that is not enough. The one hard and clear lesson taught by the failure of the General Strike is that the dupes of the Trade Unions are not indispensable. The work of the country can be carried on without them. From the contemptuous terms in which Mr Pugh refers to what he calls "the strikebreakers," we conclude that he did not approve of them. He does not tell us what he would have had them do. Should they have sat still to starve with all their friends until they could soften by their prayers and their entreaties the hard hearts of Eccleston Square? Those who rush lightly into civil war must not be surprised if they discover a welldrilled army on the other side. Mr Pugh's argument is a piece of hypocrisy that deserves only contempt.

But of the spontaneous solidarity of those who saved their country from starvation and ruin there is no doubt. They did not rush into the fray because they were intimidated and without consultation. They did not do what they knew to be their duty because they were threatened with loss of work or pensions. They were not afraid that, if they did what they thought was their duty, they would be called "black-leg and "scab." Such names were indifferent to them. They saw merely what had to be done, and they did it, and Mr Pugh does but set another light upon their gallantry by his foolish abuse.

And there is another error into which Mr Pugh falls. He describes the General Strike as a mere step in an industrial dispute, and he should know that it was nothing of the kind. It was a step towards revolution, a definite act of civil war. Had it succeeded, as, of course, it could not, it would have completely changed the constitution of the country without any General Election, without any of the common processes of democracy. If Mr Pugh does not understand that, he has no right to aspire to the political leadership of men. Mr Cramp, at any rate, is in no doubt about it. "In order that a General Strike might be successful," said he, as quoted in the Times,' "it was necessary to enforce the resignation of the Government, for no Government could take the attitude of forcing a matter to a national crisis, and afterwards surrender, without resigning.

In spite, therefore, of the denials of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress . . the issue was a constitutional one. If successful, it did involve a revolutionary change in their methods, and it was well to face the fact. . . . Under circumstances prevailing during the General Strike there was no half-way house between the ballot-box and the machine-gun." It is always well to face the facts, and to determine beforehand which is preferable: the ballotbox or the machine-gun. Perhaps, when at last the moment

comes at which the General Gen. Strike and subsequent Strike can be discussed with period, Thomas, main instisafety, we shall know what our gator defeat Gen. Strike, thinkwould-be tyrants think about ing nothing of leaving for these and other grave matters. overseas, thereby evading all responsibility." Mr Thomas is still the bogey-man in all proletarian eyes, and perhaps it is fortunate that Tomsky was not permitted to land in England. Had he been in Bournemouth, nothing would have restrained him from telling the General Council what he thought of their poltroonery. He would have considered it his duty to report to the Congress each step it took in connection with British events. From what a scandal has the Home Office, maybe at the earnest entreaty of the General Council, saved the poor frightened Congress. There is nothing which the Congress wished with a stouter heart than to keep as far as possible from the thin ice of revolution. Tomsky had appeared in the midst of the delegates he would have submerged them them all. "Had Gen. Strike not been squashed," thus goes on the turbulent fellow, "and Gen. Council's order calling it off, Gen. Strike would have led to glorious victory, and you would already have long been freed of your Government aristocrats and mine-owners." This man would have proved a dangerous stalwart for those who, like Mr Pugh, wish the world to believe that the General Strike was a mere piece of tactics in a trade dispute.

Then suddenly into the midst of the same diffident Congress at Bournemouth there obtruded itself Tomsky-not the man himself, who was not allowed, but a telegram. It would have been better, perhaps, had he been shot up through a trapdoor, like a clown at the pantomime. But he did very well as it was, and his telegram was as finely comic an interlude as ever disturbed the grey sad afternoon of a solemn congress. No doubt Russian telegraphic rates are high, and the great Tomsky's style was necessarily curt, even explosive. It reminded us somewhat, in its use of the merely essential words, of the style of the late Mr Jingle. Tomsky began by a pious hope, which certainly has not been fulfilled: "Sov. C.C.T.U. expresses hope Congress first word and primary business will be as regards assisting miners. To do otherwise wd. be step unworthy sound proletarian organisation Brit. Workers." Then Tomsky proceeded to chastise workers of Great Britain in the manner of the Bolsheviks. He laid all the blame of failure on bend-the-knee attitude towards Government of Trade Union leaders like Thomas. They were too loyal to capital and too disloyal to working class. "When Gen. Council must now report on activities during

the

If

However, the gallant Tomsky

men, and the labour movement we are convinced, get rid of of England will be forced to these dangerous leaders if it carry this old man of the sea, could, but the privilege of a an obligation to Russia, upon its secret ballot is denied to it. back for many a long day. The Truly, the plight of the men is strikers have taken the money pitiable. They are bound tight and they have spent it. They in the bonds of servitude. They have not done with it what may not work where and how the Russians expected of them, they will. If they are commandand henceforth every sudden ed to cease from work and to knock at the door will make endure all the hardships that them tremble for the bailiff. enforced idleness entails, they are permitted no appeal from the decision of their tyrants. Lest they should show the last poor shreds of independence, they live under the ugliest intimidation that ever was devised. An act of disobedience on their part is instantly punished by outrage and by bodily injury. Their wives are insulted; they are followed in the street by the gibes and jeers of hirelings; opprobrious names are chalked upon their doors; and it is made plain to them that in England, which once was free, no chance of work will ever come their way again. Whatever their politics may be, they are compelled, under duress, to subscribe to a fund which is devoted to the furtherance of Socialism. Freedom of speech, which their tyrants are never wearied of asserting is the inalienable right of all men, is forbidden them. If they differ from their leaders, they declare their difference at their peril. Not long since Mr Thomas Spencer was a trustee of the Derbyshire Miners' Association. He was bold enough openly to criticise the policy of the leaders who have

It is worth while briefly to sum up the condition into which this country has drifted. The chief power of the State is now in the hands of one class -a class which, as represented by its leaders, who seldom take the trouble to consult it, is denationalised and hostile to the wellbeing of the nation. With an effrontery, compared with which the egregious Tomsky's arrogance is humility itself, these leaders have presumed to dictate to the Government and the people of England. They have made it almost impossible to parley with them. For while they pretend that they are looking to the industrial welfare of their dupes, their sole interest is political. If the working classes were really really sincere, they might achieve what they want by the exercise of the franchise which they control. But the Houses of Parliament do not move quickly enough for their insolent leaders, who, having got all that democracy will give them, are content with nothing less than what is known as direct action.

The

mass of the working men would,