The Welsh Coast Pioneer and Review for North Cambria

SOCIALISM. 1 REMARKABLE SPEECHES AT RHYL FOR AND AGAINST. MR JOSEPH LLOYD'S BRILLIANT ADDRESS. At the Rhyl Constitutional Club to day week, an unusually interesting debate on "Socialism" took place. The chair was taken by the President (Mr W. J. P. Storoy,. J.P ), who expressed the plea- sure it him to see so large an attendance, and on behalf of the Club he extended to Mr Joseph Lloyd, who had kindly promised to open the debate, a very hearty welcome. Mr JOSEPH LLOYD (St. Asaph), in open- ing the debate, said that in every highly civilised country to-day there was a fact whicn fcrced its attelltlOn on, and arose in the mind" of people. It was tho fact of the gross inequality Ion the distribution of wealth. It was not: so much that one man was richer than another, but that there were contrasts betwee.n the wasteful extravagance and luxury of the idle few and the grim poverty of the many toiling, tho contrast oetween the multiplied mansions of the drones and the huddled health-destroying hovels of the workers. It was no new question, but to-day they lived m tvi age of inquiry; in an ago wnen men of aa inquiring turn of mind asked why they should nave tnis state of tnmgs, what was the cause and the effect, and wiiat were the re- medies. They had dirterenc sections who believed that they had found a remedy, tnat they knew one why and the wherefores of it. They had on he one hand the Prohibitionist, who said that poverty was the result of drink, and that if the sale of intoxicating liquor was stopped all poverty would be ended. Tnere there WM the Protec- tionist, who had notions of his own as to putting matters right, and after him came the Socialist, who aaserted tnat they must start everything afresh; that the world must be turned up-side down;- that every valley must be exalted, and every hill be brought low. They sent a Hill to Kirkdale, and he was brought low, but that was not the sort of hill the Socialists meant (laugihier). But in considering the question of Socialism, they must heve a clear idea, of wnat was meant by it, what they opposed, and what they supported. It had given him much thought, and he realised a great difficulty in arriving at what the Socialists really meant by the term "Socialism." He had heard it described as "a tendency," "a life," "a historical discovery," and "world philosophy." To his mi.nd they wanted something a little more definite than than. It seemed to him a sort of "abstract noun," but he thought he had arrived at a definition which every Socialist would agree with. It might not go far enough for them all, but all would subscribe to that definition. WHAT IS SOCIALISM? By Socialism he meant the entire elimination of industrial competition, and the compulsory and exclusive substitution of co-operation; the tclal abolition of individual ownership and the substitution of collective ownership. In order to give a dear idea of what Socialism really was, and vviitt it meant, they should understand wliat it was not. Many people confused social reform with Socialism. They should realise that every social reform was not Socialism, and that the social reformer, no matter how extreme his views might be, was not a Socialist (hear, hear). The social reformer would amend, improve, and ex- tend, while the Socialist would entirely destroy. The Socialist said that the whole system was wrong, that society was upside down, and that there must be no pruning and transplanting of the tree, but that it must be taken up by the root from the ground, a.nd that the roots and branches must receive the same treatment. They had three classes of men. There was in the first place the man who did not want social reform— ne wanted everything to go on as it ever had been; then there was the social reformer, and next the Socialist. He felt that in a debate of kind a homely example or illustration suited the case. Let them take the case of corns (loud laughter). Most people had corns, and the man who did not want anything changed said to the one who had the corns, "Your father had corns, your grandfather had them before him, and you iiave to have them" (laughter). But the social reformer came along, and he advised the trying of a corn plaster, or some other remedy; while the Socialist said that it was no use talking. People had had corns for generations, and neither the Conservatives nor the Radicals had done any- thing for them; that it was no use trying to walk on their feet, for so long as they walked on their feet they would have corns, and therefore they must get rid of them by walkinyf on their hands (loud laughter). STATE OR MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT? Thero wis a very wide gulf between the social reformer and. the Socialist. They had to remem- bar. tnat co operation was not Socialism unless it, was compulsory and exclusive. Because co-opera- lion was 'o-day in competition with the private mdividua! it was bcnefcial. Then there was tha question of or Municipal Management, an-I lie did not argue whether that was good or bad, though his own opinion was that they could not chaw a hard and fast line i.n thoso matters. Ho was prepared to support State or municipal man- ;igem-mt of concerns if it was proved that in- dividual management was impossible, injurious, and incompetent, whether it be in the building of a pavilion 01 the laying out of gardens (ap- plause). Municipal management to-day was not Socialism because they were in competition with individualism. If they took the case of the Post- Office what did they find? They found that it was in competition with the individual, and he would not waste time in asking whether they had a.ny complaints against tha employees of that in- stitution or whether the employees had com- plaints against the authorities; nor would he ask whether the postman wore the same uniform and had the same salary as the Postmaster-General, but he would point out that competition with the individual was there. People were not compelled to use the Post-Offioo—they could engage a mes- senger or a private firm, and they'could employ the railway or other carriers to convey their par- cels. It was when the Po6t-office succeeded in beating in competition the individual that it suc- ceeded (applause). Let them take the case of a municipal gasworks. Because the municipality owned it people were not bound to use the gas; they oould use any illuminant they liked. It was the same with schools; they had public and they had private schools; they had public and private libraries; they had public baths, and ibey had private baths. It did not follow that municipal management was all that could be desired, as they knew of concerns which were State managed, and managed in such a way that their very names stunk in the nostrils of the peo- ole. They had to remember that there were drawbacks to State and Municipal Management, and that there were such things as finelv gradu- ated authority, discipline, a.nd a caste of officials not always to be desired. What were the mea- sures advocated by the Socialist? One was the State management of railways. But it did not necessarily follow that auch a thing was Social- ism. He believed that in Germany, Japan, a.nd Italy the State managed the railways, but those oountries could not be said to bo Socialistic na- tions. What was their duty as a great political pa.rty? It was their duty to consider most care- sully everything that was brought forward on Its merits. They made a great mistake to brand, every measure of social reform brought forward as Socialism, and so refuse to have anything to do with it (applause). SOCIAL REFORM. It was characteristic of the great historical party to which they had the honour to belong hfri. they were in the front rank of those who advocated social reform (applause). It was the Constitutional Party which brought in the great factory Acts—(applause)—and it was that same 'tarty which secured the State purchase of the railways in Ireland. It was their duty as a Constitutional Party to consider this question upon its merits, and if they found there was anything that was good they should adopt it, and if there was anything that was bad they should reject it (applause). It would bo a grave politi- cal crime to confuse the issues which these ques- tions involved by lurid carioaturea. The keystone of Socialism was that every in- dividual in a community should labour equality, -or the benefit of the community. Now he aaked how was that equality ano; division of to be attained, seeing that one kind of abouir entailed greater physical strain than another, and that other kinds 01f labour entailed great miorutal strain. Again one kind of kbour congenial and healthy eaiirroundings, while another was disastrous to health. How were hey going to make every man labour equally .lid secure the.same quality of labour with so ;lIillY different surroundings Who was to fix ihe time for labour, and wiho was to fix the loum that should be worked. It followed that the hours of labour would be fixed by the trade wthich. had. fcbo largest number of men or woman employed' in it. It was but human nature that the majority would fix the hours most favourable to themselves (laughter). He jalieved that agriculture employed something .ike one million of hands, whale in the tailor- ing tradi* there were 260,000 employed; was ome to be governed by tihe 'hours of the other? least number of men would have the least •/oting power in a Parliament elected on the jooiaSstio line- It naturally followed that in •udh a condition of thingiSthey would be eoc- ploiting one section of the community for the benefit of the other. SOCIAUSM AND INDIVIDUALISM. Let them consider wfhiat were the incentives •.hat Socialism offered- The greatest incentive nder individualism was that what a mam amed he should have, and what a man saved should keep (hear, hear). Socialism was on self-sacrifice, while individualism was aaed on self-interest. Socialism, he thbug'ht, ould go very well when they had the will of \od done on earth as it was in heaven. Social ism was visionary—individualism wu practical I (applause). Socialism did not make allowances for the weakness of human nature. Socialism to his mind was like the wonderful flying mticihines tihey read1 about every day; they would steiex against the wind, they would rise firam the ground, they would do this, and they would do that, but tho only thing they would not do was "fly" (applause and' laughter). Ttho idea tlhat man would go on and work for the benefit of a community without hoping for per- sonal advantage was a Christian OILC, and a notoie ornje, and he had no desire to make light o'f it. But it could not be brought about by a materiiail improvement, of the environment of men; it could cqjlv bo brought about by the dbveiliopimienit of the divino side of their nature (applause). When they attained to that ideal they would not want Socialism (liear, hear)- While they had self-saorifioe in individualism they would have self-inter eet in Socialism. Those who !had material wealth to lose would make sacrifices in Socialism, wihile those who had no mateniaj. wealth to lose would have but ono motive in Socialism and1 that was eelf- interest. Under the present social system they had men who made self-sacrifices, and it was all very wJeJIl for the Socialist to attack the Lanidowncins- A cheer was easily raised on that. He hetkl 110 brief for the landowners, but would point out that it was not tihe man who owned a park who was the only landlord. They had to remember that every man had a. duty to perforin. Tihoy had toremembelr that all doo- tors did not- exist simply for the collecting of fees, but that tiiey devoted their lives to the otamiping out of. and prevention of, disease- The lawyer cilid not exist simply for piling up billis of costs but for the maintenance of jus- tiae; tibe grocer dad not carry on business sol-oly for the sake of swelling his banking ao- court, but for supplying the wants of man; and a (speaker should tell the truth at all costs (applause). Whem the Socialists "went for" the landlord, let him remember tihe sorip- tural injunction about removing first the beam from his own eye before attempting to remove that from the eye of his brother (applause). In conclusion, Mr Lloyd said tlhat their first knowledge off man upon the globe was as an individluall; self-preservatioai being his only iD- stinct; his own wanbs ihis only law. Next they found hian a member of a tribe, slowly and grudgingly learning- the lesson to fight for others and to supply the wants of others; a lesson preparing hdm for the next marvellous stage in this progress upwards when, as the head of a family, he was the centre of a little oircle the wants of whom appealed to him as his own never did, whose lives were infinitely more pn&aiouB tha.n his own. Realising his obligations to the tribe, now grown into a nation for the protection wihidh. it affordted to his loved ones, he developed another spirit— that of patriotism (applause)- And the end was not yc-it. Who that was not blind had not observed the remarkable phenomen of the girowtlh of the spirit of nationalism ? And what was that ppirit ? Was it not the feeling of brcttiherthiood s-mangst people of the same race? Aa tihe family was no iees d'aar to the patriot because he Learnt to love his country the more, neither were the people of a sister nation less dear, to tihe true nationalist', but hip eye was fixjed on the time when this desire for paterni- ty should extend beyond too borders of his own nation, and eihoukl embrace all races, all kind- reds, all people- Tlhent, and not until then. should the ultimate and final triumph be with a Socialfom founded not on the clamour of in- dividuals for their rights, but on the unobtru- pive performance by individuals of their duties (applause)- IN DEFENCE OF SOCIALISM. Mr CHAS. HUBBARD said he accepted the invi- tation to speak on that occasion, as he knew they were a.nxious to hear someone who had taken an interest in Socialism, and in order to remove some of the misapprehensions it was necessary that he should point out what Socialism was not. Those who did not favour Socialism gave others many false notions, with the object. of setting people against it. People were too apt to accept all the false charges against it, a.nd instead of study- ing the subject for themselves received as true all that was uttered against it. One of the most common statements was that Socialists wished to bring about a revolution, to seize all property by foroe, and to divide it equally among the people. Not one Socialist out of 100 wanted a revolution, the bulk of them being peaceful and law-abiding men. Some hoped to bring SociaJism about by means of a reformed Parliament; others hoped to accomplish their end by & newer, wiser, and a more just public opinion. While not be- lieving in force, nor haste, ho believed in reason and right, and they could accomplish what they wanted by reasonable means. There was a revo- lution from which they anticipated great things, and that was a revolution in thought. Once people understood what was Socialism, and would work for it, then there would be a revolution. While they did .not propose to &<-<:€ property, they did hope to get the land, and to make it the pro- perty of the whole nation, but it would have to be done by an Act of Parliament. If they shared out land, property, and the railways they would at once make them private property once again, whereas he contended they should always belong to the public. Another oharge against Socialism was that of atheism, whose aim, it was said, was to destroy all religion and all molality. That was true. There were some Socialists who were agnostics, and some were atheists, but were not the same sort of people to be found in the ra.nks of the Tories and of the Liberals? Socialism did not touoh religion at any point, but dealt with laws and with industrial and socialistic government. Christ's teaching was said to be Socialistic. It w&3 communistic, and that was the most ad- vanced form of Socialism. It was absurd to oharge Socialism with immorality, as Socialists demanded a higher morality than was now found. It was because Socialism demanded honesty that greedy and ambitious men hated it. Another (harge was that Socialism was desiring FREE LOVE —that all men and women should be freo to lovo ai they pleased and to live with whom they migh> to live as man and wife without. mar- riage, and to part without divorce It was true that ome Socialists countenanced free love, but some Tories and Liberals were of tne same opin- ion. 11-:3 did not believa that one per cent, of Socialists would vote for free love or tha ha.nding over of their children to the State. It was also false to say that because certain Socialists worn poor, were "Have nets," and were men who could not think they wanted what others had. There were, no doult. certain men who came under that heading, and who would feather their nests at other people's expense, but could it be said that the To-ies and Liberals had a): "ne learned, pure, umelEsh. and clever men? He claimed that tho bulk of Socialists were men who worked ro: it, bccmsa they believed -1 was in the main honest and sensible, for its advocacy sel- dom paid. He was sure that Socialism made greater headway among the educated than among the ignorant. Because a few unworthy men es- poused a cause it did not make the cause the less lust-, otherwise they would condemn Christianity because a few who were directly associated with it were foolish or bad. If Socialism was good accept it, and if after due consideration it was found to be bad it should be rejected. SOCIALISM DEFINED. Than what was Socialism? In the same way that there, were different kinds of Liberalism, Toryism, there were different kinds of Socialism. People of various bodies differed on certain point- but they were all agreed on one. It was the same with the Socialists. The principle on which Socialists agreed was that all land, ma- chines, tools, and buildings used in the making of needful things, together with all the canals, riv- ers, roads, railways, trains, ships, shops, markets, soales weights, and money used in dealing in needful things should be the property of tihe peo- ple. Also that land, tools, machines, trains, etc., should be worked, managed for, and used by 'the people in such a way as the greater num- ber shall deem best. That was the principle of oollective or national ownership and oo-operation, use and control. Socialism might be summed up as meaning "BRITAIN FOR THE BRITISH." To-day Britain did not belong to the British. Certain parts were State property, but most of the land was in private hands, as enacted by the law. Under Socialism they would have the peo- ple working for the people, working together for the good of all. To-day the nation owned ships, arsenals, dockyards, the telegraphs, and many other things, the Church possessed schools and ohurches, while the majority of towns made and supplied' gas and electricity, trams, and other things. So under Socialism all things would be ordered and managed for the public good. At present there was not much work organised ex- cepting in the Post Office and by Corporations, while in Essex there wore many acres of land lying idle for the want of people to work it at a profit. Yet there were thousands of labourers unemployed. If the land belonged to the nation it would be tilled, and would give emplojment to organised labour. Under Socialism, all work would be organised either locally or by the nation. The land and the railways could be bought, but not. at a fancy price. Therefore, they saw that collectiveism was merely an extension of local government. That was Socialism, and what was there in it to prevent a man adopting it and being a Christian, or from attending a place of worship, or from marrying and being faithful to his marriage vows, and bringing up his family as it should bo brought? He believed that there was something in it that would tend to make life better, to reduce crime, and to wipe out for ever the sweater, the slum, and the beggar. It would train children to foster genius and devotion to the common good, and it would kill scamping and loafing; as well as to give better homes and better health to the people. The fact that an ever increasing number of clergymen were advo- oating Socialism showed that the intelli- gence of the people was tending in its directio.n. By the Socialist economio revolution and the in- stitution of a higher moral standard in public and private life, what a hopeless position the old political parties would occupy? Amid all the differences of opinion as to the Lords and Tariff Reform there was the same misery and squalor as of yore, and yet nothing was done to remove the causes. The solution or the problem ooudd not be oarried out in a hurry, but there were signs of tihe times that something was to be done. At present old age pensions were granted to the rich by Par-liamentary grants, and why not in the same way provide 5s per week for the workers? Even the Tory party was hope- lessly divided on the education questio.n, but ,he Socialist solved it by the secular solution, which he felt they were bound to admit would sooner or later oome about. In conclusion the speaker gave definition from various dictionaries as to the meaning of Socialism. The Chairman said' he was obliged to Mr Hubbard for his address, but wme bound to say that he would like Mr Hubbard to tell tlhem how his views were to be carried ouit- MR HAROLD EDWARDS AND SOCIAL REFORM. Mr HAROLD EDWARDS, the Conservative caindioUte for Fliotahire, said in the first- place he l diesired to tihank both speakers for their ad- dresses, and he thought tha.t Mr Hubbard had shown considerable courage in venturing into that room to take part in a discuissiooi of that kind. He was deeply grateful to Mr Lloyd for giving tlhem suoh an able speech- He had heard many (speeches on the subject, but he never heaxd a plainer or more lucid' explana- tion of Socialism (hear, hear). He was also grateful to Mr Lloyd for pointing out the tmlerence between Socialism and social reform, foT if tihey were to judge thip question properly they must take the origin off everything and work it to a logical ooncilusion (applause). He thought that Socialism in name had a great deal of morality in it. and that it was based' on the Christian doctrine that they should, alii try to help others rxtbier than tthemeelveis. But d'id the methods adopted by the Socialists tAr., to reacfii that goal1 ? Supposing the ideal was right, and they were all angels then Socialism would be all right (laughter). How then were they to realise Mr Hubbard's ideas and carry out Socialism ? If they carried out the Socialistic idea they at onoe did away with the incentive for displaying energy and for labour. They did away with the whole object of Society as founded on family life, which stood at the bot- tom of everything. The whole struggle of a maai who had any thought for his family was that he might provide and leave them Boono- thing wiben he died. The whole thing was founded on the dbotrine of heredity. It was not to be expected that man would struggle and labour if he was not to get something for his family, for it waa human nature that man firiat thought off himself and those bound to hiim by family ties (hea.r, hear). Speaking as a politician he thougiit they should concentrate their efforts to take t!he wind out of the sails of the Socialist. They should adopt all that was good in it, and reject and fight against all that was bad. They should do all they could to remedy the awful miseries that existed. While they did not agree with the motives of the Socialists it did not follow that they should treat everything they advocated ag being bad. As social reformers they should grae-p what was good and do their best to bring social reforms about. He believed that the social reforms advocated by the great Coneerva- tive Party we.re in the true intrelSts of the work- ing man, and they should unite with the object of bringing about that which was desired by all —true social progress. They should examine most carefully all the social reforms advocated by the Socialists, and they should not reject them becaiuse the Socialist proposed them, but rather as sensible men should adopt what was practical. Let them treat as a practical business that which could not be dealt with theoretically. There were certain evils which existed, and no upheaval and disturbance of family life could remedy them, but as sensible men they could make the beet of them (applause). A SYSTEM OF ECONOMICS. Mr R. M. HUGH JONES considered that it wao a system of economics amd not a matter that was to bo discussed from a. sentimental point of view. They all ad- mitted that there were great contrasts, but doing away with individual ownership would not alter them. He failed to see how matters oould be altereci by the Socialistic pro- gramme, for if they took away private ownership they took away the incentive to work, and the State had been built up by the efforts and laboure of individuals. They had only to con- sider how many fine bueineisses, which were great successes when managed by an individual, bQ- came hopelces failures when converted into limited companies, and it could not be argued tlhat niumoipally-worked undertakings were always a. success. Personally lie felt that they must go on in the old way, and- endeavour to remedy the abuses in the best way they could. They must deal with the difficulties as they arose, and 00 to speak, live from hand to mouth, be- lieving that any attempt to substitute a brand- new tiystem for the old one was doomed to failure (hear, hear). Mr A. W. JAMiEiS asked how the Socialists wtould deal wit/h brains. Brains were always of greater value than mere labour, and under the new system the boy who earned his first 56 would lose it to the first card-sharper who came along (laughter). Thcee who had brains would win from those who had none. Mr J. JONES said he felt that Mr Hubbard was like all other Socialists; he w prepared that everything should be shared until his own pcolwt or his own belongings were touched. Had not Mr Hubbard declared that he would not permit the State to touch his children, yet how was there to be equality if there was not to be an equal distribution all round (laughter). Socialists, like politicians, cried "hands off" when anything belonging to them was touched. MR TILBY AND SPURIOUS DOCTRINES. Mir H. A. TILBY congratulated tihe speakers on tlheir addresses, and was glad that Mr Lloyd had pointed out in such a clear manner the difference between Socialism and social reform. He was a politician, and belonged to a party which had social reform in the front of its pro- graimme, and-had carried out the great social reform of the past (applause). If they hoped to maintain the historic traditions of the Con- servative Party they must be a. party of social reformerB (applause). They should remember that Socialism was a matter of practical politics, and they should realise that in Kirkdale a large num- ber of voters (supported the candidate with the Socialistic programme. They should not pass by Socialism as being a force not to be reckoned with, but should do all they could to lay low and clear away its spurious doctrines (applause). While Mr Hubbard had not advocated revolu- tion all he said was in favour of a social re- volution. He had laid it down as a principle that the majority of the people were to govern, and that as soon as the Socialists got a majority in Parliament they would put certain schemes into operation. They were to put a policy off robbery into operation, and whether people liked it or not all private property was to be taken away. Would that not tend to a revolution? All he could say was tha;t the first man who came to his door and said that he had come to take away his property for the benefit of someone else, whether he liked it or not, was going to have a rough time of it (laughter and applause). That would mean a revolution. The rights of the people in property wag the first law of the land, and it was a principle that had to be respected. Mr Hubbard argued tha.t the policy of the Socialist was honest, but was it honest to relieve a man of hie property and to take it for yourself? (aipplau&e). That was what Socialism meantj and the man who had nothing would gain something without working for it. Mr Hubbard had given them a goiod idea of the Socialist when. he spoke of keeping his children, but if all were to be equal in every- thing were they to have thousands of bigamists in tihe country? Did they forget that there were many more women in the country than men, and what would happen if every woman, in exercise of her rights to be equal with her sister, insisted that a husfband should be found for her? Were the wives to be dhosetn by the State? (laughter). The Socialist also argued that every man, woman and child should have sufficient food, clothing, and be well housed; and that whether they worked for it or not. They would all like to have such & comfortable' state of things, but there was no need to have Socialism to secure that. THE ELEMENT OF COMPETITION. Again, Socialism was to do away with all com- petition, but why did not the professing SociaJists set am example, and try a dose of their own mixture? If competition was to be done away with why was it that there were half-a-dozen Socialistic papers? Why did they not amal- gamate and issue one pill.,per"the" Socialistic organ? (laughter). Then they should try a. practical demonstration of their theory by the eabablisihimenit of a colony where their ideae could be carried out. They had more money than either of the two great political parties, and yet they hesitated to prove in the most practical way that what could be done in a colony could be brought about by a nation at large. But no, the colony business had been tried in America, and it proved a rank failure in six months (hear, hear). There was a lady memiber of that colony who was told to do dairymaid's work, but she replied that she was equal to another lady. who did dressmaking, and she claimed the right to chose her own occupation. In order to succeed a Socialistic scheme must be one of absolute tyranny. Someone must have complete eund aibsolute power to H order others, and once you put a "gaffer" over fellowmen Socialism dis- appeared, as one man was at once recognised as better than his fellows, and equality ended (ap- plause). He believed that they had to have but a few able speeches, such as Mr Lloyd had, delivered, to make dhort work of Socialism in this nation (applause). AN OBJECT LESSON. The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, pointed out that in all large and' successful ooooern there was usually an individual who was: the guiding and responsible head, and it was competition whioh kept business men alive to the necessity of always trying to produce something better than their rivals. Did anyone think that there would have been built audi a. vessel the "liuaitania" if there had not been oonn>etifiion? 1 And how often did they hear people say that they would be treated differently by the railway company if there wae a competing line in a district? That was an object lesson to all who advocated State control and State management without competition. If the people of this coun- try were hood-winked by tho Socialists, did they think that other nations would also be hood- winked; and unless the same kind of Socialism was in Germany, England could never have Scioialism, as tho Germans would by their in- I dividual competition be able to bea.t the English- man in every way, for there would be no incen- tive to introduce new things, and toput-jh business as at present. Socialism was an airy idea, and was by no means practical. If they did away with the private ownership of land where would they get tiheir land taxfJro>m. If they did awlay witlh individualism wihere would the 30 millions of income-tax oome from, and whero would they get nine or ten millions of estate duties from? Taxes were received from beer, tobacco, and many other things, all of which would disappear under a system of State control. Then, again, it would take £1,300,000,000 to buy up the capital of the rail- nice little sum, even when they accept- ed Mr Hubbard's statement that the railways, like land, would be bought out at a fair market price. Where was the money to come from if all were to be equal? The whole thing tumbled to pieces the m-cre it was examined—it was a, wreck before they began to deal with it. He believed that they could accomplish a great deal in the direction of social refonrns by honest legis- lation, and he was sure it would be a long time, if ever, before the country would adopt the Socialists' plans as expounded by Mr Hubbard (applause). J Hubbard said he would like to add a few words in reply. Ho would point out that Social- ism would not oome in a day—it was a matter of evolution, and a question of gradual pro- cess. Dr. Eyton Lloyd proposed a vote of thanks to the Chairman and the speakers. He said he felt that he had never heard anyone give a more concrete speech on Socialism than had Mr Jph Lloyd, while the Chairman had also dealt vir-o. ° subject in an able manner (applause). With siuch fine speeches that cluTo was doing good work. Mr J. H. Ellis seconded., and) the vote of thanks was carried with applause.