The Labor enquirer., 1884-05-24

would be compelled to work for q smalle
wage. Thus the recognition of the las
of wages at once dlsproves the assertion
made by Henry George; that land ma
tonalization will benefit the wage
earners.
i But upon the surface Mr.. Georges
| proposals seem logical and practica
enough-to take in the average prole
tartan, who is unaccustomed to Social
| istic teaching. The workers in Glasgow
were easily gulled by this plausible plar
of securing eternal justice" and are nov
earnestly pursuing their phantom.
| As to Mr.. Georges success in th
| Highlands, it is much more reasonable
and will prove much more beneficial
| than his success in the Lowlands among
| the wage-earners. In the Highlands
and Hebrides the population are chiefly
Eengaged in agricultural fishing pursuits,
The complicated system of industrialism
has not yet found its way into those bleak
and stormy regions The hardy high
lander has felt the cruel pinch of land
lord tyranny; but as yet his nose is COM
paratively unacquainted with the capi-
talistic grindstone. 1t is, therefore,
rather matter of congratulation that he
has taken up the land question with SO
much vigor.
With regard to the impression made
by Mr.. George upon the thinkers, both
Socialists and Individuallsts, it is much
about the same; that he is merely fine
writer. AS a thinker he is very shallow,
But this is not all. l feel bound to say
that Mr.. George displayed more anxiety
for popularity than strict regard for truth
When he first came to Scotland he
was very ready at fattering his audiences
upon the Scotchman's proverbial cute
ness. They were cute enough to see
through this and began to show their
disgust at the lavish praise bestowed
upon them. Then Mr.George, with the
alacrity of an accomplished trickster
politician quickly wheeled round, and
proceeding on another tack, began to
pander to the proverbial Scotch piety.
Upon this line he scored complete sue
cess. The masses" were easily led
by perorations on the beautiful passages
in the gospels.
Another repulslve feature in Mr..
Georges agitation was his way of eyading
questions. Every time the question, of
whether or not the wage-earners would
benefit by his scheme was put, he cum
ningly contrived to confuse his answer
so much that it became quite unintelti-
gible. When he was announced to
lecture in Edinburgh I determined to
tackle him upon this issue.
l secured ticket, which was a very
difficult matter owing to the badly or
ganized manner in which the meeting
was got up, and, with the chairman of
the University Socialist Society, got
comfortable seat in the gallery. A slight
description of the meeting in addition to
the recital of this special incident may
be interesting
The audience were evidently very en-
thusiastic democrats. Our aspirant
king, (prince of Wales) had mumbled
few meaningless words, about the condi
ton of the poor, in the house of lords
day or two before. The chairman alleged
that his royal highness had sympathized
with the poor of London, whereupon
the audience derisively hissed with the
most praiseworthy vehemence. After
the chairman had been howled into
silence as retribution for his craven
attempt to whitewash royalty, Henry
George rose to speak and had the brazen
effrontery to call Prince Alberts insane
-commonplaces "a manly ringing speech. ."
The audience hissed again but soon sub
sided to listen to the speech. His lecture
was certainly we'll delivered, his argu-
ments were urged with clearness and
cogency, his illustrations rendered with
great aptness, his descriptions of the
condition of the people glowed with
adjectives which seemed to present the
picture to the audience with the vivid
ness of painter, while the speech was
delivered in style which was effective
throughout, and occasionally rose to
fair pitch of eloquence.
There was an attempt made to shuttle
off the questions, but the audience up
roarously insisted on them being an
swered.
rose in the gallery and asked Mr..
George if he would favor the nationali-
zation of capital, credit and all instru-
ments of production urging that as the
wage-earner did not obtain his living
directly from the land, but indirectly
through the capitalist, he would not ben
eft by the scheme of state appropriation
of rent proposed.
Mr.. George in reply asserted that If
land we're common property wages would
rise, and began to illustrate by referring
to the placer miners, whose wages were
higher than any others in the world
where the land in which they worked
was not private property.
1 then pointed out that there was no
industrial type of society in California in
the case mentioned, the placer miner