That Pastoral on Socialism.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 3, Issue 53, 15 March 1912, Page 7

That Pastoral on Socialism.

f An Open Letter to Archbishop Redwood. By E. R. HARTLEY. (Continued.) "Put this man off tho estate?," said the Earl. "Throw him «ff for his insolence-," and himself lending a hand when the gamekeepers had scoured their man, tho rash miner soon found himself pitched neok and crop into .in adjoining lane. Hia anger and mirpriso may bo well imagined when he knew the young men were the sons of another minor, and that tho Earl paid their wages •with the, royalties drawn from the very pib in which he and th-eir father worked. Not much "natural right" here, my Lord Archbishop! But a food doal of tho rights of property you aro so anxious about. Thoro is no natural right to property in anything our brothers •nd sisters need whereby to live —except brute force. If this is to be the method, it may be pointed out that tho working-classes «Te at least 9to lof the property-owning classes. Oneo united, their "natural right" might easily bo attained and maintained. Here is something like a puzzle. Did not someone say that words were given us whereby we might conceal our thoughts? •*'lt denounces that rational and stable bond which tho moral law protects, which humankind in all ages has respected, which •nables man, by some just title, to unite to himself the good and useful things of creation. And so, hero again, it antagonises Christianity." What your Very Reverend means by the above is best known to yourself. The moral law of all the ages up to now has been.— "That he shall take who has the power, And he shall keep who can!" If your Archbishopship doubt* this, may I call your attention to what has happened in Egypt, Africa, is happening in Persia and Morocco, etc., did happen in New Zealand—nay, is going en to-day, for I read in tho very newspaper concerning your letter a report of the New Zealand Insurance Co., which started B2 years ago with a paid-up capital of £481*5—notice, less than fiyo thousand pounds—which to-day has a nominal capital of £1,500.000, of which it has called up only £300,000—not because it needed it, but merely in order to provide plunder for idle and useless shareholders—and which is to-day paying 25 per cent, to .people who are as useless as flies. And all this, which by whatever name it is called is absolutely uncalled for and immoral, •under "Christian society."

I would that you, my friend, and all your Grace's supporters would note, these facts. If you tell mc that tlie.se persons "found the capital," may I ask, "Where did they find it?" Also would it not bo well to enquire, "Who lost it?"

If these good, kind people receive 25 per cent, for four years, they will then have had their capital returned in full. If , they receive the same dividend for eight years, they will have received jt twice over. If- for 12 years, the finders of this capital will, eftCT having their capital returned to them three times ovef, in addition he.able to find their capital still invested. More than that the invested capital is admittedly only £300,000, but the assets of the company are stated at £1,031,000. In other wonls. reckoning for only 12 years, the "finders of the capital" have had their capital returned to them three times over, and in addition. find it grown in bulk as an investment by three and a half times.

It should bo further noted that all this has been done by *aking advantage of tho necessities of the people, who, living in wooden houses, must insure their properties or find themselves facing tho world afresh almost naked and defenceless. Surely, my Reverend Archbishop, you are not going to say there is any moral law in a system of taking advantage of tho people's necessities in a manner like this, and you should join with us in saying with Karl Marx: "Tho time has arrived when the expropriates »hall themselves he expropriated."

If anything in the world "antagonises Christianity" it is a iPjstem such as this. By what part of tho teachings of Christ can such robbery of your fellows as the foregoing bo justified? It would ho difficult to imagine the Christ of Nazareth a shareholder sinder conditions like these. It is equally difficult for anyone who professes to Iμ his follower. I noto yon again say: "Socialism aims at tho destruction of *h€ family." Again 1 say your statement is untrue. No, I don't mean that yon have wiitten something which you tsnow to b<3 untrue; merely that you are dealing with something of which you are apparently profoundly ignorant. Under another heading I shall have something further to say. Having probably risited more Socialist homes t<han any living man, and stayed in them for days*and even weeks, during my 20 years' peregrinations, I can say that so far from destroying the liome, the homo life and the homo standard of the Socialists is the highest in tho world. Free Love, Materialism, Etc. "No doubt it is untrue that all who call themselves Socialists pi each tho -abominable doctrine of free love, yet the dissolution of the family is a necessary consequence of their official teaching, wnd their official demands. Because their tenets are grounded on Materialism and Atheism, they afford no security for the permanence of the marriage bond, but rather encourage and urgo the severance of that bond, whensoever a marriage has resulted in disappointment or disagreement." lily Lord Archbishop, I have again to complain of the ambiguity of your language, or your muddle-headed way of thinking. You write of "the abominable doctrine of free love," but you }«:avo us no clue as to what you mean, for what you write immediately following only makes confusion worse confounded. Because nations own their roads communally, and in any civilised land people from any part of tho world may use theso public Txwvds without let or hindrance, that is not received as any evi'denoo of a slackening of tho moral fibre —rather otherwise.

You say: "They afford no security for the- permanence of the marriage bond." If you will re-road brother Julius's speech, you will find that -that is his exact complaint about prosont-day eociety, the society you uphold and dub Christian. Hero are- his very words:

"Look at tho wido prevalence of divorce," cries Bishop 'Julius. ''It was quilo an ordinary tilling." "Marriage is losing its fcigh estate." "Tiiero is no thought of a, life to be spent together foi better or worse, but I here is the thought of a chance liking tor each other."

Oh, friend Itedweod, I pray thee note carefully the words of Ihotlier Julius, for 'jou and I, and every thoughtful man and Woman, know how tone tLoy arc. But, ploase remember this—the indictment is not true of society under Socialism; it is levelled at what you yourself teim -"du-istiau Bocicty." Socialists eiy,

"Reform■society altogether," remembering the old saying, "When poverty comes in at tho door, love flics out of tic window." Seek first the abolition of poverty; which h entirely unnecessary to-day; as one of the first steps to a bettor state of things. AVo wish to keep love at homo. I have left over for a short space your reference- to "free love," a phrase- you use without making it understood what you mean by it. ,Ou a vital matter such as this language eannotbe too plain and explicit. Ou several occasions I have boon asked, "Do you believe in free krvor , " My invariable answer has been : "Most certainly!" This reply has generally given a shook to the people present, and at times'they have been loud in their condemnation. When, howevqi , , tho tumult has subsided a little, and they have had time to think, I have asked the querist: "Don't you believe in free love? , ' usually receiving an indignant denial.

I then have said: "I am to understand, then, that you people believe in bought love?"

'Ihis again has iv.used condemnation.

' ''But love must either be bought or free; you must make your'solves clrji'r as k> what you really mean. If you don't believe in free love, you must believe in bought love—which?"

I have then found, most Reverend Sir, that people who speak or write so glibly about "free love]' don't mean free love, but "free lust"—a very different matter. One gentl—no! one person ventured to assure-me—ho was a wealthy man and a city councillor —that "it was all the same."

My Lord Archbishop, it is difficult to discuss a matter like this with anyone so ignorant as to know no difference between love and hist, or who uses the word "love," knowing at the same timo that what he really means is lust. But 1 must do my best and I think your real moaning is "free lust." If I am mistaken, whenever again you venture on. this subject, will you please make your nieaning dear? 'Tis tho only way to reach the truth.

t, Sir, have yet to meet the Socialist who believes in- free lust, It is no> part of the Socialist creed; it is no part of the Socialist ideal; it has no part in any Socialist teaching.

May I again point out that to-day the marriage ideals of a century ago—Bishop Julius says 20 years ago—are (lying out and falling into disuse, and they are dying out now, not waiting foT Socialism'l-- This is happening in every Christian nation under the the sun. Why do you try to put the failings of your Church and a system of society which you call "Christian" to tho Socialists? With hundreds of thousands of prostitutes in the richest cities of your Christian civilisation, with the knowledge of the conduct of tho Christian. l * who have followed the missionaries amongst the nations of tho earth, it ill becomes you, Sir, to try and befoul a state of sociuty where most of these horrors would be Impossible I

Have you read, Sir, of the 15,000 (a large cityful of people in New Zealand) laundresses cf New York, who at the moment of writing are on strike against their horrible conditions and miser-

able wages?

The ordinary newspaper says: "Hundreds of laundries are in a frightful condition, the ordinary rules of sanitation being ignored, in many cases not even separate dressing-rooms and conveniences being provided for males and females. The evils of child labour aro great, while the laundry workers are compelled to work 14 hours.for starvation wages."

My Lord Archbishop, many of the women could obtain more by tho sale of their bodies for ono hour than they receive for 14 hours' drudgery in these horrible dens, where decency seems t'> lie unknown. 'Tis to the honour of womankind that so many remain pure under such awful conditions. It is to the everlasting disgrace of the men of the world that theso conditions can last a single month.

My Lord Bishop, tins is not a dream I It is not a mirage created by the vision of a fevered Socialist imagination. It is a bare, hard, horrid fact, and it is in: the city of New York, where there arc- far more Christian churches than laundries.

What has your Christian civilisation done for these, our sisters ?

What has your Christian civilisation ever done for such poor women?

What will you and yours ever do to remove such things from our midst? s

Experience gives the aDswer. Nothing! These things age vivid realities after, nearly 20 centuries of your work, and exist wliile tho walls of your churches and tho dogmas you have taught are crumbling" to decay.

Strong language, Sir, but true! Your Christian churches are powerless and useless in the face of questions like these. But listen, Reverend Sir, and listen all you opponents of a Socialism you know not, and are too foolish even to try to understand.

Under Socialism, the horrible conditions of the New York laundries could not exist for a week.

Listen again, ye comfortable people with warm firesides, good woollen underclothing, stout boots, and warm overcoats atfid fur coats.

"On Tuesday (13/2/12) there was a monster parade of wretch-edly-clad women—some of them aged and grey (every man had a mother), others mero girls, who shivered in, tie wintry air—it was freezing hard—but at a great mass meeting thoy determined to hold out until they secured a promise of improved working conditions and wages."

My God! A mere Promise will suffice to get them back, and if they get a shilling a week advance and two or three hours knocked off their week's work, they will count it groat gain.

My Lord Archbishop, I cannot help asking myself: "How many surplices and other garments of church dignitaries and church members arc- washed under the- horrible conditions these newspapers tell of?"

"0 men with sisters dear!

0 men with mothers and wives! It is not linen you're wearing out— It is human creatines' lives."

So sang Tom Hood 68 years ago, and your Christian society grows worse, for ho sang of the time wh-cn machinery was unknown for tlio help of tho seamstress and the washerwoman.

Dost hear, brother Redwood? Tlio machinery can do a hundredfold the work, yet these women are 310 bettor off I Do you wonder that not only. Socialists, hut many others grow weary of yo cuinbcierd of the ground?

The ciric government of Now York could alter tho whole conditions of the laundries insido a month under pressure from tho churches, but eucli pressure will never bo used because this can only bo done by an extension of the principles of Socialism. Therefore, our sisters' bodies may rot, and their souls creep shivering to hell, for fear that Churehianity and privato enterprise may he damaged.

Most of your letter is written : "Because their (tho Socialists') tenets are grounded on Materialism and Atheism."

I have shown previously that the question of a man's belief or unbelief in a God has no moro to do with, the question of "Public Ownership for the Public" Good" than with any present public service. A better article at half its present price, &n

absolute certainty that no man, woman, or child was being done to death for cheapness-, would interfere with no one's opinion, about the Power that made and moves the world.

Your assertion that Socialism means Atheism is no more true - than to say that Liberalism, Toryism, Republicanism, or Democratisrii means Atheism because certain prominent members of all these parties have no belief in your God.

You, Sir, aro an Archbishop, but can tell no more about God than I, know myself, and I know as much about him as you can

possibly know. That is nothing!

My,. Lord. Archbishop, it is quite true that Socialism will greatly change the conditions of women. Such changes have been going on all through history.

WTould. you, Sir, would anyore, wish to introduce tho marriage laws and customs of the Old Testament? Shall the marital examples of David and Solomon bo the pattern for the men of to-day ? Some may think such questions irreverent. They are noiU .They 4ro necessary when men. of your position try and persuade' the people- that worn-out and useless customs must be kept up,, and speak of them as ''sacraments,"- suggesting they are of sacred origin. Your sacrament of marriage is a mere- fiction of the Church, instituted and built up by men of no more knowledge than ourselves to bolster up a system they desired. That your so-called "sacrament" is useless is proved, by the fact that the law docs not recognise-' the religious ceremony, but demands the legal contract. A religious ceremony of marriage without the legal registration would leave all the children of such marriage illegitimate, while a- registered marriage without any religious ceremony Would , render the-children legitimate. . In Eriigland it was discovered recently that the village church had never been "licensed for marriages." Hundreds of marriages had taken place during the 40 years which had passed. . The "sac-rainent" had lienn performed, the people had lived together for a lifetime., scores of children h:ul been born : but not one o£ those couples was married according to the laws of the "Christian sceJe.ty" you boast about, and all these children were "bastards' , by law.

A! special. Act. of Parliament had to be passed to make the marriage? roal and the children able to inherit property.

8o much for the figment you ! call "sacrament."

.Socialism would most certainly change the position of womea. It.would give to women economic freedom. Every man, every woman, every child would have economic freedom. That is, no human being would ever again be dependent upon some other human being for the means whereby to live. It would be part of their citizenship.

When women aro no longer compelled to soil thoir bodies for a homo and protection, they will bo able to rise to standards wo dream! pot of to-day.

"Wheal women are economically free they will hare to be won — it will be impossible to buy them. LoVe will be free in its fullest r.-nd highest sense. As the poet, puts it: —

"Like Dian's kiss, unasked, unsought, Love gives itself, it is not bought; ' ■ t . It comes, the beautiful, the free; Tho crown of oil humanity, In silence and alone to seek the elected one." To-day in the marriage market women aro bought and so}'] much like their• sisters on the streets —one is bought for an hour, one for a few months or years, and some for life. The bargain is iniicb. tie same, but the prices greatly differ. "Some bring fair flesh for sale, And ethers bring fair fame."

Under Socialism, no woman will ever again be compelled to sell herself for bread, for a home, or for position. She may be iron; she cannot be forced. Sho will have to be won by nobie, deeds and kindly actions. Love for love! faith for faith! Love , ? dear equality will then be an accomplished fact.

1 note that you, my Lord, believe in the submission of women to men. You are out of date. In the near futuro woman will take her place alongside- man, net as a dependent, but as an equal; if her intellect bo greater than her lover's, sho will use her intellect unstintedly and freely, and not, as is too often tho case to-day, stand aside for hor mental inferior, whom you, my Lord Bishop, would evidently style her lord and master. Socialism will stamp out lordship and mastership, both in the market a.ild the homo. Worthship will t&iio its place, and nothing but worth will stand.

What woman will do with economic freedom I know not, my Lord! Neither do you. I feel sure sho will use it wisely and well. Perhaps yo;i think otherwise. I have found many such. I have found men and women who tYar that with greater freedom wo may become greater slaves. Fcr myself—

"I doubt not thro' t'iio ages true increasing purpose- runs

And tho thoughts of men are \vi<>-nod with the process of the 81U1S."

History shows the gradual climbing of the race from the mm of tho caves to the wondrous civilisation of to-ilny—wondrous, despite its woe and wrong. Wo shall not go back. That wvr« impossible, And tho next great etep is the emancipation t-i women kind. With woman dwarf*u and bound down, it is impossible for the race to grow.

Socialism will say. "Advance, woman!" Maaiy will doubt — : lis but tho icflcction of their own minds

. I have never forgotten an incident that occurred in my first year's experience as a city father. 1 was advocating that no walls, fences, or gates should bo put rov.nd <i city park, when a niiddltaged alderman broke in: "Now, Mr. Chairman, we've hoard enough of this! It has evidently never crossed Councillor Hartley's mind the uso that would bo mado of such parka."

I replied in my politest .manuor: " ! Tis very truo, Mr. Chairman. Such a thing never crossed my mind. But tho alderman knows whftt he- would do." It w&s enough, and I finished my speech without further interruption.

My good friends who read this, if you are afraid that with economic freedom for women things may be> worse, look into yor.r own minds and ask yourselves—Why?

I have dealt with this point at some length because it Is certain that when no one is dependent on sorctuiKJ else? for permisskii' to live, things are bound to be very different, but 'twill not ';o for the worse.

When you speak of cur being grounded on Materialism, wo a:d grateful, no* angry.

You too are grounded on Materialism. "Cnsties in tho aii" arc very excellent things in their way, but when wo wish to build a house, cr even a cathedral, we prefer ib to be on material

ground,

'Tia true "man hVeth net ty Iread alone," but 'tis also true that without bread he cannot live at all.

♦To )>e coi;ttaa«U

w<3 uiirVrstiir.'i It:r» 1 ih.) J^ , -.r IJ.--[imrttiK'iit lias al! i!m tiec-w;:'v !•.", ( ! machinery woli oiled with wluuh it is infccfliflttl to pruscciito iJic num.: i-, <-X tlio '!';-annv,iy l r 'ii;.:.( !■,(.- ---on.c« a t'f il'.cir roj'tis;il |;.car iljo sti< r ,i)ia cast upon liieir by eu obnoxiuiis inspector. f * ;.- j\f:u ; s(l< - ti mikl C]iiu:'iborl3i!i. ■■!•"!!! i-N. irboso .•ippo.'i-i'.s \\\ t\\\- isBiio, liavo oho of tlio must. up-t/>~d,,i>; A-jiw.,l pririors in tiio city v[ Wuiiicvio'i. Jl'-:-..1..ts in Mi.'ocl r-r"dr!)!.,l ;ii:-!;----li-in eo'iM ii')t do boiior l!;rii vi-; ; I-. iijij cajjaLlo iiriii.