International Socialist Workers and Trade Union Congress, London. Report of Proceedings (1896)

Text from: International Socialist Workers and Trade Union Congress, London, 1896. Report of Proceedings, List of British and Foreign Delegates, and Balance Sheet. London, The Twentieth Century Press, 1896, pp. 1-55 (archive.org), compared with the printed pages; obvious misprints corrected. The resolutions adopted by the Congress are not repeated, but referred to on the page of the Congress. The list of delegates and the balance sheet (pp. 56-79) are not reproduced. Traducción al español.

Introductory

At the Zürich International Congress, 1893, the British section, consisting of sixty-five delegates, unanimously decided to invite the Congress to hold the next International Congress in London. The Congress unanimously accepted the invitation, and fixed the year as 1896. The British Section met on the last day of the Congress and elected a Committee, whom they instructed to make the necessary preliminary arrangements for the 1896 Congress, and to approach the Parliamentary Committee of the British Trade Union Congress with a view to their co-operation. The Committee consisted of John Anderson, Edward Aveling, Edward Harford, James Macdonald, J. S. Maxwell, Sydney Olivier, Henry Quelch, A. Smith, W. C. Steadman, William Thorne.

On January 15th, 1895, the Committee elected at Zürich met the Parliamentary Committee. It was ultimately decided that the name of the 1896 Congress should be The International Socialist Workers and Trade Union Congress. An Organising Committee, consisting of six members from the Committee elected at Zürich and six members of the Parliamentary Committee, was appointed. This Committee of twelve, after some changes, ultimately consisted of the following: Edward Aveling, F. Chandler, E. Cowey, William Inskip, J. Jack, James Mawdsley, T. Mann, H. Quelch, A. Smith, W. C. Steadman, W. Thorne, J. Verdon.

This Committee elected as Secretary, William Thorne; Treasurer, W. Inskip; Translating Secretaries, A. Smith (French) and Edward Aveling (German).

The Committee issued the following first circular:

International Socialist Workers and Trade Union Congress, London, 1896.

The Organising Committee to the Workers of All Countries.

Comrades and Fellow Workers,

The International Socialist Workers Congress, assembled at Zürich in 1893, unanimously accepted the invitation of the British Section to hold the next International Congress in London. The Zürich Congress decided that the date should be 1896.

At Zürich the 65 delegates constituting the British Section elected ten of their number as an Organising Committee to make preliminary arrangements, and to secure the co-operation of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress of Great Britain and Ireland. This co-operation has been obtained, and a Conjoint Committee, consisting of six members of the Parliamentary Committee and six of the Committee elected at Zürich, has been formed for the general organisation of the Congress of 1896.

The Conjoint Committee now address to all Socialist Organisations and Trade Unions in all lands their fraternal invitation to send, in 1896, delegates to the London Congress. The date will probably be in August.

At the last International Congress the following resolution was carried:—

See Confirmation of the Zürich Resolution on Admission.

In accordance with this resolution our invitation is addressed to all Trade Unions and to all Socialist Organisations that acknowledge the necessity of the organisation of the toilers and of their taking part in political work.

We ask all Workers’ Organisations coming within the two categories above-mentioned to send us at once their addresses, and also, not later than January 1st, 1896, such resolutions and proposals as they desire to have embodied in the Agenda paper of the 1896 Congress.

All communications to be addressed to William Thorne, Secretary to the Organisation Committee of the International Socialist Workers and Trade Union Congress, 1896, 144, Barking Road, London, E., England.

We are, Yours fraternally, The Organisation Committee.

Edward Aveling, Henry Broadhurst, Edward Cowey, William Inskip, J. M. Jack, James Mawdsley, Sydney Olivier, Henry Quelch, A. Smith, W. C. Steadman, William Thorne, Ben Tillett.

Later, the Committee issued the following second circular:—

International Socialist Workers and Trade Union Congress, London, 1896.

The Organising Committee to the Workers of All Countries.

Dear Comrades and Fellow Workers,

We are very pleased to be able to inform you that our first circular of invitation has met with the most friendly reception from the workers of the whole world.

Already the chief working-class organisations of Europe, America, and Australia, have notified their intention to be represented at London in 1896. Besides this we have received intimation that a large number of trades have decided to hold International Congresses of their particular trade during the week of the General International Congress. While we cannot, of course, undertake the organisation of these very important International Congresses of Particular Trades, we shall be glad to be of any service, if we can, as a Central body, in putting into communication the trade organisations of the different countries.

The International Congress of 1896 will sit on Monday, July 27th, and the five following days, in the large hall of St. Martin’s Town Hall, Charing Cross Road, near Charing Cross Station, and facing Trafalgar Square. There will be rooms arranged for the delegates of each nationality to hold their own sittings; and also special rooms for each of the Commissions, made up of delegates from each nationality, who will consider the various resolutions on the Agenda Paper, grouped under certain definite heads. Information as to hotel and lodging accommodation and prices will be published at an early date. We shall be pleased at any time to give organisations any information as to hotels, lodgings, and prices that they may ask for.

The workers of Great Britain and Ireland are looking forward to welcoming their comrades, and to showing to the classes that the workers of all countries are united as to the principles which will bring about the complete political and economic freedom of the working class.

We repeat with this invitation the resolution as to the admission of delegate that was passed at Zürich in 1893. By this resolution we have of necessity been bound in issuing our invitations to the Congress of 1896.

See Confirmation of the Zürich Resolution on Admission.

Each organisation desiring to be represented at the Congress must send to the Organising Committee the name of the organisation and the number of their delegates on or before July 1st. The Organising Committee recognise that this is not possible in all cases, but are anxious to know approximately, by July 1st, the number of delegates for whom they will have to find accommodation.

Each organisation will be supplied with as many admission cards as the number of delegates appointed by it. No delegate will be admitted to the Congress without showing the admission card at the hall door. Each nationality will examine the credentials of its own delegates and draw up a list of delegates whose credentials have been accepted or rejected. This list, together with the credentials, shall be handed over to the Organising Committee in order that the list of delegates may be printed.

In the event of disputed credentials the Bureau (Standing Orders Committee) shall decide in the first instance. In the case of an appeal against their decision the question shall be finally decided by the Congress.

Delegates whose credentials are accepted shall be provided with a card bearing their name by the Organising Committee.

The Organising Committee have drawn up the following Provisional Standing Orders.

1. That an open-air public demonstration be held in Hyde Park, on Sunday afternoon, July 26th, at 3 p.m., in favour of International Peace, at which representatives of the foreign delegations will be invited to speak.

2. That a reception be given by the Organising Committee to the delegates at 8 p.m., Sunday, July 26th.

3. That at 9 a.m. on Monday, July 27th, the delegates of the various nationalities meet in the separate rooms arranged for the nationalities to—

(a) Elect a President and Secretary for the nationality;

(b) Verify the mandates of their delegates, and draw up for the Organising Committee the statement as to the composition of their delegation;

(c) Elect two delegates from each nationality to serve on the Bureau (Standing Orders Committee);

(d) Elect two members from each nationality to serve upon each of the Commissions dealing with the groups of resolutions on the Agenda paper.

4. That all resolutions and subjects proposed for discussion be grouped by the Organising Committee of the Congress under certain definite headings, and handed over by them to the respective Commissions.

5. That any resolution or subject for discussion that cannot thus be grouped with others as forming a division of one of these headings, shall be submitted to the Congress after the main groups of questions have been settled, if there is still any time remaining.

6. That at the meeting of the Congress at 11 on Monday, July 27th, an English-speaking Chairman, appointed by the Organising Committee, shall preside, with, as vice-Chairman, a French-speaking and German-speaking delegate, invited by the Organising Committee. The Chairman shall deliver an address of welcome and the vice-Chairmen respond. That the Congress shall adjourn at 1 p.m., and the various Commissions meet in the latter part of the day.

7. That the Congress sit on Tuesday and succeeding days from 10 to 12.30 and 2 to 5.

8. That on Tuesday the first business of the Congress shall be the reports of the nationalities as to their delegations, and the acceptance or rejection by the Congress of the credentials.

9. That after this the reports of Commissions be taken.

10. The various Commissions meeting separately on Monday afternoon and afterwards shall study and discuss all resolutions bearing on the particular question referred to them. Each Commission shall prepare a report on its particular question and a resolution. If a Commission is not unanimous, it may prepare a minority report and a second resolution.

11. No amendment to Standing Orders or the arrangement of the Agenda shall be accepted or discussed after Monday.

12. That the limit of speeches for the reporter of each Commission be 20 minutes, and for all others 10 minutes; and that no speaker speak more than once on the same subject. At any time a motion to suspend this Standing Order can be made and voted on by the Congress.

13. Upon resolutions dealing with fundamental questions of principle the voting shall be by nationalities. On questions of detail the voting shall be by show of hands.

14. That the Organising Committee recommend to the Bureau (Standing Orders Committee) the appointment on successive days of chairmen of different nationalities.

Already a large number of resolutions have been sent in from different organisations in different countries. The chief points comprised in these resolutions are: War and Arbitration, Pauper Aliens, the Eight Hours Day, Child Labour, the General Strike, the Agricultural Question, Piece Work, Colonial Policy, Conflicts between Capital and Labour.

The last day for sending in resolutions to be placed on the Agenda paper has been finally fixed for May 1st, 1896. After that date no resolutions will be accepted by the Organising Committee.

You are hereby earnestly requested to forward any resolutions you may desire to place upon the Agenda at as early a date as possible, and to proceed in due course to determine the number of your delegates, and to elect them.

The response to our invitation has exceeded even our sanguine expectations. There is every promise that the International Congress of 1896 will be of a magnitude and importance surpassed by none of its predecessors. The old International held its first Congress in England in 1864, at the old St. Martin’s Hall. From the Congress of 1896 we may hope for the firm founding of a new International understanding between the workers of the world.

With fraternal greetings, The Organising Committee.

Edward Aveling, F. Chandler, Edward Cowey, William Inskip, J. M. Jack, Tom Mann, James Mawdsley, Henry Quelch, A. Smith, W. C. Steadman, William Thorne, J. H. Wilson.

Workers of All Countries Unite!

All the above are suggestions for saving the time of the Congress. The Congress is sovereign, and will finally decide on all questions as to the Standing Orders and Agenda.

All communications to be addressed to W. Thorne, 144, Barking Road, London, England.

The Organising Committee also drew up and issued an Agenda, in which the various resolutions were grouped under the heads, “Amendments to Standing Orders,” “Agrarian Question,” “Political Action,” “Economic and Industrial Action,” “War,” “Education and Physical Development,” “Organisation,” and “Miscellaneous.” To these grouped resolutions were prefixed the “Provisional Standing Orders,” as given above.

On Sunday, July 26th, was held a demonstration in Hyde Park, at which the following Resolution was carried:—

“That this International Meeting of Workers, recognising that peace between the nations of the world is an essential foundation of International brotherhood and human progress, and believing that wars are not desired by the peoples of the earth, but are caused by the greed and selfishness of the ruling and privileged classes with the single view of obtaining the control of the markets of the world in their own interests, and against all the real interests of the workers, hereby declares that between the workers of different nationalities there is absolutely no quarrel, that their one common enemy is the capitalist and landlord class, and that the only way of preventing war and ensuring peace is the abolition of the capitalist and landlord system of society in which wars have their root. It therefore pledges itself to work for the only way in which that system can be overthrown, the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It further declares that until this is accomplished, every dispute between nations should be settled by arbitration instead of by the brutality of force of arms. Further, this meeting recognises that the establishment of an International Eight Hours day for all workers is the most immediate step towards the ultimate emancipation of the workers, and urges upon the Governments of all countries the necessity of having a working day of eight hours by legal enactment. Further, considering that the working class can only bring about their economic and social emancipation by their taking over the political machinery to-day in the hands of the capitalist class; considering that in all countries large numbers of working men and all working women at present do not possess the vote, and cannot therefore take part in political action; this mass meeting of workers declares for, and pledges itself to use every endeavour to obtain, universal adult suffrage.”

A reception of delegates was held on Sunday evening in the Horseshoe Hotel, Tottenham Court Road, at which W. C. Steadman, L.C.C., welcomed the delegates.

The sittings of the Congress took place in the Queen’s Hall, Langham Place, as St. Martin’s Hall was found to be too small for the accommodation of the delegates. The various Commissions, consisting of two delegates from each nationality, and dealing with I., the Agrarian Question; II., Political Action; III., Economic and Industrial Action; IV., War; V., Education and Physical Development; VI., Organisation; VII., Miscellaneous Questions, sat in the smaller rooms of the Queen’s Hall. The various nationalities held their sectional meetings in the Queen’s Hall, St. Martin’s Hall, and other places.

First Sitting, Monday, July 27th, 11 a.m.

President, E. Cowey (Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress). On the platform with him were William Thorne, Secretary of the Organising Committee; Edward Aveling, Minute Secretary; the other members of the Organising Committee, F. Chandler, W. Inskip, J. Jack, T. Mann, J. Mawdsley, H. Quelch, A. Smith, W. C. Steadman, J. H. Wilson, M.P.; the members of the Standing Orders Committee (Bureau), and the translators, Eleanor Marx Aveling, E. Bernstein, W. Liebknecht, J. Sigg, A. Smith, Clara Zetkin. The complete list of the delegates is given at the end of this report.

Standing Orders Committee (Bureau): Chairman, Paul Singer, Berlin; Secretary, Fred Brocklehurst, Northenden, Cheshire, England. Delegates: America, Chas. F. Bechtold, Matthew Maguire; Austria, Victor Adler; Belgium, Emile Vandervelde; Bulgaria, Bacaloff; Denmark, J. Jensen, P. Knudsen; France (Section A), Eugene Guérard, Edouard Vaillant, (Section B) A. Millerand, Etienne Pédron; Germany, Wilhelm Liebknecht, Paul Singer; Great Britain, E. Belfort Bax, Fred Brocklehurst; Holland, H. H. Van Kol, W. H. Vliegen; Italy, Enrico Ferri, Romeo Soldi; Poland, W. N. Jodko, Jan Kozakiewcz; Roumania, J. Atanasio; Russia, Geo. Plechanoff; Spain, P. Iglesias; Sweden, Hjalmar Branting, Charles Lindley; Switzerland, Robert Seidel, Jean Sigg.

The sitting did not actually commence till 11.30. The President’s opening address was as follows:—

We have been delayed by reason of the fact that the French are still discussing their business. I would like to say at the outset that I had much pleasure in receiving the honour conferred upon me this morning of being requested to open the Congress. It is a pleasure indeed to meet the various nationalities of the world who have for their object the uplifting and raising of the workers of the world. I am perfectly aware that we differ in our views and in our aims in trying to accomplish that great work. But I am exceedingly pleased that we have but one object in view, however many ways we have of trying to obtain that object. I have been a trade unionist for thirty-five years; it is well known that I am a trade unionist; but whilst I am a trade unionist, I have never yet closed my mind to the views of other progressive people who have the same object in view. I do hope that at this great gathering in London we may try to suppress all vindictive feeling, that we may put it on one side and try to convince each other fairly, without any personal abuse. I am rather afraid we sometimes speak hastily. I am rather afraid that ambition to a very large extent influences our motives. I believe that we ought to lose sight, as far as it is possible in human nature, of our parties, and to see if we cannot come to some conclusions which will assist us in carrying out the great object we have in view. The workers must unite nationally and internationally; they must be tolerant as to means, but determined as to the end—the emancipation of the working class. Until now there have been too many political parties, governed by ambition and party feeling. It is a well known fact that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and therefore I hope that this Congress may arrive at some well-defined and concerted action. This is not a meeting for speechifying; this is a meeting for administration and for work, and I trust that such a spirit may govern its action. In conclusion, we, the British of all sections and phases of thought, give you, the Continental and other delegates, a hearty welcome. We give you a hearty welcome, and trust that you may be enabled to do some good work. We hope that when you have finished your labours you will leave this country with pleasant recollections of the Congress that has assembled here this week.

On behalf of the German-speaking nations, Paul Singer (M.P. and Berlin Municipal Council) responded. In the name of the German Social-Democratic Party I tender the Organising Committee the heartiest thanks for their fraternal reception. I assure them that the German Social-Democrats are determined to work shoulder to shoulder with all other nations until the final emancipation of the working class. We, along with the whole of the Congress, express our deep regret that our great teacher, Frederick Engels, who, amidst the enthusiastic applause of the representatives of the workers of all countries, closed the last International Congress at Zürich, is no longer with us to open this, the greatest of all the Congresses that have been held. Frederick Engels is dead, but his spirit, his work, his example remain. The best thanks we can give him for his life of labour and self-sacrificing devotion is to follow in his footsteps, and carry on his work. The German Social-Democrats are a political and a trade union party. But they see in the using of political power the best means for bringing about the emancipation of the workers. They are here to work with their comrades of all countries in the common cause. Everywhere to-day the conditions of the people are practically identical, and therefore all here are more and more using the same weapons. We believe trade union organisation to be as important as any; but it must have behind it a great political party opposed to all bourgeois parties alike. There is the triple alliance of Germany, Austria, and Italy; there is the double alliance of France and Russia. The workers know of only a single alliance—that of the workers of the world. This Congress, like its predecessors of Paris, Brussels, and Zürich, is another mile-stone in our march towards emancipation, and this great gathering must help to prepare the way for the freeing of the proletariat of all countries.

In the temporary absence of the French delegation, Emile Vandervelde (Belgian Member of Parliament) spoke. The workers of France and Belgium are bound the one to the other by very close links of friendship. I repudiate the idea that we are here for the purpose of representing any nationalities; we are met for the special purpose of affirming the brotherhood of man. As I see that the delegates of France are now in the hall, and able to speak for themselves, I beg before sitting down to congratulate the Congress on its success, and to thank Mr. Cowey for the kind words of welcome he has extended to all delegates of other nationalities.

The French delegates having now arrived, E. Vaillant (Member of Parliament) spoke. I have been chosen as delegate of the French delegation as representing the political section of the French party, and I have with me as co-delegate M. Guérard, the secretary of the French Railway Workers’ Union, as representing the French trade unionists. M. Vandervelde has been well chosen to speak on behalf of France and Belgium; yet I can not claim any closer acquaintance with Belgium than any other nations. The French Socialists desire to be friendly with those of other nations, however far apart they may live. I hope that we shall learn to esteem each other, and that we may be able to establish on the ruins of capitalism a new world of love, fraternity, and peace. As we strive together our sentiments will gather in strength, and become more and more powerful. I wish to thank the British for the welcome they have given us. The British showed us on the previous day a unique spectacle, which could only be possible in a nation which has won its political freedom, such political freedom as exists nowhere else. The British have conquered their rights, and one of the great reasons why they have been able to do this is because militarism is absent. The work of the delegates is to conquer Cæsarism and militarism. I congratulate the delegates on this great gathering, which is a step in that direction.

Edward Aveling and William Thorne then read various telegrams and letters. A list of these and of others read at later sittings of the Congress will be found at the end of the report. The former pointed out that the various Commissions would meet during the afternoon and evening. The lists of the delegates of the different nationalities serving upon the various Commissions will be given when the reports of the Commissions are dealt with.

The Congress then proceeded to the discussion of the Agenda paper. The first matter was the Provisional Standing Orders, which had been drawn up by the Organising Committee.

The President: The most important of these for discussion is No. 11. “No amendment to Standing Orders, or the arrangement of the Agenda shall be accepted or discussed after Monday.” With the exception of No. 11 the Provisional Standing Orders were adopted en bloc.

J. Burgess (England, I.L.P.): In many of the Agenda, as at first printed, the words “or discussed” are omitted.

P. Singer (Germany, S.D.P.): The German delegation accept Art. 11 of the Provisional Standing Orders.

W. Parnell (England, I.L.P.): As it is nearly one o’clock, I move that the Congress adjourn, and the question of the Standing Orders be held over till the Tuesday morning.

E. Guérard (France, Section A): If Standing Order No. 11 is accepted by the Congress there can be no discussion after Monday on amendments to Standing Orders.

The President: If No. 11 is carried undoubtedly none of the amendments to Standing Orders printed in the Agenda can come up for discussion after to-day.

A scene of confusion followed, many delegates speaking at once, and some, not understanding that all speeches of delegates not holding official positions must be made from their places in the hall, moved towards the platform for the purpose of speaking.

C. Cornelissen (Holland, Socialist League): To carry No. 11 is equivalent to the endorsement by the London Congress of the Zürich resolution. [See first circular p. 1.] I contend that political action does not necessarily include parliamentary action, and that whilst my organisation is in favour of the former, it is opposed to the latter. The explanation of Bebel at Zürich after the resolution justifies my argument.

After a further scene of confusion, which, as before, was really initiated by some half dozen delegates, the President stated that it might be necessary to call in the police to preserve order. Some of the confusion was also due to the fact that the proprietor of the hall addressed the chair from the gallery, and the President and delegates, not knowing his position, resented his interference. Ultimately the President declared the Congress adjourned until Tuesday morning.

Second Sitting, Tuesday Morning, July 28th

At 10.30 a.m. the Chair was taken by Paul Singer, President for the day. The Vice-Presidents were J. Keir Hardie, England, and E. Guérard, France.

The President: I have been asked by the Bureau to act as chairman. The Standing Orders Committee have met, and it is most necessary that questions on the Agenda and real work should be dealt with, and that time should not be wasted in discussion of other matters, and in quarrelling. We shall not have the police called in, but there are stewards in all parts of the hall and we are determined that order shall be maintained. The Bureau has further decided that they do not wish any group to be under the impression that they are hardly dealt with. I shall, therefore, allow two speeches on each side on the Zürich resolution. Two speeches for the resolution, and two speeches against; each speaker to be allowed ten minutes. After that I shall put it to the vote (by nationalities). The Congress must understand that if the Zürich resolution is carried that settles No. 11 on the Agenda. I fully intend to see that the wishes of the Congress are carried out.

Keir Hardie (I.L.P.): My words to the Congress this morning will indeed be few. My only object in addressing you at all is to make an appeal for a certain amount of toleration to be shown towards those from whom you may differ. Everyone is not agreed on every point. There are amongst us to-day men and women of various nationalities. These men and women bring with them their own methods of procedure, and if they do not at once understand and conform to ours, I would ask delegates to bear this in mind; and not to accentuate any differences that arise. If the delegates will do this, the Congress will, I am convinced, be as harmonious and peaceable as could possibly be desired. I conclude by expressing a hope that Congress to-day will show itself large enough to embrace every section of itself, independent of the various opinions with regard to Parliamentary action.

The President: We now start with the discussion of the Zürich resolution. The first speaker in favour of the resolution is Jaurès, of the French delegation.

Jaurès (M.P.): While I agree with the sentiments expressed by the vice-chairman, with regard to toleration, I am resolved to abide by the Zürich resolution. In working to bring about the great change from capitalism to Socialism we must not depreciate trades union action. It is most important to reduce the hours of labour, and to increase the rate of wages. As trade unionism develops you also develop organisation among the workers. You develop a power, not only of organisation and administration, but also a power to rule the world. I am not going to argue in favour of exclusive Parliamentary action, and it would be presumptuous to attempt to read the events of the future. I would, however, urge that trade unionism of itself and by itself is powerless. Capitalism is strictly political; capitalists are the political class, and possess political power. Trade unionism must be a political movement; it must capture political power. There have been for many years many weary strikes in France, in which we have been nobly supported by our English brethren. What happened in France at this time? The capitalist was master of the Government, and employed Government troops to crush the strikes. Political action is used against trade unionism, and trade unionism must use political action to take from the privileged classes the power they possess.

The President: T. Mann is the speaker against the resolution.

T. Mann (I.L.P.): In speaking against the resolution I must state that I am not, and do not expect to be, an Anarchist. I am a Collectivist, and desire to come into close and direct contact with every shade of opinion. Let us try to be as many-sided as possible. There are in our own country many who have little faith in Parliamentary action. I have; but there are many persons as good, and better than I, who do not believe in it. I do not on that account refuse to discuss matters with them, or to learn from them. Vigorous and good work has been done by them, and it is surely desirable to recognise each other as comrades, and to work together for the realisation of our ideal. The Continental party have given proof of their devotion in seeking to socialise the means of production, distribution, and exchange. They have suffered imprisonment and persecution in the cause, and if they have done their part in the great work, why dispute about particular means? There is no reason why we should refuse to confer with them. A man may be a trade unionist as well as a Socialist. Any shade of opinion can come under the head of trade unionism. How shall we draw a line, without being inconsistent? These men have striven hard and well. Charges have been brought against us, that the only desire we had was to produce discord. This, I say, is a lie! We are all striving for the same ideal, and I venture to submit to my comrades that we should not dispute about method. Many and great victories have been won for us by our forefathers—that of free speech among others—and we certainly should show no intolerance to another section of the party. It is not only from the Anarchists that discord arises. If we act in a dignified, calm, and becoming manner, we shall meet with reciprocal conduct, but do not let us ruffle their feelings and say they shall have no voice in our proceedings. Shall we pose as the only friends of the workers, and say all others are their enemies? Shall we assert that we say and do all for them, and others say and do nothing? We can show ourselves more noble, surely, than this, and can work with them. Non-Parliamentarians they are, but Socialists all the same. We shall thus have a proper Congress, all joining in the discussion. It is on these grounds that I say I am opposed to the Zürich resolution.

The President: H. M. Hyndman will speak in favour of the Zürich resolution.

H. M. Hyndman (S.D.F.): In rising to reply to the somewhat unexpected request by our Chairman, I wish in the first place to say I was not at Zürich—and I do not support the resolution because it was formulated at Zürich. I was not at Zürich, and I am not pledged to it. I support it from an independent point of view. I support it because I have come here to do business and to carry out the orders of the day. What is the title of the Congress, and on what basis has it been called? I see no word in its title referring to Anarchism or Anarchist-Communism. And of what use is it to invite these people to Congresses when they themselves have admitted over and over again that they do not believe in Congresses? Merlino, who is a personal friend of my own, and for whom I entertain a most kindly feeling, declared at Paris that they had come there with the intention of upsetting a lot of fools like ourselves. There was order, there was toleration, there was fraternity!

Interruption, amid which H. M. Hyndman said, Mr. President, this is not included in my time.

The disorder continued. Cries of “Sit down,” &c.

H. M. Hyndman: I now say in reference to Mr. Mann’s speech that the difficulties he experienced in the early days of the movement I experienced also, and even some years before him. Who were the men, however, who, when the capitalist press vilified us as rogues and scoundrels, also opposed us? The Anarchists. (Interruption.) There is another example of toleration, Mr. President. We are told that if we admit our opponents we can rely on dignity and self-control. I congratulate Mr. Mann on the way his clients are acting in support of his speech to which they have just listened! The British Section have held a meeting and by the overwhelming majority of 223 to 104, we decided in favour of the Zürich resolution, and against the view taken by the vice-chairman and Mr. Mann. We stand committed to the Zürich resolution. I have come here to do business and not to dispute about principles. If you do not accept this resolution you will stultify yourselves in the eyes of the world. We cannot enter into discussions on basic questions which have already been decided at Congress after Congress. I yield to no man in toleration, whether the discussion is at the street corner or in the lecture-hall, but I denounce Anarchy, I denounce disorder, and I stand up for the order and organisation of International Social-Democracy.

The President: The last speaker on the question, D. Nieuwenhuis.

Domela Nieuwenhuis (Holland, Socialist League): I wish to know first what is meant by adopting the resolution of Zürich. If we did adopt it should we be any further advanced in our business unless it were explained? Some fully accredited delegates might be excluded, and some members of Parliament and others might be admitted who hold no credentials. I contend that by itself the Zürich resolution means simply nothing. I vehemently protest that we have not come to the Congress to create disorder and make a disturbance. The Bureau is, of course, perfectly justified in making any rules they please as to admission to the Congress, but these rules must be distinct. Now, that is not the case with regard to the Zürich resolution. Had we understood that the Dutch delegates would be unwelcome, we would have absented ourselves. I, with others, fully recognise that nations are not obliged, under all circumstances to agree on points of detail. Political action might be taken in some cases, and not in others. Now, I want to know if you intend to maintain the resolution itself, or the explanation of it. According to Bebel, the door is open, and we all know if a door is open everyone has a right to walk through. It is true that this is not an Anarchist Congress, but neither is it a Social-Democratic Congress. I challenge anyone to dare to say that the Anarchist-Communists are not Socialists. If they are not, Kropotkin is not a Socialist, and I could bring forward documentary evidence that Liebknecht is not a Socialist. Does political action mean Parliamentary action? I am sincerely anxious the Social-Democrats should be spared the shame of violently expelling members. I wish to see matters conducted peaceably. If the Congress interprets the Zürich resolution, as I understand they intend to do, it will mean the withdrawal of the Dutch delegation. We can all march together a certain distance, and then differences must arise. There is one common ground on which every one may meet amicably, and that is a non-political one—a purely economic one, and here union is perfectly possible. If this resolution is adhered to, there will be two distinct movements in the Congress. The one dominated by a spirit of liberty and large-mindedness; the other, narrow. This Congress will thus be a mere branch of the German official Democrats.

After this speech had been translated Domela Nieuwenhuis wanted to speak again. The President decided that he could not. Nieuwenhuis then asked if he might make an explanation.

The President stated that they would now take the vote by nationalities. If they accepted the Zürich resolution it would terminate the discussion on Standing Orders. This decision would, however, in no way interfere with the credentials of any trade unionist. They would now vote by nationalities.

When Great Britain was called upon, Keir Hardie was proceeding to put the matter to the vote amongst the British Section, Edward Aveling and J. Mawdsley (chairman of the British Section) reminded the Chairman that Great Britain had already decided to vote in favour of the Zürich resolution.

J. K. Hardie thought that something had happened since then, and that the delegates might have changed their opinions.

The President here ruled that the vote could not be taken again.

T. Mann: I wish to protest against this, and I shall continue to protest.

The voting by nationalities was as follows:—For Article 11 of the Provisional Standing Orders (i.e., practically in support of the Zürich resolution): America, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bohemia, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany (all unanimous), Great Britain (223 to 104), Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland (unanimous). Against: France (57 votes to 56), Holland (9 votes to 5). Italy did not vote, as their delegation was equally divided. Result: For the resolution, 17 nationalities; Against, 2. Abstention, 1.

The President pointed out that by this vote the Standing Orders were disposed of.

Edward Aveling reported more telegrams.

T. Mann gave notice as to the times and places for the meetings of the Commissions.

C. Cornelissen asked what was now the position of the anti-Parliamentary Communists.

The President pointed out that this was a matter for the Credential Committee of each nationality, but it must be understood that bonâ fide trade union representation was in no way interfered with.

The Congress then adjourned at 1.20.

Third Sitting, Tuesday Afternoon, July 28th

Chair taken at 3 o’clock.

F. Brocklehurst, Secretary to the Standing Orders Committee, reported. The verification of credentials should be settled that afternoon. The morning of Wednesday to be devoted to meetings of the Commissions. The Congress to meet at 2 p.m. Wednesday. At 8 p.m., Tuesday, there was to be a Conference of all Socialist representatives on elected bodies. International Congresses of various trades, including metal workers, cigar makers, hat makers, tailors, glass workers, were to be held during or after the Congress week.

Various telegrams and letters were read. The news that Ghesquière had been elected on the preceding Sunday to the General Council of Lille was received with great applause.

Verification of Credentials

Germany.—Clara Zetkin (S.D.P.) reported forty-six accepted credentials of delegates, elected in many cases at public meetings, but in all cases representing either trade unions or political organisations. Six Anarchist credentials have been rejected as they were not in accordance with the Zürich resolution which was endorsed this morning. The Zürich resolution was necessary in order to define clearly our common field of action, and to that resolution the German delegation was determined to hold. As to glosses put upon that resolution by those opposed to political action, these would not hold water. We are here not to discuss fundamental questions of principle upon which all Socialists have long since agreed, but to discuss common tactics for realising the principles we are agreed upon. To be “tolerant” under such conditions would be an act of real intolerance to the genuine Socialists who had come here to work. It is true that Herr Landauer and others suddenly discover—whenever they want to get admitted under false pretences to Socialist Congresses—they are not Anarchists, or that they are not against political action, only against Parliamentary action. But we know that not only here, but in their work in Germany, in their own papers, at public meetings, the only activity they develop is directed against the political work of Socialists. We do not want any trade union that is here under genuine conditions to be excluded, and the greatest trade unions of the world, the English trade unions, admit the necessity of political, of Parliamentary action, for they have a Parliamentary Committee to watch over their interests. We stand to the resolution passed this morning, and ask you to endorse the action of the German delegation in accepting forty-six and rejecting six credentials.

G. Landauer: I am one of those whose credentials have been rejected, and I and my colleagues have sent in our protest to the Standing Orders Committee. We maintain that the Article 11 does not exclude us. When at Zürich the resolution was rushed through in a very unfair way, and the French and Belgians angrily protested, Bebel declared that only those were to be excluded who refused to sanction Parliamentary action. But this does not apply to us. We are Anarchists, we do not deny it, and therefore we are tolerant, and want to give everyone the right to act as he thinks fit. We are reasonable, and we are earnest, and we don’t want to exclude anyone, or interfere with the rights of humanity. But we also don’t wish to be excluded, and we want the Congress to pull itself together and not endorse the German narrow view. We are Anarchists and we are Socialists, and want to socialise the means of production, and the freedom of every individual. What else do Socialists want? If the Congress is honest it must declare the Anarchists are also Socialists. I and my colleagues appeal to you to admit all credentials and reject the German report.

After Landauer’s speech had been translated, he, standing on a chair, tried to speak again. The President, however, called upon R. Fischer as the next speaker. There was much disturbance on the part of Landauer and those near him.

The President: Silence.

Landauer: Our protest (the one sent in to the Standing Orders Committee)——

President: Anyone who speaks unless called upon will be removed from the hall.

R. Fischer (M.P., S.D.P.): I hope the Congress will not allow itself to be misled into reopening the question that was definitely settled by the vote of this morning. The question of principle—that is, the right of Anarchists to force themselves upon a Socialist Congress—has been decided, and, consequently, the question of Anarchist delegates is decided also. The Congress has declared in an unmistakable manner that Anarchists have not been invited to this Congress, and that we do not want them, no matter what they may call themselves. We have nothing in common with Anarchists, and could never come to an understanding. This is a Congress of Socialists and trade unionists. Anarchists have been clearly told they are not wanted, and it should now be a matter of personal honour for them to withdraw instead of trying to force themselves upon us.

After further interruptions from Landauer and his colleagues, the President said: In my opinion it is quite enough to have two speakers—one for, the other against—the acceptance of any particular credential, and I shall now take the vote as to the report of the German delegation.

The German report was accepted by an overwhelming majority.

Great Britain.—P. Curran (Gas Workers and General Labourers Union) reported. The total number of English delegates is 475, which may be subdivided as follows:—Trade unionists, 185; S.D.F., 120; I.L.P., 115; Fabians, 22; odd sections of Socialist societies, 33. Out of these numbers there has been reason to disqualify but one delegate. In answer to inquiries as to the name of the delegate who had been discredited, Mr. Curran replied, I will not give the name of the delegate, but will tell the name of the society. It is a small Berkshire Socialist Society whose total strength is four members; two members have been sent to represent them. The committee has refused to accept a representation of half, but accepted a quarter.

Mr. Curran’s report was accepted unanimously without discussion.

The mandate of Edward Aveling, from the Social-Democratic Federation of New South Wales, Australia, and also of G. B. Shaw as representing an Irish Fabian Society, had been verified by the British Credentials Committee.

Belgium.—E. Vinck (S.W.P.) reported. Twenty-six delegates have been elected by the Belgian Workers’ Party, and nineteen are present. Report accepted.

America.—M. Maguire (S.L.P.) reported. Delegates representing the Socialist Labour Party, Socialist Trade and Labour Alliance of U.S. and Canada, Alameda County (California) Trades Assembly, Federation of Labour, Washington, Brewery Workers, Hackowners.

The credential of the last was rejected by the Americans on the ground that it is an association not of workers, but of employers.

The delegate, Winston, protested, and ultimately the Congress decided upon his admission.

Switzerland.—H. Greulich (S.D.P.) reported. The Swiss delegation have accepted 12 credentials and rejected 2. The accepted delegates represent 14,000 members of the Grütli Society; 5,000 members of the Social-Democratic Party; 10,000 members Trade Union League; besides many other organisations, such, e.g., as the Watchmakers, 3,000; Typographical Union, 1,500; Railway Workers, 16,000; Metal Workers, 2,500; Tailors, 600; besides many local bodies. As to the two rejected delegates, one came from the “Zürich Anarchists,”—a few individuals having made out the credential. The other came from a so-called “Free Social Discussion Club,” whose existence is, to say the least, doubtful, as, though the club is supposed to be in Geneva, the Geneva delegates present know nothing of its existence. The delegate himself admitted it is a mere debating club, with Anarchist leanings. Under these circumstances the Swiss delegation ask the Congress to accept the 12 genuine delegates and reject the two that are clearly not entitled to be present as representing Switzerland.

H. Runge (Geneva): I wish to point out that even if, as Greulich says, our Club is not known to the Geneva delegates, that does not prove its non-existence. The Club fulfils all the necessary requirements, and my mandate is signed by its Secretary. I do not belong to the Swiss Social-Democratic Party, because we belong to a party of foreigners, and the Swiss Party does not accept them. In our Club we have members who are for and against political action, and members who hold different views on all questions; we are therefore not narrow-minded and think all should be admitted here. We want tolerance and mutual attempts to understand one another. As a matter of fact, my credential is really rejected because I am an Anarchist and advocate of Anarchism, and so to say no one asks about personal views is a lie. I believe the Congress will not be narrow-minded, but accept my credential.

The Swiss report was adopted by an overwhelming majority.

The President in reply to a suggestion for adjournment as it was 6 p.m.—Would it not be better to finish the question of credentials? This was agreed to, and also a resolution that the Credential Reporter for each nationality should only speak ten minutes, and others only five minutes.

The interpreters having repeatedly complained that they experienced great difficulty in hearing the speakers, it was suggested that the speakers be allowed on the platform.

E. Marx Aveling: If the delegates will keep quiet the interpreters will be able to hear.

Roumania.—One delegate, representing 15,000 organised Socialist workers.

Bulgaria.—Four delegates representing 34 places at which the Working Class Organisation of Bulgaria has branches.

Russia.—G. Plechanoff: There are eight Russian delegates, almost all of whom hold many credentials from actual workers’ organisations in Russia. Some of these mandates come from the “League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class,” which organised and conducted the recent great strike at St. Petersburg, and this is the first Congress at which delegates are present representing really organised workers in Russia, representing a genuine Social-Democratic movement there. I am delegated by the “League” mentioned above, and also by the Social-Democratic League of a town in North-West Russia; Rosalie Plechanoff, by the Social-Democratic League of a town in West Russia; Vera Sassoulitch by the “League for the Emancipation of the Working Class,” the Social-Democrats of a town in North-West Russia, and a Social-Democratic League of Russian emigrants in New York; P. Axelrod represents the Social-Democratic organisations of one town in South Russia, three in North-West Russia, the Jewish workers of Warsaw, and the Lithuanian workers. Other delegates from St. Petersburg, Nijni-Novgorod and Vosneasensk represent the “League for the Emancipation” or the Social-Democratic League. One of the eight Russian delegates claiming to represent some of the old members of the “Will of the People,” an organisation which rendered great services some fifteen years ago, has, in memory of those services been accepted by the Russian section. (Later this delegate, Serebriakoff [from Paris] withdrew from the Russian section, and opted to sit with the French section, having a French credential). One delegate, Rappaport, who came with a mandate from a group of five young ideologue students in Berne, who publish a paper, Der Arbeiter, is rejected by the Russian delegation. We appeal to the Congress to support us in this decision. We have nothing to say personally against Mr. Rappaport, but delegates here should represent genuine organisations and this Mr. Rappaport does not do. To admit delegates under such conditions would be to give a most dangerous precedent. At future Congresses any half dozen young gentlemen might claim representation and any half dozen such young students could then easily out-vote the genuine representatives of a genuine Socialist movement; without even speaking of other serious dangers for men and women working under the horrible conditions obtaining in Russia. At last the Russian proletariat is entering into the ranks of the class-conscious Socialists of the whole world. We appeal to you to support them, and to reject the delegation which the Russian section has rejected.

Rappaport: Plechanoff seems to object to me because I have been to a University. But that is no ground for rejecting my credential, and if there were serious reasons no doubt Plechanoff would have mentioned them. The group I represent is a Social-Democratic one, and is in relation with Russian groups that are Socialist in sympathy and action. The objection to my mandate is a fantastical one, and I shall now read a letter from men who know the movement, in direct opposition to Plechanoff’s statement. Among the signatories is a friend of Lavroff whose credential has been accepted, and others who are tried revolutionists and have been to Siberia. I shall read this letter and appeal to the Congress to reject Plechanoff’s report.

“We, the undersigned, state that the group ‘Revolutionary Socialist Union’ is in existence, that it was formed several years ago, and is in constant relation with Socialist and working-class groups in Russia. We are of opinion that the said group is of sufficient importance to be represented by a delegate at the International Socialist Congress of London. We state also that citizen Dr. Rappaport, whom we know to be a militant Socialist, is really the representative of the group and holds a delegation from it. In consequence of this, we protest against the rejection of the credentials of citizen Dr. Rappaport.

(Signed)

Stepanoff, Serebriakoff, Felix Volkhovsky, Goldenberg, N. Tschaikowsky, Teploff, Kahan.”

Plechanoff: One word in reply. We do not dream of reproaching anyone for having been to a University. But we do think that, having been to a University, or even being a doctor, is not a reason for speaking on behalf of the Russian working class. In justice to that class, and to those who are its direct representatives, who hold credentials from Russia and not from a few students in Switzerland, we ask you not to force upon our delegation one whom the delegation feels it a duty to exclude.

The report was accepted by acclamation.

France.—Guerard (Railway Workers’ Union): There are 133 delegates. Three of these, Jaurès, Millerand, and Viviani, members of the Chamber of Deputies, have not any credentials, but the delegation, in order to show goodwill and tolerance, have accepted them.

Jaurès: With us this is a question of principle, and we cannot accept this show of generosity. The present debate is a picture of what happened yesterday within the French section, where the French Socialists were beaten by one vote, that of a man already rejected by two other nationalities. The French Anarchists have obtained entrance to the Congress under the mask of trade union credentials. In many cases the existence of these trade unions is very questionable. It would be the height of absurdity to admit these Anarchists and shut out three delegates who have been elected by thousands of organised workers, can produce numerous credentials, and can speak on behalf of the peasantry.

Great confusion followed, amidst which Faberot (M.P.) protested against any special privileges being extended to members of Parliament, and against forming Trades Unions into a political party.

G. Lansbury (S.D.F.). I move the omission of the last part of the French report.

This meant the exclusion of the three delegates in question.

Millerand (M.P.) attempted to speak. The excitement was so great it was impossible to take a vote.

The President. The French section are agreed to accept all their delegates. Is it wise for the Congress to interfere with this arrangement?

Ultimately the Congress adjourned at 6.45, no vote having been taken.

Fourth Sitting, Wednesday Afternoon, July 29th, 2.15 p.m.

President: H. M. Hyndman (England); Vice-Presidents: R. Seidel (Switzerland), J. Jensen (Denmark, M.P., and Copenhagen Municipal Council).

The President: The Secretary of the Standing Orders Committee has a statement to make.

F. Brocklehurst: Will the secretaries of Commissions send in their reports to me?

The President: The Standing Orders Committee has appointed me chairman this afternoon. It is not, perhaps, a very enviable position. I suggest to the Congress that as the delegates are so numerous, any questions or motions be written on paper and sent up to me. I should be glad to have from this Congress a motion that speakers be limited to five minutes each. I appeal to the Congress, to all sections, that they support the chair and maintain that order which is theirs. Our enemies, who are quite powerful enough, bring the accusation against us that we do not conduct our business in a quiet and dignified manner. Now, let us to-day, no matter how provoking the matter under discussion may be, endeavour to act in a sober, orderly, and businesslike manner, and come to the discussion of business. If the meeting will but support me, order I will have. I will now take the motion on limiting speakers to five minutes each.

It was moved and seconded by G. Dew (London Carpenters), and D. Hennessey (Plasterers) that ten minutes be allowed for reporters, and five for other speakers.

The President put it to the meeting and the motion was carried unanimously.

French Representation

The President: George Lansbury yesterday afternoon, moved an amendment with regard to the exclusion of three French delegates. These three gentlemen have to-day handed in formal credentials from properly constituted bodies. I propose a committee of three or four to inquire into this matter. The French Section has accepted these credentials.

H. B. Samuels (I.L.P.): This question was decided last night.

The President: I rule that out of order. It was not decided last night. I also wish to say that the three delegates, Jaurès, Millerand and Viviani, had their credentials in their pockets all the time. I suggest that these credentials be examined by Congress. (Some interruption now took place.)

A Delegate here rose, and said that some unauthorised persons had obtained admission to the Congress.

The President: That is not for us to decide.

Herbert Burrows (Matchmakers): I think the three French delegates ought to explain why they did not hand in their credentials to the French section yesterday.

The Roumanian delegate wishing to speak on this matter, the Chairman allowed him to do so.

Anastasio (Roumania). I am surprised that the question should come up again. I maintain that it was settled yesterday. An English delegate had moved an amendment to accept the French report, with the exception of the part referring to the three delegates who had no mandates. It was put to the vote, and I consider the question was settled then. In my opinion it is deplorable that this matter is brought up again this afternoon.

The President: I now call upon Mr. Keir Hardie to move his amendment.

Keir Hardie (I.L.P.): This may appear at first sight a small matter; but, in my opinion, there is danger attached to it. If members of Parliament are favoured above other men it might lead to mischief. I wish to move that these three delegates refer the matter to their own section. If you will look at sub-section (c) of Standing Orders No. 3, you will see that “the President and Secretary for the nationality should verify the mandates of their delegates.”

The President: They have verified them, Mr. Hardie.

Keir Hardie dissented from this.

J. Connell (I.L.P.), seconded the amendment. I want to say a few words. I know a misunderstanding existed among some of my friends. They thought it was somewhat tricky of these three French delegates to have withheld their credentials until to-day. It is advanced that it was to establish a precedent, and that they were justified in testing the feelings of the Congress on this point. I am afraid some of my comrades may vote against the three delegates under a misunderstanding, whereas if it were cleared up all would be glad to have Jaurès, Millerand and Viviani among them.

The closure was moved by the British Textile Workers and the Danes, and carried.

On putting the amendment that the questions of these mandates be referred to the French section, it was found that the majority was in favour of the amendment, which thus become the resolution, and was carried by a large majority.

Interruption here occurred, and when it had subsided, Sydney Olivier (Fabian) moved “That the Congress proceed to consider the reports of Commissions.”

W. C. Steadman (Barge Builders) seconded the motion.

George Lansbury begged Olivier to reconsider this, and to remember how few credentials remained to consider.

The President: There are no reports of Commissions ready.

Amy Morant (I.L.P.): I beg to move that the uncontested credentials be taken as read.

The President: I will be glad if you will withdraw that.

Credential Reports

Poland.—W. Jodko: The Polish delegation has accepted fourteen credentials, and rejected one. The credentials which we have accepted come from the Social-Democratic Polish organisations of Austrian and Prussian-Poland, from organisations of Polish Socialists in other countries, and finally from certain secret societies in Russian Poland. We ask the Congress to understand clearly that these secret organisations are unavoidable in a country suffering under the horrible tyranny of the Russian Government. With no press, no right of public meeting, no right to organise, the workers have no choice but to organise secretly. The Poles in Russian Poland are in the same position as their Russian friends. These credentials we ask the Congress to accept. In our section there is one delegate whom we had originally intended to exclude. The bearer of this credential (Russian Poland) has for years been declaring against a common Polish delegation, on the ground that Poland did not exist as a nation, and to form a Polish delegation would be mere chauvinism and anti-Socialistic. Under these circumstances the Polish section had advised this delegate to go and sit with the Austrians or Germans. However, the German delegation appealed to the Polish delegation to reconsider the matter. We have done so, and although we are bound to point out the contradiction in the position of this delegate, in order to save time and a long discussion, we agree to accept her credential. Finally, there is one other credential that we refuse to accept, and that we appeal to the Congress not to accept. The bearer of it, Michalkowski, labours under very serious accusations that he has never met and never answered. Three years ago the facts, which we considered of the utmost gravity, were made public at Zürich—were publicly stated and printed. A jury of honour in Warsaw, on which his own friends served, declared him unworthy. To these charges—categorically made three years ago—no reply has been made. I need not point out that this—which would be a serious matter in any country—is doubly serious to us Poles. The Polish delegation, therefore, appeal to the Congress to accept their report—to accept the thirteen delegates, and reject the credential of Michalkowski.

Michalkowski, the delegate in question: I wish to explain. I accuse those who wish to invalidate my credentials of calumny, and of fighting me by unfair means. These same men also accused Stepniak, our late Russian comrade, of being a police spy. I refuse to justify myself to the Polish delegation, or to have anything to do with such persons. I appeal to the Congress. Some others of the Polish delegation have been denounced too. I want Vaillant to read a letter from Paris. The same objection was raised against me at Zürich, but I was admitted.

George Dew (Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners): I protest against this farce of letting every delegate whose credentials are refused speak. The trade unionists wish to protest against the way in which the time of the Congress is being wasted. I move the adoption of the Polish report.

D. Hennessey: I second.

Michalkowski: I demand that the letter about me from P. Lavroff, and which Vaillant has, be read.

The President put the Polish report to the Congress by show of hands and it was carried by a large majority.

America demanded the vote by nationality.

The voting was: For the adoption of the Polish report: Australia, Austria, Bohemia, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Russia, Sweden. Against: America, Belgium, France, Portugal, Roumania, Spain, Switzerland. Abstention: Holland.

Result: For the Polish section’s report, 12 nationalities; Against, 7; Abstention, 1.

The President: I think that all delegates who are excluded by such votes as this should leave the Congress.

Austria.—Resel (S.D.P.): There are seven delegates, all of whose credentials are in order. Of these, three come for the Social-Democratic Party, one for the Metalworkers (13,000 members), one for the Hatmakers (273), and one for the Brewers. We regret that the Austrian delegation is not a larger one. But the expenses of sending delegates such a distance is very great, and we felt that it would be better to devote our means to the struggle for universal suffrage that the Austrian proletariat is carrying on with such energy. Moreover, we may have elections to fight, and this again requires no small sacrifices. But if our delegation is small it represents the class-conscious workers of our country.

The report was adopted.

Bohemia (Tschech Organisation).—Hybes (S.D.P.): The Tschech Social-Democratic Party, at their recent Congress at Brünn, decided to send only one delegate to the Congress, but the delegate, myself, represents the whole of our organisations. We came to this decision for merely practical reasons. It must be borne in mind that since the time of the Reformation ours has been an oppressed and downtrodden people, and we are consequently far behind other countries in economic development and in political experience. Indeed, it is only within recent years that we have entered upon the political struggle. There had once been some belief in the Liberal Party, that has now taken to calling itself the “People’s Party” and the “Young Tschech Party,” but is still the same old party, and the people at one time supported them. Now they begin to understand that there could be no alliance with any bourgeois party, and we felt we must husband our resources for the fight we are entering upon. Hence our small delegation, though this one represents a united and fast-growing party. But on our arrival here another delegate, who claimed to hold a Tschech credential, turned up. His credential was made out by some groups calling themselves “Independent” in Vienna and Prague. What they really are no man can say. The delegate, questioned on the point, admitted that he came with only one instruction—to vote for the general strike. I am sorry to take up the time of the Congress, but the Congress must decide, as we are 1 vote to 1 vote. But I ask you to remember that the one delegate was elected by a Congress representing the whole of the Social-Democratic Party of Bohemia, and the other by a group that no one knows, and that itself does not know what it wants.

Groussier (France): I do not understand on what principle the voting by nationalities is carried on. We have a single English delegate voting for Australia, and now one Bohemian delegate voting as a nation.

An English Delegate: Why not submit this to the Austrian Section?

V. Adler (S.D.P. Austria): That has been done. Our section has considered the matter. I can well understand that to the outsider it may seem strange that we should have Austrian, Tschech, and Hungarian Sections. But these do exist as separate, independent organisations, and we must acknowledge the fact. When you have in Ireland a genuine Socialist movement you will probably find it necessary to do as we have done, and acknowledge an Irish as well as a British Party. But although we have these separate organisations we are absolutely at one, and form one great party, working side by side, towards the same end. It would be a good thing if some of the nations here, who speak the same language and not, like us, three or more entirely different ones, were as united as we are, formed, as we do, a party that is one in principle and in tactics. The Austrian and Hungarian delegations are entirely in accord with the report of Hybes. The credential we ask you to reject comes from a National-Tschech-Chauvinist-Anarchist group. No doubt that seems strange, but we have strange things in Austria. The united Social-Democratic Parties of Bohemia, Austria, and Hungary ask the Congress to adopt the report of Hybes.

W. Votier (Boot and Shoe Operatives) and G. Lansbury moved that the question be now put. Carried.

The Bohemian report was adopted.

Hungary.—I. Ancel (S.D.P.) reported. The credentials of three delegates from Social-Democratic and trade union organisations have been accepted, and one from a so-called national democratic party rejected. It was an extraordinary thing for an exclusively bourgeois national organisation to wish for representation at an International Workers Congress.

The report of Hungary was adopted.

Denmark.—P. Knudsen (Member of Parliament) reported. There are seven delegates representing the Social-Democratic Party (23,000 members) and centralised trade unions (42,000). One union alone, the machine workers, has 3,500 members. Six of the seven delegates are members of Parliament, four from the Party, two from the unions. At the last moment a representative of a small Anarchist group called “Toleration” turned up. His mandate has been rejected.

The President: As all Anarchists are excluded by vote, no discussion can take place. We cannot re-open it to-day.

Edward Aveling now read telegrams and messages, and gave notices from the Entertainment Committee with regard to the meeting on Thursday night. There are two more notices. First, the general secretary of the Congress requires every secretary of every nationality to draw up an official list of delegates. Secondly, some delegates go out and come in again, and doubt has arisen about the cards. On each card, therefore, must be written the name of the delegate, and the organisation to which he belongs.

It was decided to sit that day until the credential reports were finished.

Sweden.—H. Branting (S.D.P.): I am glad to say that we have no credential to reject. There are only two delegates here. One, myself, for the Social-Democratic Party, and one for the trade unions of Stockholm. The Social-Democratic Party would have liked to send a larger delegation, but we are entering on a struggle for universal suffrage, and we are straining every nerve, and saving all we can for this struggle. But though a small delegation we represent a united and growing party.

The Swedish Report was accepted.

Italy.—Enrico Ferri (S.D.P.): There are ten delegates present from the Socialist Party, which has recently been constituted anew at the National Congress held in Florence, and numbers 25,000 members, who represent a far larger number of supporters amongst those who cannot openly declare themselves on account of persecution. When the ten delegates arrived in London, they found their numbers doubled, as there were ten others claiming admission to the Congress who held mandates from Anarchist groups. As their numbers were thus equally divided, it was agreed to await the decision of the Congress on the Anarchist question. That decision has now been taken; seven of the Anarchist delegations have been annulled, but three of the Anarchists, who also hold trade union credentials, have remained so that the Italian delegation is thirteen in number. But these delegates really come under the cloak of trade unions—and some of these unions are very doubtful—to advocate Anarchism, and if they have not themselves the sense of honour to retire, the Italian delegation is of opinion that the Congress should express an opinion, and in any case should understand what the three delegates really are, and that the ten Social-Democrats present represent the true working-class and trade union movement of Italy.

The President: A delegate asks to speak for the minority. (To the delegate) Are you an Anarchist?

A Delegate: Yes.

The President: Then I am bound to decline to hear you. The Congress has decided to exclude Anarchists as such. The Italian delegation has an equal number of Socialists and Anarchists. The latter have agreed to accept the ruling of the Congress, and give up their position as Anarchists and sit here only as Trade Union delegates. Now the delegate wants to argue the Anarchist position. This is against the ruling of the Congress.

The delegate endeavoured to make himself heard.

Louise Michel, who wished to sit as an Italian delegate, interposed, and there was some interruption.

The Italian Anarchist protested to the audience from the platform, and left.

The Italian report was adopted.

Spain.—Pablo Iglesias (S.D. Workers’ Party): Of eight credentials we have rejected two. One of these represents a society absolutely unknown. Upon the rejection of this credential, the delegate produced another one from an Anarchist society. As we hold all Anarchists to be the enemies of Socialism, this was also rejected. Nieuwenhuis’ contention yesterday was quite inaccurate. If we come together in a Congress to work for common ends we must have common ground. Therefore, we cannot work with Anarchists and people like Nieuwenhuis, whose chief end and aim is the fighting against the Social-Democratic workers. The Spanish delegation represents seventy workers’ organisations, and we ask you to support us in keeping out of our section men who have no right to be at the Congress at all.

Malatesta (whose credentials had been rejected by the Italian and Spanish Sections, but who was sitting with the French Section): I have received a whole budget of documents from Barcelona, from which I gather that the Barcelona comrades have been interrupted by a police visit, caused by someone throwing a bomb at a religious meeting. The delegate from Barcelona has not yet been able to reach England because he has had to escape from the police. I represent a Spanish society of stone-breakers; and even though, as alleged, this society might consist largely of police spies, I contend that all who represent properly organised trade societies have a right to be present at the Congress.

On a vote being taken the Spanish report was accepted by a large majority.

Portugal.—E. C. A. Gneco (S.D.P.): There is only one delegate—myself—from Portugal, as at present our means do not allow of our sending more. Indeed this is the first International Congress to which Portugal has been able to send a delegate. I hold signed credentials from eighty-five societies.

The report was accepted.

Holland.—C. Cornelissen (Socialist League): There are thirteen Dutch delegates, representing twenty-one local or general organisations. Of these one comes from the Socialist school teachers, and two others represent sixteen trade unions with 20,000 members. We have admitted all delegates, even the small group of Parliamentarians. But as a whole the Dutch delegation are anti-Communist-Anarchists, who by the vote taken yesterday have a right to be Parliamentarians and present.

The President: The delegate has spoken incorrectly of the resolution carried yesterday. As there seems to be no opposition I will put the motion that the report be accepted.

As a result, a show of hands apparently accepted the report.

A nationality vote having been challenged, the President did not accept the challenge.

France.—The President: A proposition has been handed in from forty-seven French delegates who wish to separate themselves from the French Section representing Anarchist opinions, and to be allowed to vote, and be represented on the Commissions as a separate section.

G. Dew (Carpenters): I protest against this waste of time.

G. B. Shaw (Fabians): I move we proceed to the next business.

The President: I hope Mr. Shaw will not press this. If his motion is carried the probable result will be that half the French delegation will be driven from the Congress. As Malatesta has been allowed to speak, the representatives of the great French Workers Party should not be prevented from putting their case, and I shall, therefore, give Millerand the opportunity to speak against proceeding to the next business.

Some confusion followed, several British delegates contending that no speaker could be allowed on a motion to proceed to the next business.

The President: The rule of debate is that one speaker may be heard for and one against proceeding to the next business.

J. Connell (I.L.P.): On a point of order. Millerand cannot speak as his credential has not been verified.

The President: That is certainly a new point, and appears to me a sound one.

P. Singer (S.D.P.) Germany: Our English comrades are discussing certain rules of debate that hold with them. But this is not an English Congress. It is an International one, and the rules of one country can surely not be forced upon all the others whose methods of procedure are quite different. The question is whether the French delegates, representing the Great Socialist Workers Party should be prevented from explaining their position to the Congress. It is a matter of international solidarity, a question of honour not to refuse this just demand of our French comrades. It would be a disgrace to our Congress to drive away these representatives of the French working class movement. I appeal especially to the English first of all to remember that national customs cannot be enforced at an International Congress, and especially I appeal to them to show that sense of friendliness and fraternity of which they spoke yesterday, and to give Millerand the chance to explain the position of the forty-seven French delegates.

J. H. Wilson (Seamen and Firemen): I move that the question be now put.

The President: Not yet.

W. Parnell (I.L.P.), opposed the French delegation’s desire to divide into two sections.

G. B. Shaw (Fabian): I object most strongly to the French desire to divide, and after the speech of Herr Singer I desire to press my motion most strongly—namely, that we proceed to the next business.

M. Maguire (America): The American delegates object to this injustice. They say Millerand has every right to speak.

The President then put the vote whether Millerand should be heard or not.

A unanimous vote of the twenty nationalities decided in favour of hearing him.

Millerand (France): I have to thank the Congress for allowing me to speak. I speak on behalf of forty-seven French delegates. I should not have insisted on speaking on a merely personal question, but this is a question of vital principle, upon which we wish our position to be made quite clear. The Zürich resolution was discussed in the French Section. By it Anarchists were excluded from the Congress. The French Section by fifty-seven votes to fifty-six rejected the Zürich resolution. Then forty-seven of the minority of fifty-six withdrew. They did not wish to associate themselves with those who, under the cover of trade unions, had come as Anarchists, and were opposed to the Zürich resolution. Those whom I represent could not accept a farce—I do not desire to give any offence—but a farce in which many play the part of innocent dupes. The Anarchists in their own official journal have said they should come to the Congress and sit on the Commissions, not to promote trade unionism, but Anarchist principles. Those Anarchists present at the Congress had in many cases admitted that they used the mantle of trade unionism only for the purpose of getting into the Congress. The minority, therefore, ask to be allowed to vote separately. They ask the Congress not to compel them to sit and work with the Anarchists with whom they have nothing in common. Will you force us Socialists to accept the responsibility of a collaboration with the French Anarchists? We cannot incur the responsibility of working with the Anarchists under whatever name such action may be disguised. The separation is absolutely necessary to make our position clear in the eyes of public opinion in France where we have the majority of the French workers at our back. If this separation is not granted by the Congress we shall be compelled, reluctantly, to withdraw from it. We cannot and must not suffer the great mass of the French proletariat to be represented as Anarchist in consequence of all kinds of double dealing machinations.

The President: I have received a communication to the effect that the French delegates would be quite willing to accept one and one of each section on the Commissions.

Bernard Shaw: I beg to withdraw my motion.

Keir Hardie: I move the adjournment, and suggest that the two French Sections should consider the matter before the morning when the discussion can be continued. The motion was lost.

The President: I call on E. Vandervelde to oppose the resolution that asks for a division of the French party.

E. Vandervelde (S.W.P., Belgium): Millerand has urged that the question is not a personal one. The Belgians could not upon principle agree to a nation splitting into two, and on this the Belgians are unanimous.

F. Hardijns (S.W. Party, Ghent): That is not accurate. The Belgians are not unanimous on this question.

E. Vandervelde: If this division is granted to the French, other nations may want the same. We do not want nations divided into Parliamentarians and anti-Parliamentarians. The French majority, although it contains Anarchists, is not exclusively Anarchist. Such a separation is against the basis of the Congress, which is not perhaps a very wise one, but has to be accepted. A minority ought to submit to a majority and not to split off from it.

Vaillant (Central Revolutionary Committee), and Allemane (Workers’ Socialist Revolutionary Party), wished to protest against the allegations made against them of being Anarchists.

The vote was then taken. For the resolution of Millerand, that the French delegation should be divided into two sections: America (the reporter stated they were in favour of separating Socialists from Anarchists, which led to some demonstration on the part of one section of the French), Australia, Austria, Bohemia, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland. Against: Belgium, France, Great Britain (114 votes to 110), Holland, Italy. Result: For the proposition that the French be allowed to sit on two sections, 15 nationalities; Against, five.

The Congress adjourned at 7.30.

Fifth Sitting, Thursday Morning, July 30th, 10.30 a.m.

President, Emile Vandervelde, Belgium; Vice-Presidents, Enrico Ferri, Italy, and John Hodge (whose place was taken for a short time by E. Belfort Bax), Great Britain.

President: An explanation concerning the discussion yesterday on the French question is to be made. I hope that the time of the Congress will be better occupied than in the sterile debates that have hitherto occurred. These debates are useless and fruitless. It is imperatively necessary that we present a united front to the enemy, and do something for the union of Socialism. Many of the delegates have been sent at great cost and sacrifice by countless millions of hungry workers; sent to do work in this Congress, and not to thrash out useless questions. Instead of being divided among ourselves, let us present a united front against capitalism, and strive to bring about a more united state of things among Socialists.

The following motion by James Leakey was then put, and, without discussion, carried unanimously and by acclamation:—

See Sympathy with the Socialist Municipality of Lille.

Edouard Vaillant: I take note of what the President has said. As chairman of the French section, I wish to explain the position. It is a strange thing that the majority of the French delegates were judged and condemned yesterday as Anarchists without having been heard. The French majority is not Anarchist, and delegates coming as trade union delegates should not be questioned as to their personal political opinions. I repeat that the French majority is not Anarchist. Most of them are in favour of the Zürich resolution and of political action. I myself am a revolutionary Socialist and Communist, anxious to seize political power, in order to bring about the state of society that we desire. I, therefore, protest, in the strongest possible way, against the injustice which I think has been done to us. The confusion that has occurred is, I believe, due to our having made this a trade union Congress as well as a Socialist one.

President: By a decision of the Bureau, Allemane will now make a statement, and we shall then proceed to the order of the day.

J. Allemane: The internal quarrels of the various nationalities do not concern the nations at large. In my opinion the difficulty has arisen from the narrow interpretation of the Zürich resolution by Deville and Guesde. The interpretation of the Zürich resolution by the majority of the French Section is the same as that given by the majority of this Congress. The French majority have tried to be fair and tolerant, and elected one of the minority as one of their officials.

The Congress then proceeded to the discussion of reports from Commissions.

Agrarian Question

The President vacated the chair to present the Report of the Agrarian Commission, and his place was taken, pro tem., by Ferri.

Report of the Agrarian Commission

See The Agrarian Question.

Minority Report of the British Representatives upon the Agrarian Commission

The representatives of the British section upon the Agrarian Commission herewith submit to the Congress their Minority Report.

They are practically in agreement with the resolution presented in the Commission’s report with the exception of the last paragraph. They desire, however, to call attention to the fact that other resolutions proposed by them were rejected by the Commission.

The following are the rejected resolutions:—

(a) That, in addition to the direct exploitation of the agricultural workers by landlord and capitalist, these workers are in some countries obstructed in the distribution of their surplus produce to their fellow citizens, by the capitalist ownership of the railways and other means of transport, and also of markets, and that these hindrances to effective use of the land can be removed only by socialisation of the above means of transport and exchange.

(b) That, whereas in many countries the development of the capitalist system has resulted in a considerable displacement of agricultural labour, this Congress is of opinion that the time has arrived when such labour should be scientifically organised upon the land by such public authorities as are best fitted for the undertaking.

This was rejected, but it was decided to hand it over to the Industrial Commission for their consideration, who replied as follows:—

“The Economic and Industrial Commission is of opinion that the resolution submitted for their consideration by the Agrarian Commission cannot be considered by them, the said resolution belonging essentially to the domain of the Agrarian Commission. (Signed) Henry Polak.”

The chairman of the Industrial Commission has, however, since intimated that the rejected resolution will receive their attention.

(c) That this Committee requests the Educational Commission to include in their recommendation to Congress a resolution calling upon the Educational Departments of various countries—

1. To arrange for elementary knowledge of agriculture being taught in all public schools.

2. To co-operate with other State Departments, municipalities, &c., in establishing an efficient system of technical education in agriculture.

The foregoing resolutions were rejected on the grounds of their being outside the scope of the Commission’s inquiry, or as being unsuited to the needs of several countries represented. With regard to the first ground of objection, we are of opinion that the Commission ought properly to have considered every important phase of the question before them. As to the second, while admitting the existence of, and allowing for, the difference in the nature of the agrarian question in various countries, we desire to express our dissatisfaction with the very pronounced disinclination of the foreign representatives to discuss anything outside the matters contained in the main resolution.

Finally, for the benefit of future Congresses, we respectfully suggest that independent and official interpreters should be attached to each Commission.

We are, yours respectfully, Thos. M. Watt. W. G. Pearson.

E. Vandervelde: As the report and minority report have been printed in all three languages and distributed, there is no need for me to read them. The Commission was unanimous in favour of local autonomy, and of each country dealing with the Agrarian question according to local circumstances. At the meetings of the Commission it was soon seen how wide apart the different countries were in their opinions upon this important question. The difference of opinion on this question even affects particular countries, as was shown at the Congress of the German Social-Democratic Party at Breslau. But all are agreed upon the general principle of transforming capitalist property into communist property. The only difference of opinion is as to the intermediate steps to be taken to that end. In England the land is owned by a handful of landlords. In France and Belgium, on the other hand, there are millions of small proprietors, whom Karl Marx has defined as men soldered to the instruments with which they get their living, as the snail is fixed to its shell. In Flanders, also, there are numbers of small holders. In northern Prussia as in England there are big landlords. The Commission is of opinion that the whole of this question is still in a period of gestation. We have not yet come to the time for deciding upon general definite action. We suggest the appointment in the different countries of commissions to collect facts and opinions, and to communicate with each other. Upon one point we are, of course, all agreed—viz., that the agricultural labourer bears the whole burden of agrarian oppression, and that it is the duty of Socialists all over the world to come to his assistance. The strength of the European armies lies in the peasantry, but the time is near when the peasant in the country and the artisan in the town, will unite and make common cause against the oppression of the capitalist.

F. Brocklehurst (Sec. of the Bureau): I have to state that the following Commissions in addition to the Agrarian Commission, whose report is now under discussion, have also drawn up their reports: Political Action, Education, Economic and Industrial Action. The commissions on War, Organisation, Miscellaneous Matters are not yet quite ready. I have to request that the secretaries of the commissions will hand in their reports for the printer as soon as they are ready.

The President (pro tem.) Ferri: I call upon comrade Pearson to speak on the minority report.

W. G. Pearson (S.D.F.): The minority report presented by myself and Dr. Watt does not conflict with, but is supplementary to the report of the majority. The Agrarian Question in Europe was not really discussed on the Commission. The Radicals in England have really gone as far as the first part of the majority report. The minority are of an opinion that some of the immediate palliatives ought to be discussed, such as the nationalising of the means of transport, and our report is a protest against the bald report of the Commission. We desire to see an extension of the sphere of the State into the domain of industrial activity. We are strongly of opinion that the voluntary commissions recommended by the report should be established. In England we have an Agricultural Department under Government, not quite the best of its kind, but other countries might with advantage establish similar departments, whose object should be to report not pious opinions, but the work actually done.

Dr. Watt (I.L.P.) supported the minority report.

Paul Lafargue (Parti Ouvrier, France): There is a difference between discussion and dissension. As a matter of fact the minority are supporting the majority. I would like to take this, my first, opportunity of protesting against the statements in the capitalist press about the supposed waste of time of the Congress. The Congress has got on very well with its work, most of which on the Commissions has been going on during the last three days. It will be noticed that when we come to important matters of business our dissensions vanish and we present a united front. The Commission is quite right in not going into questions of detail. In France we have made a beginning with the agricultural question, but it must not be forgotten that that question not only in different countries, but even in the same country, falls under different categories. There is the small farmer, the metayeur, the small peasant proprietor, the agricultural labourer, e.g. The peasant proprietors are the reserve army of the capitalist. Their votes have been cast for Napoleon III., the Clericals—reaction in all forms. Nevertheless, we are making progress amongst the agricultural population in France. For example, one of our delegates, Dr. Dellon, has amongst his credentials one from a small agricultural commune of ninety-seven inhabitants, the whole of whose Council is made up of Socialists. His mandate is stamped by the Socialist Mayor.

G. B. Shaw (Fabian Society): I suggest that all speeches, except those of reporters, be limited to three minutes.

Dr. Bruno Schoenlank (S.D.P., Germany): As chairman of the Agricultural Commission, let me point out that it was absolutely impossible to enter into a discussion on the various matters of detail referred to by the British minority. It was essential that we should be agreed on the main points, and on these majority and minority are agreed. It goes without saying that as Socialists we are in favour of nationalising, not only the land, but the means of transport and so forth. But much of what our British friends urged would apply solely to their own country, and the very fact that they speak of palliatives shows us that their arguments may be, and no doubt are, locally right, but not of universal application. That is where the whole difference between a great general principle, and a palliative, applicable to a given time or a country, comes in. Our friends want State control of the railways. Well, we all want to nationalise railways. But the State to-day is not a democratic, it is a class State, and what our English friends look upon as a useful palliative we have had experience of. The nationalisation of railways was carried out by Bismarck, and with the result that the railways have been exploited after the most perfect capitalist method in favour of militarism. The State railway, under our present State, is not a democratic railway, and this our friends, when they have had our experience, will recognise. Again, the English minority wished us to take up the question of the unemployed, and, if not to solve it, at least to mitigate their condition. And, to attain this, they propose taking the unemployed to the land. This, too—the starting of agricultural labour colonies—has been a pet plan of our Prussian landowners; because then these unfortunates are quite unprotected, and at the mercy of their exploiters, the landlords. This absolutely reactionary proposal we oppose on practical as well as theoretical grounds. Then, again, the English minority wished agricultural education to be given in all schools. That is a question for the Commission on Education; but distinctly we should oppose the teaching of agriculture to town children as a mere waste of time. For this reason the majority did not see their way to accept the suggestions of the minority. But, after all, these suggestions are simply questions of detail, and on such questions there must be very different opinions. On the main question we are all agreed, and the report we present takes its stand on definitely Socialist ground. In our final aim we are united—the freeing of the peasant and the labourer, as part and parcel of the victory of Social-Democracy.

Two of the English delegates were of opinion that those desiring to move amendments should not speak.

R. Seidel (S.D.P., Switzerland): I do not think the text of the report is quite correctly translated in all cases. The English text speaks of landlordism as part of capitalistic exploitation, but this is not in the other translations. I move that the text be made identical, i.e., the words “including landlordism” be added.

Paul Lafargue: I move an amendment that in paragraph 3 the words “agricultural proletariat” read “all the sub-divisions of the agricultural proletariat.”

The President: I suggest that the verbal alterations of Seidel and Lafargue be accepted, and the majority report then be adopted.

Upon the vote the majority report, with the verbal alterations by Seidel and Lafargue, was passed unanimously.

The minority report, the contents of which, as the official translations in French and German were not yet ready, were explained to the Congress, was then voted upon, and rejected by a large majority.

F. Brocklehurst: The Bureau desire that all reports to the Congress should pass through their hands in order that———

Upon this some confusion on the part of the majority of the French delegates occurred, Allemane and Agyriades protesting violently.

The President and the translators, after some difficulty, made them understand that all that was wished was that official documents should pass through the hands of the Bureau in order that accurate translations might be made.

The Congress rose at 12.50 p.m.

Sixth Sitting, Thursday Afternoon, July 30th, 3.15 p.m.

Edward Aveling read a number of telegrams and letters from West Ham, Gratz, Women of Paris, &c.

W. Stevenson (United Builders Labourers, London) and G. Dew (Amalgamated Carpenters, London) moved the following resolution, which was passed unanimously and with acclamation:

See Protest against the Observations of Justice Grantham.

The Swiss delegation proposed the following resolution:—

See Greeting to the Russian Workers.

H. Turot (Woodcutters, France) moved as an amendment “one of the last strongholds,” instead of “the last stronghold.”

This was accepted and the resolution carried by acclamation.

F. Brocklehurst: Will the secretaries of the German and French nationalities come to me at once for the reports of the Political Action Commission?

D. Nieuwenhuis (Holland) read the following declaration:—“The delegates of the Dutch Socialist Federation and of the trade unions, i.e., the representatives of twenty labour organisations of the twenty-one represented here, seeing that it is more and more the intention of the Congress to change the economic basis of the ancient ‘International’ for a Parliamentary one; that Socialistic associations have been excluded from the Congress; that no reply whatsoever has been given to our pertinent and often repeated question whether the Zürich resolution has been adopted by the present Congress, with or without the declaration belonging to it—have decided not to participate any longer in the partial, sectarian and intolerant deliberations of the Congress, being bound by their mandate to leave the Congress under present conditions. The Dutch movement will henceforward not be represented at the International Congress except by the fraction named the ‘Social-Democratic Workingmen’s Party,’ which has not the right to call itself the representative of the labour movement in Holland.”

He then handed to the President his delegate’s card, which the President received with the remark, “Thank you.”

W. H. Vliegen (Holland): On behalf of the Dutch minority, I am glad to say that the Dutch Social-Democrats will not leave the Congress. On the contrary, they look upon it as an honour to work whenever possible along with the Socialists of the whole world. As the majority of the Dutch section (nine in number) never summoned the minority (five in number) to any deliberations, this minority has been excluded from all the Commissions. We emphatically protest against this exclusion from Commissions, such, e.g., as the one dealing with the colonial question, which is one of immense importance in our country. The Dutch minority has been told it was nothing but hangers-on of the German Social-Democrats. So long as the German Social-Democratic Party is identical with the International Socialist movement we are proud to follow it. We are told we are a small party. But, at any rate, we have never tried to make ourselves out strong or great. It is a sign of weakness to think ourselves strong when we are weak, but it is a sign of strength to recognise your weakness. We are weak perhaps to-day, but we shall not rest till our party is strong and not unworthy to take its place in the great Social-Democratic movement.

The President: The Dutch minority have delegated W. H. Vliegen and H. Polak to serve on the Bureau.

Eugenie Collot (France) was understood to make a general protest, and to demand the admission to the Congress of those who had been excluded.

Political Action Commission

Report. George Lansbury (S.D.F.) reporter.

See Political Action.

Lansbury, in presenting this report, said: The Commission have had to deal with fourteen resolutions. It has been quite unanimous upon broad, general principles, though not necessarily unanimous on all questions of detail. In respect to resolutions 11 and 12 on the Agenda referring to the position of Poland, the Commission was in favour of the complete autonomy of that country, and indeed, as paragraph four of the Report shows, in favour of the full autonomy of all nationalities. Resolution No. 14 on the Agenda to discuss the attitude of the workers with regard to colonial policy, the Political Action Commission referred to the War Commission, although in the last paragraph of their report a reference has been made to the subject. The Political Action Commission has held seven sittings and there is a minority report, which has not been printed, but will be presented by the one delegate in favour of it.

Tortellier (Carpenters and Joiners, France): I have been sent to the Congress to explain why we are opposed to political action. It was not always thus. I was told off by the French to combat Vaillant on the Commission on this very point. The French have grown out of political action. All promises made at election times by candidates are forgotten after election. We shall succeed better by organising economically than by organising politically. Our attempts at political organisation are the cause of the failure of strikes. There should be a strike against rent. If everyone refused to pay rent, landlordism would be done away with. Nothing will ever be gained from Parliament, not even the reduction of the hours of labour. If only those in favour of political action are admitted to Congresses the Latin races will abandon the Congresses. The Italians are drifting away from the idea of political action. Properly organised the workers can settle their affairs without any intervention on the part of the legislature. The majority of the French workers are with me on this question.

E. Vaillant: I deny the accuracy of Tortellier’s statement. The French workingmen in favour of political action are in a large majority and increase every day.

J. Jaurès: I was to have served upon the Political Action Commission but the second French Section was formed too late. In the name of the forty-seven French delegates who hold the same views as I do, I protest energetically against the pernicious doctrines of Tortellier, and against his assertion that the majority of French workers are opposed to political action. To their honour, be it said, that they are organising more and more for political action. It is easy to prove Tortellier’s calumny false. The election returns prove its falseness. The Socialist vote is constantly increasing. In their recent struggles against Casimir Périer and Dupuy the Socialist deputies had at their back the mass of the working-class. We are in favour of political action because we want economic freedom. Trade unionism alone is not sufficient. How could trade unionism itself exist without political action to make its existence possible? In France the centre of trade unionism were the Bourses du Travail. These have been closed by the political action of the capitalists, and the workers use political action to get them opened again. You may have traitors in any party, but the worst traitor and most dangerous foe is he who, as you go out to fight, says, “Leave your weapons at home.” The most powerful weapon of the working-class in their struggle is political action, and the most dangerous enemies of the working-class are those who advise them not to use that weapon. The Socialist deputies to the French Chamber have never inaugurated strikes, but when strikes have broken out they have gone to the assistance of the workers. Formerly in cases of strikes all the political machinery was used against the men. Now there are Socialist members of Parliament who can stand by the side of the workers and use some of the political machinery on their behalf. Our great aim is the suppression of all classes by teaching the working-class to use political action for its own emancipation.

D. Hennessy: I move the deletion in the second paragraph of the report on Political Action, of the words “independent of and apart from all bourgeois political parties.” I do not believe in government by one class alone. I know a good many middle-class men who are quite as worthy of support as parliamentary candidates as the labour candidates. I am in favour of government by all classes.

W. C. Steadman (Barge Builders, L.C.C.): I second the deletion of these words. I do not wish to place myself in a false position. I yield to no man in my desire to free my fellow men. I only differ from some of my friends on the question of method. Every one of the three reforms mentioned in the report was mentioned in my recent election address when I ran for Parliament as a trade unionist and Liberal-labour candidate. We are told that if a working man runs in connection with any of the old political parties he will become a party hack. This I deny. I am as willing to work with a middle-class Liberal as with a middle-class I.L.P. man. If we want a genuine labour party it can only come from the trade unions. And are they yet ready for this?

J. Hodge: I suggest that the question be now put.

T. Mann: I protest against this until the other side has been heard.

The motion that the question be now put to the vote was lost.

P. Curran: I desire to speak as a Socialist and trade unionist against the two trade unionists who moved and seconded the amendment. The report of the Political Action Commission contains nothing more than has been passed at recent British Trade Union Congresses. We have had in this country many samples of labour alliances with the old political parties. The labour men concerned have proved false to their class because they have not been in alliance with and under the control of a Socialist party. Middle-class politicians are not confined to the Radical party. The Socialist party is of all nations and of every class. I would rather have a middle-class Socialist than a renegade working man. I think the British should be ashamed of themselves when they look at what has been done in Germany and France. Still, we are trying to follow their example. As a consequence of the British working man’s habit of hanging onto the tails of middle-class parties, we have the spectacle at the present moment of not a single Socialist member in the British House of Commons. The working-class political movement is becoming a genuine Socialist and revolutionary movement.

August Bebel (S.D.P., Germany, M.P.): After the admirable speech of Jaurès, it is hardly necessary to say anything as to the necessity of political action for the working class. And this is not what I rise for. But, in view of the position taken up by a portion of the English workers, I wish to say a few words as to the experience of Germany. I think that, without any presumption, I may fairly say that there is no Socialist party in Europe that has fought more consistently, more persistently than the German Socialist Party from the moment that it entered the arena, and this is not due to the special virtue of the party, but to the special conditions in which it has been placed. When twenty-five years ago these conditions gave us the suffrage we have, there was not a voice in Germany raised against our making use of it. We did use this weapon, and because we used it, from a small, despised, calumniated sect, we became what we are to-day—the strongest party of the whole German empire. Ten years ago we did not poll 100,000. At the last election we polled 1¾ million votes—over a quarter of all votes cast. Our success filled the Government and the governing classes with consternation. It has been said that the political action of the workers is harmful to their class. In Germany everything that has been done for the workers, economically and politically, has been done through the political action of the Social-Democracy, through their political strength. And the German workers know this so well that they will not hear of political abstention. “Vote more!” is their cry. “The more of you go to the ballot for your own class the better.” Why did the Government of the bourgeoisie increase the duration of Parliament from three to five years? From love of the workers, from a desire to oblige our anti-Parliamentarians, and save the workers from the “demoralisation” of elections? No! Because they were afraid; because they dreaded these expressions of popular opinion, and the splendid means of agitation and education an election gives us. Not from love, but fear of us, the bourgeoisie want as few elections as possible, and we could do the middle-class no greater service than to adopt the Anarchist tactics, and snap our fingers at the vote. If we did this they would fall upon our necks and praise us, and we should be as popular with them as the Anarchists are. But the first of all rules in a struggle is never to do what the enemy wants you to do, and our aim should therefore be not to abandon the vote, but everywhere to extend the suffrage. If there could be any doubt as to whose hands we should play into by this policy of abstention, look at Saxony. There the Social-Democrats have an absolute majority of electors, and, from fear of them, the Government and the bourgeoisie have deprived them of the suffrage. When our opponents judge thus of the meaning and value of political action by the working class, should we give up the very weapon they are in mortal fear of? To do so were treachery; the most fatal of blunders. With regard to the motion of our friend Hennessey, the Germans cannot accept it. The German workers have seen with the deepest regret that a portion of the English workers are still willing to be the tail of the bourgeois parties, and that they voted for these parties at their last election. We specially appeal to the English workers to organise independently, for you, the English working class, have but to will and you will be masters of the state of society. Do not bid your continental comrades to go back—rather place yourselves at their head, and, beneath the flag of Socialism, lead on to victory.

Enrico Ferri (S.D.P., Italy, M.P.): I wish to protest as strongly as possible against Tortellier’s aspersion upon the Italian workers. They have not in any sense given up the political fight. Quite the contrary. During the violent reaction under the traitor Crispi an anti-Anarchist law (so called) was passed. This was really meant to be used, not against the Anarchists, but against the Socialists against the workers’ political party. By the electoral revision law of Crispi one-third of an electorate of three millions were disfranchised. And this one-third, of course, represented the democratic element. The Socialist leaders were arrested and thrown into prison along with convicts. And yet, in spite of all this the Socialist movement grew. The 27,000 votes of class-conscious workers and five deputies of 1892, became in 1895, 80,000 votes and fifteen deputies. This participation in political action had a most notable effect, not only upon individuals but upon the party as a whole. Like an International Congress it raises, chastens, purifies us all. In Italy we have recently had a very remarkable example of this. One of our Socialist deputies recently voted on the side of the Government; not from any love for the Government, but on purely tactical grounds for the time being. The Italian Social-Democratic Party summoned him to the bar of their Congress. He was one of the greatest martyrs of our common cause. He was beloved of all. Nevertheless, he had to appear before our party tribunal and to apologise for his conduct. This submission to the discipline of the party is especially necessary in our southern countries where we are very prone to use romantic revolutionary phrases—is especially necessary to bring about that union of the proletariat of the head with the proletariat of the hand who united against capitalism will overturn capitalism.

The President: There are six more speakers on my list. Clara Zetkin among these, is, however, willing to withdraw as a representative of Germany has already spoken. I propose now to close the debate.

J. H. Wilson (M.P., Sailors and Firemen): I wish, before the debate closes, to make a reply to Mr. P. Curran. I wish to explain the difference between the English and Continental Socialists. I therefore oppose the closure of the debate.

The President: I propose to take the opinion of the Congress as to closing the debate.

The closure was voted practically unanimously.

The President: We will now vote upon the report of the Political Action Commission.

Upon the suggestion of the French delegates the report was taken paragraph by paragraph. All the paragraphs were agreed to unanimously by a vote of nationalities. A minority of the French Section voted against each paragraph of the report, and upon paragraph two and the amendment of Hennessey and Steadman to strike out the words “independent of and apart from all bourgeois political parties,” a minority of the British delegation voted in favour of the deletion of the above words. The nationality vote for the report as presented, paragraph by paragraph, was unanimous in favour of the report. The report was afterwards put as a whole and carried nem. con.

Edward Aveling gave further communications and the Congress rose at 6 o’clock.

Public Meeting in Queen’s Hall

On Thursday evening a great public meeting was held. James Mawdesley presided, and addresses were delivered by H. Greulich (Switzerland), Millerand and Jaurès (France), Bebel and Liebknecht (Germany), Adler (Austria), Iglesias (Spain), J. H. Wilson and H. M. Hyndman (England), E. Ferri (Italy).

Seventh Sitting, Friday, July 31st, 10.30 a.m.

President, E. Vaillant (France). Vice-Presidents, Matthew Maguire (America), J. S. Maxwell (Great Britain).

The President: I shall rely upon the help of the Congress in carrying on its business to-day. The time has arrived for satisfying our constituents by considering the resolutions of the Commissions. It is a great mistake to imagine that we have really wasted time during the first days of the Congress. All these disturbances, all the apparently sterile discussions, are laying the foundation of future Congresses, and hence, even in the first days, we were really doing practical and beneficial work. Yesterday the Congress got through a great amount of business. Therefore, the capitalist press having nothing to say about disturbances, found out that the Congress was not representative. This is a gross calumny. The delegates all represent active and militant organisations. Again it has been said that the British delegation has been split up. But the voting yesterday showed that upon main questions of principle they were practically unanimous. To-day is the decisive day of the Congress, on which most has to be done. A number of suggestions have been sent in as to the organisation of the next International Congress. Any delegates desiring to make further suggestions are asked to send them in at once to the Bureau, who will sit this afternoon to draw up their report.

Edward Aveling made a number of communications, including those as to the arrangements for Saturday.

Education and Physical Development: Report

Reporter, Sidney Webb (Fabians).

See Education and Physical Development.

S. Webb: The report submitted to you has been carefully considered by the representatives of all the nationalities, who propose in it, in some detail, a complete scheme of education, and who ask that education shall be made accessible to every citizen of every country. This scheme of education, of course, to be under public control, and supported by complete legislative protection for children and young persons against capitalist exploitation. Socialists are often accused of confining their attention to mere material means of improvement. In answer to this calumny, here we have a Commission of a Socialist Congress engaged in the study and promulgation of new truths upon the important matter of education. There is too little time for learning nowadays. We make our demand, almost for the first time, for higher learning and research, with a special view to the discovery of new economic truths. I understand that an amendment will be moved to the report asking for the complete maintenance of every person being educated until they are twenty-one years of age. Against that amendment I venture humbly to protest. It is a proposal neither practicable nor desirable. If everyone was to spend life up to twenty-one at school or the university, society would be reduced to eating books. If the suggestions of the report are carried out, society will be charged with the administration of the largest system of educational scholarships the world has ever seen—a system of scholarships which will enable every boy or girl, if their abilities warrant it, to pass through school to the university. But to ask the complete maintenance for every child, whether capable or not, is to ask for a quite unnecessary present to the middle and upper classes of Europe of a hundred million pounds a year.

Emma Ihrer (S.D.P., Germany): The importance of this question of education is so great that it deserves to have far greater attention than has been the case hitherto. It is necessary, even in our society, to better our educational system, and thus to help stop the exploitation of children by capitalism and by their own parents. But general resolutions like the one before us are not sufficient to meet the various needs of various countries. We require further knowledge and information on the subject, and I should therefore like to propose that the Education Commission elected at this Congress shall continue to exist. It would be the duty of this permanent Education Commission to issue pamphlets upon the subject of education generally, and upon the special conditions in the various countries, so that the working class may be fully informed upon the subject. Such pamphlets will be of especial value as a means of propaganda among women, and will serve as Socialist propaganda as well as for helping to secure better educational methods generally. I therefore propose, as an addition to the resolution, that the Education Commission of this Congress continue to sit permanently, the various members corresponding with one another, and that they issue pamphlets upon this question.

K. Hardie: I rise to move as an amendment the deletion in the last line of resolution No. 1 of the words “scholarships covering” and the substitution for them of the word “public.” Mr. Sidney Webb had a great deal to say on the subject of expense, and expressed the opinion that workingmen who vote the taxes will not incur that expense. I submit that by the time Europe has arrived at the stage of spending 100 millions annually on education it will be saving many hundred millions on war and criminal expenditure. Although the working-classes pay the taxes they do not vote them. Ought clever children to have advantages over others less favoured? This is introducing competition—surely a strange anomaly at a Socialist Congress. If it is asked is every boy and girl to be maintained and educated at the cost of the State until the age of twenty-one, the answer is that if the rich, clever and well cared for are to have these advantages the children of the workers ought to have them also. The subject is not one that calls for long speeches, but I hope that the trade union vote will be cast for actual equality, as far as this is possible under existing conditions, between the children of all classes. Let the children of the working-classes have a chance of an education fitting them to be something better than mere hewers of wood and drawers of water for their masters and teaching them to lead a natural, human life, and thus giving the great mass of the people a chance of becoming masters of their own fate and of their own life.

Herbert Burrows (Matchmakers): I second the amendment.

Clara Zetkin: After much discussion the Commission at the last moment agreed to withdraw the reference to scholarships, and I think if Mr. Hardie had known this he would not have moved his resolution. As a matter of fact in the German resolution we do not speak of scholarships. Of course, in more democratic countries a scholarship implies nothing derogatory; but in some countries it might be otherwise, and as we demand in any case a right, not a charity, we wish to remove anything that might appear other than a right of the child, and a duty towards the child. On the other hand we do not agree with Mr. Hardie and say that all children should go to a university. We distinctly think that only children capable of profiting by such an education should receive it. Of course, we should not give it to incapable children, and so we see no need for the word “capable” at all. To-day, no matter what their capacity, the children of the poor are excluded from such education through the poverty of the parents. Poverty to pay stands as a flaming sword forbidding entrance to the paradise of education. And all our resolutions will be vain in a society where the poor can barely get an elementary education. Of course that is hard on the children—who ought to select their parents more carefully. But as to maintenance—as to maintaining children up to the age of twenty-one and sending them all to the university, whether capable or not—this is surely a misconception both of what society is and what education is. Mr. Hardie thinks education would be a safeguard against war. But what does our education of the universities to-day do but turn out the most block-headed jingoes, the very supporters of the system we are fighting and of the wars that are a consequence of our system of society? Our bitterest enemies come from the universities, and to-day culture is the enemy of the workers. We have to face the conditions under which we live. To talk of maintaining all children to the age of twenty-one is to wander into Utopia. The resolution of the Commission deals practically with the practical conditions of to-day, and I hope the Congress will support the resolutions which if carried out—and they could be carried out to-day—would secure children the right to education which we demand for them.

J. H. Wilson: I move that the question be now put.

K. Hardie: Mrs. Zetkin is under a misapprehension. I do not ask that all children should be sent to a university.

Eleanor Marx Aveling: Before the discussion proceeds may I point out that the texts of the resolution in the various languages are not identical? In the German resolution the “scholarships” lines do not appear. Before we vote we should know which text is voted on.

K. Hardie: If the question of education by scholarship is removed from the English resolution as from the German I am agreed to it, only I should wish the word “capable” taken out.

Herbert Burrows: Mr. Sidney Webb has skilfully attempted to set the middle-class against the workers in this Congress. I wish to appeal to all on the common ground of principle. I object to the word “capable.” It is useless to say that this amendment is impracticable. The Congress is not a legislative but a deliberative assembly, and the amendment is just as practicable as anything else that we shall do during the week. The working-class Socialists in whose name I speak do not want to force people into the universities, but they do want to emphasise the principle that the children of the poor should have the same physical and intellectual facilities for education as the children of the rich who live on the labour of others. I appeal to the trade unionists as workmen to assist the Socialists in this. I ask for an overwhelming and decisive vote for the Congress for the true Socialist idea that the care of the children should in all cases be the duty of the community at large.

S. Webb: It is most important that no mistake should be made on this matter. We wish that all education should be gratuitous. We are in favour of higher instruction for all who can make use of it. The word “capable” was in the original English draft of the report, but it was left out of the German by mistake. All education should be entirely free and with entire maintenance. But this education should only be given to those capable of profiting by it. It is impossible to put a finer edge on a knife than the knife will bear. Everyone is not born with the same amount of brains, and not every child is capable of profiting by higher education. If what is wanted is maintenance for all up to the age of twenty-one, I am opposed to it.

K. Hardie: I cannot withdraw my amendment.

The amendment was then put to the vote and declared carried by a show of hands.

S. Webb: I demand the vote by nationalities.

Upon the vote by nationalities there were: For the amendment: America, Australia, Bohemia, Bulgaria, France, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Spain, Sweden. Against: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Holland, Switzerland.

The amendment was therefore carried by fourteen nationalities against six.

Upon the second resolution of the report an amendment had been handed in by Edith Lanchester and Mary Gray to delete this resolution.

E. Lanchester waived her right of speaking in favour of Agyriades (Revolutionary Central Committee, France): At the Congress of Brussels a resolution was carried that it was the duty of the State to do everything that was necessary in order to give education to all children. Why should this Congress go back upon the Brussels resolution, and deal with questions of detail? It is the middle class which has established the system of giving one meal a day to the children. It would be simpler for us to vote for free and complete maintenance. If any concessions are necessary, let us at least wait until the question comes before Parliament in the form of a Bill.

Delory (Parti Ouvrier, Mayor of Lille): I am in no sense opposed to the complete maintaining of children, but we cannot get this under present conditions. It is not the middle class, but the working class—I speak at any rate for the French Parti Ouvrier—which has given our little one’s at least one good meal a day. Let us get what we can—until we get all we want, and I would suggest that we retain the resolution as it stands, adding, after “school arrangements,” the words, “while we are striving to obtain a better condition of society.”

Upon a vote the amendment to delete the second resolution was carried.

The President: An amendment to the third resolution has been handed up in the name of Mrs. Pankhurst. It is to substitute for the word “gradually” the words “as quickly as possible.” I think we can all accept that.

This being agreed to, the whole of the report as modified was put to the Congress and carried.

It was also unanimously agreed to accept the proposition of Emma Ihrer given above, that the Education Commission should continue to sit, and as soon as possible issue a pamphlet.

The Congress then rose at one o’clock.

Eighth Sitting, Friday, July 31st, 3.15 p.m.

Edward Aveling gave out some notices, and read some messages.

A Belgian delegate announced that an International Students’ Congress would be held in Brussels at the end of 1896 or the beginning of 1897. He handed in the following document:—

“The Federation of Students and former Students of Belgium, after the Congress of Brussels, where Austria, Denmark, France, Holland, Italy, Russia, Roumania, and Switzerland were represented, and after the decision of the Congress of Students at Geneva, is organising a Congress to meet in Brussels near the beginning of 1897. They propose to discuss the following points:—

“1. Report of Delegates.

“2. Situation of Intellectual Workers (Decision of Geneva).

“3. Propaganda among those Workers.

“4. Scientific and Artistic Propaganda among the Labour Party.

“5. Federation.

“6. Report on Political Combinations.

“7. Social Pathology.

“8. Creation of an International Newspaper.

“All students and former students, either as groups or as individuals, can attend the Congress, and we dare say that all who are interested in the questions discussed will be admitted, because we have not so much to pass definite resolutions as to give one another explanations as to our situations in the different countries; to have a conference where we meet one another, a conference which is useful especially, because we can there enter into those personal relations which more than all else are useful for international propaganda.

“Some Italian friends think that we ought not to hold such congresses, as we are thus dividing the Socialists into two classes.

“That is not our intention. We are all members of our local federations and societies, but we claim that there are some questions for whose discussion we are especially fitted, such as

“Socialist Teaching in Universities.

“Scientific and Artistic Propaganda.

“We hope, then, that our English friends will come in numbers to us at the end of this year or the beginning of next, and that we shall by this means be able to render still more friendly, if possible, the relations we have at present with our English comrades.”

The President: As we have not too much time to spare, I urge upon the delegates the necessity of not repeating arguments that have already been put forward.

Organisation Commission

Reporter, C. A. Gibson (S.D.F., England).

In presenting their report to the Congress, the Commission desire to state that of the resolutions sent in they have been able to draw up those appearing on their report which embody the desires of the framers of the majority of the resolutions. We have been unable to recommend the publication of an international paper as desired in resolutions 7 and 8, owing to the cost and to the fact that many of our existing Socialist papers contain reports from other countries.

See Organisation.

C. A. Gibson: Of the ten resolutions handed in to the Organisation Commission we have combined the first and the second, as they both deal with the same question of a permanent International Executive. Certain other resolutions dealing with such questions as an international newspaper and an international bureau, we do not recommend at present, as the carrying out of this work does not appear to us as yet possible. It will be seen from the report that we do recommend the formation of a committee to collect information and report to the next Congress in respect to the creation of a permanent International Executive.

The Report of the Committee on Organisation was adopted.

C. A. Gibson: I would remind the Congress that they are under an obligation now to form the committee suggested. I move that they do elect a committee and that it meet in London.

Lucien Sanial: I move Switzerland instead of London.

On a vote by show of hands there was a great majority for London.

America demanded a vote by nationality.

This was as follows:—For London: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bohemia, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Holland, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Spain and Switzerland; for Switzerland: America, Denmark, France and Italy.

War Commission

Reporter: E. Wurm (Germany, S.D.P., M.P.).

The President: As the translation of the report into French and German is not yet complete I will ask the English-speaking nations to be patient whilst the translations into those languages are made.

See War.

E. Wurm: The War Commission, which is really a peace commission, has unanimously agreed to the main points of the report here presented to the Congress. Seven resolutions were handed in to us. Of these six were accepted; one, proposed by two French delegates, we do not see our way to agree to. These French delegates think we should vote in favour of a general strike as a means for getting rid of war. But they also said that if it were made known that they proposed this general strike they were agreed that the resolution as it stood should be adopted unanimously. As a matter of fact the Commission goes further, and is really more revolutionary than the strike resolution. The Commission goes to the cause of war, the very root of the evil. It is neither religious nor national differences that to-day cause war. The root matter is to be sought and found in the economic conditions of the various countries, and in nothing else. Nation to-day is set against nation in the interests of the capitalist class; but for the people national and religious interests must disappear when the people recognise what is for the common good of the people. When the capitalists of one country find it necessary for their interests, they work up a “war,” and appeal to patriotism and humanitarianism. But so long as we have class interests we shall have national interests under our present conditions. And the national differences will disappear when the workers meet on the common ground of Socialism. The capitalist mode of production, with its war of all against all, its forcible oppression of the working class, is the real cause of war, and therefore under our conditions all appeals to humanity, to Governments, all our cries “Arms down,” however honest, however kindly in intention, must be vain. It is not by appeals to humanity but by obtaining political power that the working class can effectually protest against the horrors of war. We denounce in our resolution standing armies as a standing menace; these armies suck our blood. They are an encouragement to all kinds of filibusters, and therefore we will have none of them. But to get rid of the great standing armies to-day we must have an armed citizen force; we must demand arbitration, but—we are only in a transition stage—to make such arbitration possible the workers must organise and obtain political power. At the back of all national wars to-day is fear of the great class war, and to force back this class war the capitalist classes are arming to the teeth. To end both the class war and the hideous wars that Governments threaten in order to stave off the final reckoning, we, the workers, must unite. This Congress has shown us that our aims, our interests are one; we must gain the political power now in the hands of our opponents, and having that power in their hands the workers will—as they alone can—make an end of the hideousness of war.

Boixcervoise (Socialist Intransigeant League, France): The French majority are in favour of revolutionary action on this question. It has been tried before, and with success. What is the use of electing revolutionists to Parliament? Will war ever be abolished but by revolution? We are opposed to standing armies. Now the report wants to replace them by an armed people. But the Swiss and American militia are as bad as a standing army, and are a weapon in the hands of the bourgeoisie. We, then, are opposed to the conquest of political power for the purpose of abolishing war, and, at their very most, deputies should use their mandates in order to propagate revolution.

The President: I have to announce that, after the Congress has risen, the women delegates are to confer together.

E. Wurm: In some of the copies of the report the word “simultaneous” is omitted in front of the words “abolition of standing armies” in No. 1 of the demands.

Dr. Pankhurst (I.L.P.): I desire to move to add the word “simultaneous” to the first demand, and I also desire to move that all words in the first demand after the word “armies” be deleted, i.e., the words “and the establishment of a national citizen force.” We Socialists want peace at once. At the present moment there is talk of a treaty of arbitration between America and England—a treaty which would render war between the two nations impossible. The declaration of this Congress in favour of simultaneous abolition of standing armies would tell in favour of this international arbitration. I am, however, opposed to the establishment of a national citizen force. Everywhere we must raise the cry, “Down with your arms; long live peace and brotherhood.”

G. Lansbury: I am opposed to the amendment of Dr. Pankhurst to strike out the words, “the establishment of a national citizen force.” I do not see why any nation should lay down its arms. This would simply mean the placing of them at the mercy of the capitalists of other nations. Would the German Emperor be disposed to abide by any decision of an Arbitration Court if it went against him, and he knew that his opponents had no means of enforcing the decision of the Court?

H. M. Hyndman: Would it not be well to take one amendment at a time?

Byles (I.L.P.): I wish to move that the word “gradual” should be inserted in demand No. 1 before “abolition.” I was out in the Ashanti War as a newspaper correspondent, and that was a war not in the interests of commerce.

A vote was then taken on Byles’ amendment, which was lost by an immense majority.

The President: It would be best now to take a vote upon the first part of demand No. 1, i.e., the “simultaneous abolition of standing armies,” and afterwards a vote upon the amendment of Dr. Pankhurst, to strike out “the establishment of a citizen force.”

The first part of demand No. 1 was carried unanimously.

V. Adler: Before the vote on the Pankhurst amendment let me point out that the English text is not identical with the others. The French text speaks of the organisation of the “nation armée”—and that we do want—not a “national army.” There is confusion over this and I suggest that the English text be altered to the text of the French and German.

The amendment to delete the last clause of demand 1 was put and lost.

J. Allemane: I want to see the abolition of standing armies, and to see the armament of the people. If all citizens were armed and drilled the proletariat could defend itself. This was unanimously agreed to.

A delegate sent up an amendment to add to demand 1 the words, “for the purposes of national defence.” This amendment was put and rejected practically unanimously.

The Congress then proceeded to the discussion of demand 2; “the establishment of tribunals of arbitration.”

E. Belfort Bax (S.D.F.): I move that the clause read: “The establishment of an International Tribunal of Arbitration whose decision shall be final.” Any appeal to the people on a question of peace or war simply means starting a jingo agitation, which, with the means at the disposal of Governments, is an easy matter. Unfortunately we Socialists are still in the minority. If, for example, after the Emperor’s telegram to Kruger a plébiscite had been taken of the English people there would have been undoubtedly an immense majority in favour of war. What is wanted is not several tribunals of arbitration, but one tribunal, properly constituted, whose decisions it shall be the international duty of all nations to enforce against any recalcitrant. Whether this scheme is utopian or practical I do not say. It may for the moment be impracticable, but as a matter of fact the whole of demand No. 2 is for the moment impracticable. Nevertheless the formation of an international tribunal of arbitration with full powers would be the beginning of the end of the modern system of independent states, and might prove the germ of the international body of the future, whose function will be the control of the life of the socialised world.

Gerault Richard (Workers’ Party, France): Such a tribunal of arbitration must, of course, be elected by the people.

Mrs. S. Blatch (Fabian Society): I wish to move as an addition to demand No. 2 the words, “and that this Congress rejoices to see that America and Great Britain are upon the eve of taking this great step.” It would be well for the working men and women of Europe in Congress assembled to declare that in spite of Salisburys and Olneys a treaty of arbitration should be concluded between the two nations.

H. M. Hyndman: I second this.

L. Sanial: Arbitration is all middle-class molasses. It is never resorted to by the middle-class Governments unless there is more money in peace than in war. I take no stock whatever in the so-called tribunals of arbitration to settle international disputes.

W. G. Pearson: I move that we go on to the next business.

The vote was then taken on Mrs. Blatch’s amendment, which was lost by a large majority. Demand No. 2, as modified by the Bax resolution, was then passed.

Upon demand No. 3, the Referendum, E. B. Bax moved its deletion, on the ground of its inconsistency with No. 2 as just passed.

H. Greulich (S.D.P., Switzerland): I am strongly in favour of retaining this resolution, as I see in it the greatest guarantee for peace. Bax should not confound the people and a handful of noisy jingoes in the towns. The people know their own interests, and the peasants, the workers, they whose sons would have to fight, would not vote for war but for peace. When in 1870 Napoleon III. felt his throne tottering he took a plébiscite, and in order to induce the people to vote “Yes” they were told that by so voting they were voting for peace. If they had been asked to vote in favour of war they would have voted “No,” and it was only because of their ignorance, because they were deceived, that Napoleon got his majority. And it would always be thus. The people would never declare for war.

The vote was then taken upon the motion of Bax to delete demand No. 3, and it was lost by a large majority.

The report, as amended, was then passed unanimously.

Edward Aveling: I have one more telegram to read, probably the last the Congress will receive. It is from Lisbon, from fifty-one trade union organisations representing 10,000 members.

C. A. Gibson: I wish to remind the Congress that it has to elect an organisation committee.

J. S. Maxwell: The time of the Congress is surely too limited to do this now. Would it not be better to let the Organisation Committee as at present constituted continue to serve?

D. Irving: How shall we know if the present members will be willing to serve?

H. M. Hyndman: Can we have the names of the present committee read out to us?

It was decided to hold this matter over until 9.30 Saturday morning.

The Congress adjourned at 7.30.

Ninth Sitting, Saturday, August 1st, 9.50

President, Jean Sigg (Switzerland); Vice-Presidents, Van Kol (Holland), Adler (Austria), Plechanoff (Russia), Parnell (England).

The President: I will first call upon the Congress to take a vote upon two resolutions that have been handed in respectively by the Bulgarian and the Italian delegations.

See Greeting to the Bulgarian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party and The Riots at Zürich.

Both these resolutions were carried unanimously.

Gérault-Richard moved:

See In Remembrance of the Founders of the International.

Carried.

The President: There is to be, as a result of the conference of delegates to the Congress at present serving on elective bodies, a committee appointed, in order to bring about co-operation between the Socialist representatives of different nationalities. Each nationality is asked to appoint a representative for this committee, and to send his name and address to E. Vaillant, deputy, Paris. On the Agenda of the next Congress there will be placed, as one special point, the condition of seamen.

F. Brocklehurst: The reports of the Economic Commission majority and minority, of the Miscellaneous Commission, and a resolution of the Bureau as to the basis of the next Congress, are all ready for discussion. The Congress will close to-day at one o’clock.

Economic and Industrial Commission Report

See Economic and Industrial Action.

Economic and Industrial Commission. Minority Report

Seeing that at several French National Congresses—Marseilles (1892), Paris (1893), Nantes (1894), and Limoges (1895)—the trade unionists have declared in favour of a general strike in all trades as a method of emancipation;

That in Belgium a general strike, even though imperfectly organised, had a great effect in obtaining the suffrage from the bourgeoisie;

That Sweden and Austria in their fight to obtain this same right have adopted the same means;

That if a priori the general international strike seems to be impossible it may be very different with a general national strike;

But that, as a matter of fact, the question of a national strike has not been sufficiently investigated in the different countries;

Therefore the Congress invites the workers of all nations, and in particular the trade unionists, to study this important question, which may be decided at the next Congress.

Molkenbuhr (S.D.P. Germany, M.P.): The Economic Commission has had to deal with a large number of questions—questions that have been studied for years, and upon which Socialists have for years been agreed. Former Congresses have already dealt with most of the questions before us, and in such a manner that we have practically nothing to alter nor to add to the resolutions of those Congresses, and the resolutions of the Paris Congress could indeed hardly be improved. We have, then, nothing very new to propose, and this should be a great satisfaction, for it shows us that from the beginning Social-Democrats have gone along the right lines. We see other parties now suggesting this “solution” of the ever-growing problems of economic development. We see the petty bourgeoisie, the small shopkeepers, looking with equal terror at the growth of Socialism on the one hand, and of huge monopolies, rings, trusts, and so forth on the other. All these appearances are to them something abnormal. The Socialists alone see in all these things the necessary results and outgrowth of our present economic system. What is new to the middle class the working class, thanks to their theoretical teachers, Marx and Engels, expected, were prepared for, and therefore from the beginning we went along the right road. A very large number of resolutions, it is true, were sent in to us—thirty-seven in all. But they largely re-affirm merely what has already been decided at former Congresses, or the suggestions are only apparently new, and aim at applying either to special trades and locally, what had been already decided generally. The Commission, however, felt that an International Socialist Congress could not and should not deal with special trades or conditions peculiar to only certain countries. It is their duty only to trace the general lines along which we have to go, and to enunciate the broad general principles by which we are bound. Thus, e.g., the Fabian Society want the Governments to take over certain monopolies—tobacco, bread, alcohol, and so on. In this they are at one with Bismarck, and not at one with the German Socialists. In some democratic countries, Switzerland, for example, such a monopoly might be valuable to the people; in other countries, Germany for example, it would be fatal. We energetically fought against this Bismarckian ideal, and we are fighting now against an attempt of the Government to take over the tobacco trade. If this were done 50,000 workers would be thrown out of work, and 70,000 would become the slaves of the most reactionary Government; all organisation, all power of resistance, would be taken from these men, and the tobacco workers—I am one—will not thus play into the hands of the Government. The Commission, therefore, does not recommend the Fabian resolution. Again, certain resolutions have been rejected by us because different views are held as to them and we have no right to put into our programme anything that is not essential and fundamental. In the same way we reject such propositions as apply only to certain conditions and are not general. Then, again, some resolutions urged appeals to the governing classes for improving the conditions of the workers. But such appeals are absolutely useless. The governing classes will do nothing for the working-class except where the workers are strong enough to force them to make some concessions. And when these concessions are wrung from them, unless the workers are sufficiently strong to see them carried out they remain a dead letter, existing only on paper. The workers do need protective legislation, and we must organise to get it. You know the great struggle the English working-class went through fifty years ago. We in Germany are going through just such another struggle, and we like the English workers know that to appeal to the class we can only fight, is useless. What the workers want they must get for themselves, and such concessions as they gain they must themselves see carried into effect. We must never lose sight of the fact that the working-class cannot be emancipated within the capitalist society of to-day, and can only emancipate itself by replacing this capitalistic by a Socialistic society. Meantime we recognise that within this society the workers must so far as possible improve their condition, and to do this organisation is essential. Organisation economically in trade unions, organisation politically to carry out the economic demands. The Commission therefore urges upon all workers the necessity for obtaining the demand set forth in the Paris resolution—quoted in the Report. We are of opinion that the demand for the Legal Eight Hour Day is still the most important demand of all. But in obtaining this, care must be taken that the employer shall not evade its consequences by resorting to domestic industry. We demand, therefore, that every form of industry be under inspection. This is the only way, in our opinion, to protect the workers and to do away with the sweating system. It is also the duty of the trade unionists to obtain the full rights of coalition and organisation. The Commission think that in passing the Report as here presented, this Congress will re-affirm the important decisions of former congresses. As to the May Day Demonstration the Commission recognise it as the very best means of obtaining the eight hours day, and see in it also the best means of protesting against militarism. It therefore accepts the resolution as sent in by the Swiss delegation. Finally, while we urge upon the workers to do all in their power to obtain these immediate palliatives, we also appeal to them not to forget the great final end and aim of Socialism—the emancipation of all classes from class rule.

Guerard (Railway Workers, Paris): On behalf of the minority I wish to protest against the action of the majority on the Economic Commission who have not once allowed any discussion on the question of a general strike although the French workers attach the greatest importance to this question. We know it is now too late to discuss it in the Congress, but the matter ought to be discussed later. The general strike is the most revolutionary weapon we have. Will the Congress at least recommend the workers everywhere to study the details of the question until the next international congress so that at the next congress they may be in a position to come to a definite resolution on the general strike?

Lazzari (S.D.P., Italy): I hope the Congress will not discuss this question.

H. Quelch (S.D.F.): I move the adoption of the majority report.

A proposal to at once go to the vote, without any amendments or discussion, was lost.

Another to take the amendments and vote on them without speeches was carried.

See the amendments carried in Economic and Industrial Action.

The minority report having been rejected by a large majority, the majority report with the above amendments was then passed nem. con.

Miscellaneous Commission

Report. Reporter: J. Bruce Glasier (I.L.P., England).

See Miscellaneous.

4. Owing to the circumstance that the German, Austrian, Spanish and several other sections have sent no delegation to this Commission, it has been thought inadvisable to bring in any report on the subject of an international language; but the Commission recommends that the Chairman put the question from the chair to the Congress by nations as to which of the languages, English, French or German, they would prefer to adopt; none of the nations speaking these languages to vote when their own language is put to the meeting.

J. B. Glasier: There is no need for me to make any speech. The report speaks for itself.

Agyriades: I desire to move the following resolution:

See Miscellaneous.

The President: This resolution is certainly out of order at present. We must first deal with the commission’s report.

Agyriades protesting against this, the President to save time put the resolution which was carried by acclamation.

He then put the first three paragraphs of the report, which were carried unanimously. As to the fourth paragraph the President pointed out that it was impossible considering how late it was to carry out the suggestion made in it.

The Next Congress

W. Liebknecht (S.D.P., Germany, M.P.), for the Bureau, presented the following report:

See The Next Congress and the Conditions of Admission.

W. Liebknecht: On the Bureau there has been a great deal of discussion as to the time and place of the next Congress. As to the time, we had resolutions to hold the next Congress in five years time, in 1900, in 1898 or 1899. As to the place New York, Paris, Germany were suggested. The expenditure of time and money were against America. The French gave way as Germany was their honourable rival. The year 1898 is impossible because in that year there will be general elections in Germany, France, and Italy. The German delegation will be proud to receive the next Congress in Germany, although at the present moment, owing to the uncertainty of political affairs, they can not mention any definite town. The Bureau had to reckon with the possibility that in 1899 the holding of the Congress in Germany might be impossible, and in that event the Bureau decided that the Congress should be held in 1900 in Paris. More time was taken up in considering the conditions of admission than in settling time and place. The next International Congress must take place without the unpleasant scenes of the last two Congresses. We shall see united at the next Congress all the representatives of the Socialist parties and the representatives of the proletariat organised for the political and economic struggle. Up till now we have not succeeded in bringing together, without disturbance, the representatives of revolutionary Social-Democracy and of the trade unions that stand upon the same basis. As democrats we have many difficulties when uninvited and undesirable people came; we can not call in the police to get rid of these discordant elements. Thus we were obliged to have days of fruitless discussion, which were forced upon us with the view of discrediting the Congress, and causing disgust at its proceedings so that our enemies might say in triumph, “Behold the men who want to create a new world cannot even keep order at their own Congress.” We must, therefore, once for all, put an end to this. We must, by the form of invitation to the next Congress, take care that nobody gets in who is not invited, and we must for that purpose take care that those who send out the invitation have the power to see that the conditions of invitation are respected. The Bureau, upon which were represented all shades of opinion and tendencies in the Congress, has been quite unanimous as to this decision, and in order once for all to get rid of any doubt on the matter, plainly declares that Anarchists have no right of admission to the Congress. I move the adoption of the report submitted by the Bureau.

D. Irving: I move the following amendment to the Bureau’s report, on behalf of the Social-Democratic Federation:—

“1. That the mandate for the next International Congress shall be confined to delegates from genuine Social-Democratic organisations (as well as Trade Unions) whose object is the socialisation of the means and instruments of production, transport, distribution, and exchange under the ownership and control of the democracy in the interest of the whole people; who strive to attain this end by parliamentary and other general political methods; who are in favour of the establishment in each country of a parliamentary and political party independent of and apart from all other political parties; and who are ready in existing circumstances to accept and abide by the rule of the majority.”

W. Liebknecht: The Bureau will still adhere to their original recommendation.

Edward Aveling: Could not the Bureau accept the S.D.F. amendment in place of their paragraph 2?

W. Stevenson (London Builders’ Labourers): I claim the right to represent the opinions of trade unionists who have sent me here. I am not surprised at the intolerance shown. It is only on a piece with the treatment which the English trade unionists, who do happen to represent somebody, have received during the week at this so-called International Congress. The British section has all along swamped the trade unionists in it. I am prepared to say that, so far as the industrial questions and matters affecting the life of the workers are concerned, very little practical good has been done. The amendment is only a little sop to drag a few trade unions into another congress. I protest against the waste of time which has been going on. Questions which do affect the industrial welfare of the people have been shunted, and you have spent your time in hearing brilliant disquisitions on an ideal state of society which is as far off from you as the millennium.

The President: I have twelve more speakers on the list, and I put it to the Congress whether the report of the Bureau should not now be voted on.

The closure was voted by a very great majority.

The S.D.F. amendment was then put. Australia and Portugal did not vote. The two sections of the French were divided on the question. All the other nationalities voted against the amendment. Great Britain decided against it by 129 votes to 109.

The Bureau’s report was then accepted unanimously by the nations with the exception of France, which was divided, and Portugal absent.

Edward Aveling made certain final communications of a business nature.

The President: The business of the Congress is now over. I beg to present, in its name, our thanks to the Organising Committee, the English organisations generally, and also to the workers of the world who have sent us here. The resolutions that have been passed at this Congress will not remain a mere academic record of what we wish. We shall all return to our own countries to work as hard as we can for the putting into practice of those resolutions. I now invite you to close the International Socialist Workers and Trade Union Congress of 1896 with a cheer for the international solidarity of the workers.

After the cheering had subsided, Auld Lang Syne was played on the organ and sung after the British fashion; then the Marseillaise and the Carmagnole.

In the afternoon the delegates and their friends went to the Crystal Palace at the invitation of the Organising Committee. At 6 p.m. they were entertained at a banquet at which Edward Aveling presided. Only three speeches were arranged for; in English by the Chairman; French, Gérault Richard; German, Paul Singer. Then there was a concert, and the delegates finally were taken to see the celebrated Crystal Palace fireworks.

After the last sitting of the Congress, the Bureau met to consider the issuing of an official report. They decided that such a report should be issued, and appointed Edward Aveling, who had acted as minute secretary to the Congress for the Organising Committee, to draw up such a report which, before publication, was to be submitted to and endorsed by the members of the Bureau.

This is the Report here published.

Letters and Telegrams of Congratulation

A large number of letters and telegrams were read to the Congress at different times during its sittings by Edward Aveling. The chief of these are given below:—

America (North). Cleveland, Ohio: Socialist Labour Party; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Socialist County Convention; St. Louis, Missouri: Union of German Workers.

America (South). San Paulo, Brazil: General Workers Union.

Austria. Brünn, Moravia: Social-Democratic Party; Buda Pest: Social-Democratic Party, Hungary; Buda Pest: Cooper’s Union; Gablonz: Ceramic Glass Workers, Hungary; Grätz: Cooper’s Union; Prague: Social-Democratic Party; Teplitz: German and Tchech Workers; Vienna: Organised Working Women.

England. Hammersmith: William Morris; Thurmarston: Agricultural Labourer; West Ham: Carmen; Wolverhampton: Trades Council.

France. Armentières: Parti Ouvrier; Paris: Coutant, M.P.; Paris: Independent Revolutionary Socialists, 13th Arrondissement; Paris: Working Women; Marseilles: Carnaud, M.P.; Marseilles: Flaissières Mayor.

Germany. Altona: Ottensee Workers; Berlin: Agitation Committee of Sculptors; Berlin: Transport Workers; Berlin: Agitation Committee of Waiters; Burgstadt: Textile Workers; Dresden: Electors of the 10th District, Saxony; Flensburg: Executive of the Trade Unions; Königsberg: Lithuanian Social-Democratic Party; Magdeburg: Social-Democratic Party; Mülheim: Trade Union; Plauen: Electors of the 6th District, Saxony.

Italy. Bari: Spartaco (Organ of the Democracy of Apulia).

Johannesburg. Johannesburg: Workers’ Union.

Poland. Cracow: Socialist Workers; Przemysl: Socialist Workers.

Portugal. Lisbon: Federated Trade Unions.

Roumania. Bucarest: Workers’ Union; Bucarest: Roumanian Socialist Party; Bucarest: Roumanian Delegates to Former Congress.

Russia. Paris: P. Lavroff.

Spain. Algeciras: Juan de la Cruz; Madrid: National Council of the Socialist Party.