Bil INTRODUCTION. In giving to the world "Merrie England," Robert Blatchford has rendered a service of inestimable value to humanity. It has been read, and is being read and will continue to be read by millions. No book has done so much to convert the masses to Socialism. The secret of the author's success is his rare power to make himself understood by the common people. To re this practical exposition of the social question is to be convin d that the author has given it careful and thorough stud and that he not only diagnoses correctly the nature of the lady that afflicts the social world, but that he has the only ue remedy and knows how to apply it. For the purposes of this edition, Chapter IV., which deals' with the question, "Can England Feed Herself?" has been eliminated. Some references and foot-notes not adapted to American conditions have also been omitted, and the whole edition has been carefully edited and arranged to suit the special demands of our readers. Nothing like a review of the book need be attempted in this introduction. The book speaks for itself and this and succeeding editions are designed to place it within the reach of all. The working man who has not read "Merrie England" should do so at once. He will thank us for the suggestion. And he who has read it should see to it, so far as he is able, that it reaches those who are still in the dark. It cntains a message of hope to the despondent, of comfort to the heavyladen and of good cheer to all mankind. Here in America there is urgent need that this masterful production of Robert Blatchford, the inspired evangel of Social Emancipation, be widely read, and if each of our readers will aid in extending its circulation, the cause of Socialism will be rapidly advanced, and the Social Democracy of America will be triumphant soon after the sun of the twentieth century lights the world. Exene Ki Welz MERRIE ENGLAND. CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM OF LIFE. Dear Mr. Smith, I am sorry to hear that you look upon Socialism as a vile and senseless thing, and upon Socialists as wicked or foolish men. Nevertheless, as you have good metal in you, and are very numerous, I mean to argue the point with you. You You are a staunch party man, and you pride yourself upon being "a shrewd, hard-headed, practical man. would not pride yourself upon that, for you are naturally over modest, had you not been told by political orators that you are that kind of man. "entertain a Hence you have come to believe that you wholesome contempt for theories," and have contracted a habit of calling for "Facts," in a peremptory manner like a "Wine.' stage brigand calling for In these letters I shall stick to the hardest of hard facts, and the coldest of cold reason; and I shall appeal to that robust common sense and English love of fair play for which, I understand, you are more famous than for your ability to see beyond the end of your free and independent nose at election times. I assume, Mr. Smith, that you, as a hard headed, practical man, would rather be well off than badly off. And I assume that, as a humane man, you would rather that others should not suffer, if their suffering can be prevented. If, then I assert that you are being defrauded and that others, especially weak women and young children, are en during much misery and wrong, and if I assert, farther, that I know a means whereby you may obtain justice, and they may secure peace, you will surely, as a kind and sensible man, consent to hear me. If your roof were leaky, or your business bad, if there were a plague in your city, and all regular remedies had failed, you would certainly give a hearing to any creditable person who claimed to have found a cure. I don't mean that you would accept his remedy without thinking about it; that would be foolish, but would let him explain it, and if it seemed reasonable you would try it. To reject an idea because it is new is not a proof of shrewd sense, it is a proof of bigoted ignorance. Trade unionism was new once, and was denounced by the very same people who now denounce the views I advocate. There were many prominent politicians and writers who declared the railway train and the telegraph to be impossible. There were many who condemned the Factory Acts. There were many who laughed at the idea of an Atlantic cable, and I remember when it was prophesied of the ballot that it would lead to anarchy and revolution. To say that an idea is new is not to prove that it is untrue. The oldest idea was new once; and some of my ideas-as, for instance, the idea that justice and health are precious things are considerably older than the House of Commons or Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations." If you wish for an instance of the value of new ideas, Mr. Smith, get a good life of Charles Darwin, and another of George Stephenson, and read them. I ask you, then, as a practical man, to forget me, and to consider my arguments on their merits. But I must also ask you to forget yourself. One of the ancients, I think it was Pythagoras, said it was necessary to "get out of the body to think." That means that when a problem is before you you should not let any personal prejudice, or class feeling, come between that problem and your mind-that you should consider a case upon the evidence alone, as a jury should. Forget, then, that you are a joiner or a spinner, a Catholic or a Freethinker, a moderate drinker or a teetotaler, and consider the problem as a man. It you had to do a problem in arithmetic, or if you were cast adrift in an open boat at sea, you would not set to work THE PROBLEM OF LIFE. as a Wesleyan, or a free-trader; but you would tackle the sum by the rules of arithmetic, and would row the boat by the strength of your own manhood, and keep a look-out for passing ships under any flag. I ask you, then, Mr. Smith, to hear what I have to say, and to decide by your own judgment whether I am right or wrong. Now, then, what is the problem? I call it the problem of life. We have here a Country and a People. The problem isGiven a Country and a People, find how the People may make the best of the Country and of Themselves. First, then, as to the capacities of the country and the people. The country is fertile and fruitful, and well stored with nearly all the things that the people need. The people are intelligent, industrious, strong, and famous for their perseverance, their inventiveness and resource. It looks, then, as if such a people in such a country must certainly succeed in securing health, and happiness, and plenty for all. But we know very well that our people, or at least the bulk of them, have neither health, nor pleasure, nor plenty. These are facts; and so far, I assume, you and I are quite in accord. Now I assert that if the labor of the people were properly organized and wisely applied, this country would, in return for very little toil, yield abundance for all. I assert that the labor of the people is not properly organized, nor wisely applied; and I undertake to show how it might and should be organized and applied, and what would be the results if it were organized and applied in accordance with my suggestions. The ideal of Society to-day is the ideal of individual effort, or competition. That is to say, every man for himself. Each citizen is to try as hard as he can to get for himself as much money as he can, and to use it for his own pleasure, and leave it for his own children. That is the present personal ideal. The present national That is ideal is to become "The Workshop of the World. to say, the people are to manufacture goods for sale to foreign countries, and in return for those goods are to get more money than they could obtain by developing the resources of their own country for their own use. My ideal is that each individual should seek his advantage in co-operation with his fellows, and that the people should |