Mr. Balfour would not call himself a Radical; therefore there was some use in the word.  When I called myself a Socialist I knew Lord Penrhyn would not call himself a Socialist; therefore there was some use in the word.  But the capitalists, in that aggressive march which is the main fact of our time, have captured our standards, both in the military and philosophic sense of the word.  And it is useless for us to march under colours which they can carry as well as we.

Do you believe in Democracy?  The devils also believe and tremble.  Do you believe in Trades Unionism?  The Labour Members also believe; and tremble like a falling teetotum.  Do you believe in the State?  The Samuels also believe, and grin.  Do you believe in the centralisation of Empire?  So did Beit.  Do you believe in the decentralisation of Empire?  So does Albu.  Do you believe in the brotherhood of men:  and do you, dear brethren, believe that Brother Arthur Henderson does not?  Do you cry, “The world for the workers!” and do you imagine Philip Snowden would not?  What we need is a name that shall declare, not that the modern treason and tyranny are bad, but that they are quite literally, intolerable:  and that we mean to act accordingly.  I really think “the Limits” would be as good a name as any.  But, anyhow, something is born among us that is as strong as an infant Hercules:  and it is part of my prejudices to want it christened.  I advertise for godfathers and godmothers.

A WORKMAN’S HISTORY OF ENGLAND

A thing which does not exist and which is very much wanted is “A Working-Man’s History of England.”  I do not mean a history written for working men (there are whole dustbins of them), I mean a history, written by working men or from the working men’s standpoint.  I wish five generations of a fisher’s or a miner’s family could incarnate themselves in one man and tell the story.

It is impossible to ignore altogether any comment coming from so eminent a literary artist as Mr. Laurence Housman, but I do not deal here so specially with his well known conviction about Votes for Women, as with another idea which is, I think, rather at the back of it, if not with him at least with others; and which concerns this matter of the true story of England.  For the true story is so entirely different from the false official story that the official classes tell that by this time the working class itself has largely forgotten its own experience.  Either story can be quite logically linked up with Female Suffrage, which, therefore, I leave where it is for the moment; merely confessing that, so long as we get hold of the right story and not the wrong story, it seems to me a matter of secondary importance whether we link it up with Female Suffrage or not.