With this begins a new phase in the history of German Socialism. Hitherto, whatever absurd or 'dangerous' doctrines it may have promulgated among the masses, it, at all events, worked openly and above-board. The means it used, public meetings, Vereine, newspapers, pamphlets and the like, were free to everybody. The Socialists appealed boldly to public opinion; they invited free discussion. If they had grievances, or suffered injustice, they had, with certain very large restrictions, the right of ventilating and discussing them. As might be expected the new doctrines spread rapidly, especially in what Bismarck, perhaps, has good reasons for regarding as hotbeds of mischief, the towns, cities, and large manufacturing districts. So the Chancellor resolved to stamp out the agitation that thus disturbed the 'peace and safety'* of the Vaterland. From this time forth they were no longer legally recognised as a party. Change of name even could not save from the clutches of a law that forbade all papers, societies, or unions, that had in view the subversion of the existing order of State and society.' With this ample margin for the zeal of a proverbially officious police, the pig-sticking,' as Bismarck himself is said to have called it, went on vigorously. Upwards of forty societies immediately dissolved themselves, and during the first month 270 executions were put into effect, suppressing 135 Vereine,' 35 regular newspapers, and 100 non-periodical prints. Among these Vereine or unions, were 21 workmen's, 55 election, 36 singing, 4 theatre, 10 educational, 2 newspaper, 6 mutual-helps,

Herr Kayser, the Socialist, referring to this, said, at the second reading of the Bill, April 19th, the party of old rights and privileges had always justified its persecutions and oppressions in the name of peace and safety.' It reminded him of a line in Götz von Berlichingen: "Ruhe und Frieden wünscht jeder Raubrogel um seine Beute in Ruhe und Frieden zu verzehren.''

and I co-operative or Consumverein.* Franz Mehring, no friend of the Socialists-if he had been, indeed, it may be safely assumed his book on 'Deutsche Social Democratie would never have seen a third edition-remarks that in its dissolution Socialism showed itself greater, stronger and more wide-spread than it had ever appeared during its existence.' Up to October 21st, 1879, exactly a year from the time the law came into force, there were suppressed, according to Vossische Zeitung, 244 Vereine, 307 non-periodical prints, and 184 news. papers and periodicals. The number of persons banished from Berlin and vicinity up to the end of March, 1880, as in the judgment of the police dangerous, amounted to 105, according to the Minister of the Interior. And still that everlasting mandate Verboten, almost the first word that strikes a foreigner in Germany, has kept on, and, not content with suppressing free speech in politics whenever it crops out in the German tongue, it has forbidden works in English and French-artistic merit is out of the question here-like 'The Comedy of Europe,' for example. But after all I suppose we may, under the circumstances, be thankful that foreign papers and reviews do not come to us with the dangerous' parts carefully rubbed over with printer's ink, as is the case to the east of us.

So much for the law in general, as far as figures can show its effects. But a few examples in detail are needed to complete an imperfect picture. They must be few, short, and as typical as possible, and I may say at once that they are not a few favourable ones, hunted out on purpose, but picked up at random during the last two years. This, of course, will not be taken to imply that all the

some

articles written in the heat of passion against what was believed to be a piece of injustice, are models of moderation. But I do feel convinced that this law was received with a meekness and respect that one might look for in vain, under similar circircumstances, in any land where the English language is spoken. Moreover, it may be candidly confessed at once that this, as indeed, almost all attempts at reformation that history tells us of, is followed by a herd of vagabonds that would injure and disgrace any party by their allegiance. When Bismarckian points to individual socialists of this type as a justification of the way they are being treated, I always feel inclined to retort, what cause has not been injured by its professors in the extreme left who have a zeal not according to knowledge!' Socialism undoubtedly includes among its members, not only men of sincere conviction and honest, though perhaps often mistaken, purpose, but also those who would join any party or creed that is likely to further their own selfish ends. But what honest man of any account, now-a-days, holds Christianity, for example, answerable for all the iniquities that have been perpetrated in its name, and by its unworthy followers? And further, while avoiding the real or apparent fatalism of a certain school of historians, I humbly think that this movement has a historical justification, that is too frequently overlooked. As the Socialist Hasenclaver remarked before the Reichstag,

of life, and pride themselves on their straightforward justice and chivalrous fair play. Instead of wondering at the discontent of the suffering,' says a writer in the Unitarian Review for Oct. '78, and being surprised or indignant that they should seek to escape from discomfort and destitution by means which would threaten the foundations of society, we have rather wondered at the patience which has submitted to these things so long.' But even granted that the Socialists are as black as they are painted, does that justify the way they are now being treated?

*

* *

Franz Duncker, an ex-member of the Reichstag, was fined 200 marks for writing in the Volks Zeitung :—' It is revolting to us that Prussia, that Prince Bismarck, the regenerator of German unity, should stand up for such a bill, a bill that will destroy anything but Socialism. Certainly, the decision lies with the Reichstag. Still, the mere proposal is offensive to the German nation.' The Berliner Zeitung wrote 'a fine of 1500 marks, inflicted on us by the Berlin Municipal Council on the second of this month, has taught us that it is not wise to find anything laughable in bills which emanate from the Imperial Chancellor, from the Prussian Government.' These examples are taken from the Times correspondence, and are written as may be seen, while the bill was still under discussion. Surely no one can say that the Government was at the mercy of an unscrupulous press, as long as it could punish in this fashion, and for such offences. But worse days for this press and for free speech were at hand. In the Chemnitz election for the Saxon Landtag, the Socialist candidate was put through a regular course of police treatment. A public meeting he was to have addressed was forbidden, and his postbills suppressed, which read thus: Electors! give your votes today, Tuesday, Sep. 9th, to Karl Julius Vahlteich, Reichstag Deputy for the

fifteenth Saxon electoral division Chemnitz, Sept. 9, 1879. (Signed) TheCommittee for National Elections.' The Chemnitzer Nachrichten, the only organ at his disposal, was suppressed; and all the sheets of the Chemnitzer Tageblatt, which contained the above 'dangerous' address to the electors were confiscated. Further, all the handbills and voting papers bearing his name were seized by the police, and the firm that published them had its right of printing cancelled. Upwards of 40 private houses were searched for forbidden prints, and in the words of the protest afterwards laid before the Landtag, 'terror was spread among the people' by the police. Twenty men in a tavern were arrested, and, on the suspicion that a forbidden meeting was being held, were strung together by means of a rope like a bundle of cigars,' and marched to the police office. To take a later and less

comic example: a public meeting of the people was to be held in Munich, the 5th of last April, at which Herr Sonnemann, Progressist, was to speak on the new Military Bill. This was forbidden by the police on the ground that such a meeting (Allgemeine Volksversammlung) was contrary to the socialist law. A strictly party meeting, which was then called, though not forbidden, was dissolved a few minutes after it was opened by a police officer, with the remark that he observed socialists present. Commenting on this in the Reichstag, Bebel said that, if the presence of persons belonging to his party was enough to cause assemblies to be dissolved, care would be taken that no meeting if possible should be held without them, so that they addressing the Liberalswould find that it was 'a mistake to put hundreds of thousands of citizens beyond the pale of the law.' This threat has since been carried into effect in Leipsic and elsewhere, the Socialists managing somehow to obtain tickets.

With reference to the election for

6

the second division of Hamburg, held April 27th, 1880, the Hamburger Reform spoke of the 'police measures that did the party (Socialists) more good than a legion of agitators; Schiller's saying held true here:- Zwang erbittert die Schwärmer nur, bekehrt sie nimmer.' The prohibition on collecting money, the arrest of the election committee, the confiscation of the hand-bills -all contributed to inflame the fire smouldering under the ashes.' Bebel and Liebknecht, while trying before the Reichstag to show the injustice of the present State of Siege in Berlin, mentioned persons who had been proceeded against with great severity. These persons have now been arrested for slandering the police, and Bebel and Liebknecht have been summoned as witnesses against them. They have taken refuge under Art. 30 of the Constitution, and possibly this is the last we may hear of the matter. But these examplesand they might be indefinately multiplied-will show how irritating the law is, and how its influence has been extended even far beyond its legiti mate bounds, by the fear of it, caused by the large discretionary power lodged in the hands of the police.

*

It has been truly said that a German 'is pretty sure not to resent interference which an Englishman would find intolerable. He is accustomed to be taken care of from the cradle to the grave by a paternal police, * and he does not mind so much a little prying into the club which he frequents, or official warnings to the journal which he reads.'* Notwithstanding this general indifference in political matters, the intensity, at least, of the opposition to this law may be seen in the debates of the last Reichstag. The increase of bitterness during the year and a half is marked. On the second reading Bebel said: 'If you make it impossible for the people to make known their complaints in a legal

*Times, Oct. 31, 1878.

way, indifference is not the result, but intense bitterness. We come necessarily to the belief that nothing but force will help us.' Towards the end of this speech, he pointed to the fact that 'hitherto tumults have never arisen when our meetings were dissolved.' Who can say whether this will now continue wer nicht hören will, muss fühlen.' Another Socialist, Kayser, declared that by this law every citizen who is not an acknowledged friend of the Government, has necessarily a feeling of uncertainty and danger. This kills out all opposition (the bitterest of course excepted). Look at the last election that took place in Berlin, and one is astonished that in the capital of the empire absolutely no agitation took place.' It will be remembered that in this election in which Prof. Virchow was returned, not even onethird of the duly qualified electors voted. The closing words of his speech were: Do you take us then for such ninnies, that we should cease to fight for our opinions? The birth-throes of the times are intensified instead of being lightened by these measures. Instead of the peaceful development of the national life, you wish to bring about the violent opposition of the weak and the oppressed.'

The 4th of May, the day of the third reading of the Bill, was the liveliest of a lively session. Liebknecht hoped nothing from the feeling of justice in the house, yet he would openly state the crying injustice' under which his party suffered. He denied that Hödel and Nobeling were Socialists, though Bismarck had encouraged this view, and used it well as political capital. 'The authors of revolutions are not those who outwardly cause them, so not the lower classes, but those who make revolutions necessary, i.e., governments.' Notwithstanding some violent thrusts, wide of the mark, he often made keen hits.

Is it any

wonder that the Government should dislike discussions in which a common workman could tell them the following:

'But it is said that the terrorism that the Socialists are guilty of, must be put down! Now what terrorism have we practised on Eulenberg and Bismarck? These gentlemen must indeed have very sensitive nerves. Of course we have always spoken loudly and plainly, but you have the same example in England, only think of the exciting speeches that even ministerial candidates have made. And has the English Empire been thereby ruined? Nay, the contrary is the case, it is strengthened by this. You should learn a little from this; but you are too timorous even over mere speeches.' He ended his philippic with the words: 'The consequences of your doings will not fail; but we wash our hands in innocence. Our party will not give up the struggle; it will continue to fight, come what will, to victory.' The most violent speech of any was that of Hasselmann who began by declaring himself a revolutionary socialist, and sat down amid uproar with these words: 'The time for parliamentary prattle is past, the time for action has begun.'

So much for the Socialists' view as to the advisability of prolonging the law. A number of more moderate men also, of course, opposed the measure. Dr. Günther, Progressist, might be taken as a representative of this class. He proposed (a) looking into the complaints of the social democrats, seeing whether they were justified or not, and remedying those that were; (b) meeting agitation by agitation and interesting the great mass of the people in the question, (c) meanwhile putting down all excesses. These laws would never crush ont Socialism. Gegen ideen lässt sich nicht mit Kanonen Kämpfen.

The Government took little or no part in the discussion, Count Eulenberg, Minister of the Interior, merely said, in closing the debate, that the law was not directed against ideas, but against the utterance of these ideas,' and ended by asking the House to trust the Government

in this matter. So it was resolved by a majority of 97 that this law should remain in force till the 30th of September, 1884.

When Bishop Colenso's work on the Pentateuch appeared, and people were asking what was to be done, Punch suggested, answer him.' The German Government seem to have overlooked this way of dealing with the Socialists. To have looked into their complaints, and redressed flagrant evils-and such there undoubt edly were would have weakened the whole movement and left it to a slow but inevitable death, or at most a harmless and sickly existence. Men, of course, would still have kept on discussing and even agitating, and for all we can see will continue to do so till doomsday, despite Bismarck and all the policemen in Europe; but any talk of overthrowing the constitution by violence would have been ridiculous. Men now-a-days do not seize the musket to fight for every whim, in countries where the ballot-box is open. l'our la populace, ce n'est pas par envie d'attaquer qu'elle se soulève, mais par impatience de souffrir.

Even if the whole thing had been left to itself and no official notice taken of it, years would have passed before the party could have gained power enough to have carried their measures in Berlin. And all the while it would have been subjected to a most salutary fire of criticism, both from without and from within, tending on the one hand to clear away the dross and increase and emphasise the divisions already existing among its heterogeneous members; and on the other, to give this young nation, just entering on a career of constitutional government, and wanting, above all things, public interest in the affairs of the empire, the best political schooling possible. Here was a small, divided, though exceedingly active, party doubting and questioning with the enthusiasm of youth, directing men's minds to this, that and the other principles of government

and asking every where the reason why. The older parties were obliged to stand on the defensive and to give reasons for their political faith. Of danger no one could talk but those who had political ends to serve; the downright apathy and deadness of political life,* every one who had the cause of constitutional government at heart, lamented. The Socialists, for the most part, enthusiastic and sincere in their convictions, could point to a long agitation, eminently free from violence and tumult, a characteristic of all Teutonic nations. They had to contend against a large, and, I might almost say, bigoted government party, powerful bureaucratic machinery and zealous officialism, great vested interests, and a tremendous mass of immobile and stolid indifference that in nine cases out of ten would have been turned against them when turned at all; thus putting down a movement believed to be dangerous, by the best of all methods, the force of public opinion. But the Government, on their own confession, feared the decision of the German nation on the question, and so like all powerful military states without a constitutional past, made short work of this new foe, by suppressing at one blow all attempts at establishing free speech and a free press, and turning to good account this opportunity of furthering the interests of Absolutism. With beautiful inconsistency it declared all socialist electioneering to be illegal, and yet, with a becoming chivalry, allowed socialists, who had been successful in this ordeal, to take their places in the highest court of the empire.

* Something like 30 to 50 per cent. of the voters refrain from voting altogether. In Münster, of 100,905 voters only 55,292 voted in 1878.

In Waldeck, of 9,654 voters only 4,988 voted in 1878.

In Frankfort on O., of 217,080 voters only 105,009 voted in 1878.

Duly qualified Voters.

Actual

Voters.

229,525.

.104,475