have been instantly challenged. It was not because the British people were convinced that the surrender of democratic rights was necessary that they yielded without a struggle, but be

cause they realised they could not prosecute two wars simultaneously. Having resolved to defeat Prussianism abroad because it menaced the freedom of the whole world, they tolerated the curtailment of their liberties at home as a relatively smaller danger with which they could more conveniently deal when the bigger peril was removed. Reaction has made great strides during the war. The people know that they are in the grip of reaction. But it would be a disastrous error to conclude that democracy has been so firmly fettered that it will not be able to shake off its bonds when the hour comes for it to reckon with its domestic enemies. The very submission of the people, their acceptance of one outrageous restriction after another, may lead the reactionaries to think their policy has succeeded: when the greater preoccupation of the war is over they will perhaps see how completely it has failed.

What are the reactionary encroachments upon liberty against which democracy may justly protest? We do not complain so much of the formal restrictions imposed upon the people of this country on the plea of national necessity, but of the subtler inroads upon both private and public liberty through a reactionary and oppressive interpretation of the long series of regulations introduced during the war. Take first the freedom of the press. An intelligent