In the first place, I assume that in America the electoral power of the people is much greater than it is here. I will give one or two examples. In America, I understand, they have:—
1. No Established Church.
2. No House of Lords.
3. Members of the Legislature are paid.
4. The people have Universal Suffrage.There are four out of the seven branches of the practical politicians' programme in actual existence. For the other three—
The Abolition of Dual Voting;
The Payment of Election Expenses; and
The Second Ballot—
The Abolition of Dual Voting;
The Payment of Election Expenses; and
The Second Ballot—
I cannot answer; but these do not seem to have done quite as much for France as our practical men expect them to do for England.
Very well, America has nearly all that our practical politicians promise us. Is America, therefore, so much better off as to justify us in accepting the seven-branched programme as salvation?
Some years ago I read a book called How the Other Half Lives, written by an American citizen, and dealing with the conditions of the poor in New York.
We should probably be justified in assuming that just as London is a somewhat intensified epitome of England, so is New York of America; but we will not assume that much. We will look at this book together, and we will select a few facts as to the state of the people in New York, and then I will ask you to consider this proposition:—
1. That in New York the people already enjoy all the advantages of practical politics, as understood in England.
2. That, nevertheless, New York is a more miserable and vicious city than London.
3. That this seems to me to indicate that practical politics are hopeless, and that practical politicians are—not quite so wise as they imagine.
About thirty years ago there was a committee appointed in New York to investigate the "great increase in crime." The Secretary of the New York Prison Association, giving evidence, said:—