MIA > Library > Glasier > The Copenhagen Congress
Published: Labour Leader, 16th September 1910, pp.580-581
Note: This is the third in a series of four articles describing the 7th Congress of the 2nd International, held in Copenhagen in 1910, from the point of view of the British ILP delegation. See the set of articles. The page includes a report of The Commission on Unemployment and Labour Legislation by Marion Phillips.
Transcribed: by Graham Seaman for the Marxists' Internet Archive in July 2025
Last edited: July 2025.
Before proceeding to describe the concluding day's sitting of the Congrass, I must interrupt my main narrative and introduce my readers to the British Section whose meetings at Copenhagen, as at the Amsterdam and Stuttgart Congresses, proved by far the most trying and uninspiring experience of our duties as delegates. It is quite possible that in affording the movement an opportunity of judging these proceedings I may give some offence, but if so, offence must needs come. It is essential that the movement at home should be informed concerning the nature of the opposition offered by a minority of the Section to the adequate representation of British Socialist and Labour opinion in the Councils of the International, and especially with respect to the action the majority of the Section found it necessary to take in relation to Mr. Hyndman and his Militarism in connection with the International Bureau.
Let me, however, first of all, add a word to my narrative last week. I hardly think I did justice to the protest of the British on the floor of the Congress against the passing of the Unemployed resolution without discussion. The British Section made a special request to the Bureau that a discussion should be allowed, and appointed MacDonald to lay before the Congress the British position on the question of unemployment. The Congress, however. in compliance with an appeal from the Chairman, voted that the resolution should on account of the pressure of time he put without discussion. MacDonald was therefore deprived of a hearing, though he was on his feet and would doubtless have shown that the Labour movement in Britain is much in advance of the Social Democratic movement in Germany on this important question of constructive Socialism.
And now to the troubles within the British Section itself.
The British Section consists of the whole body of British delegates who are present at the Congress, and who by the constitution of the Congress are required, as are the delegates of other nations, to meet together to appoint representatives on the various Committees of the Congress, and to decide how the British vote is to be cast when the resolutions are submitted to the Congress as a whole.
There were in all 85 delegates from Great Britain, of whom 47 were I.L.P., 24 S.D.P., 7 Fabian Society, and 7 Labour Party Executive and Trade Union. The British section, like the French, German, and several other larger sections, is allowed to cast 20 votes at the Congress when a card division is demanded. These 20 votes were by the unanimous agreement of the British section at the last Congress at Stuttgart, ratified by the International Bureau, allotted as follows: Labour Party and Trade Union 10, I.L.P. and S.D.P. 4 each, Fabian Society 2. It will thus be seen that constitutionally the British section is composed of four groups—the I.L.P., the S.D.P., the Fabian Society, and the joint Labour Party and Trade Union groups, each of which is entitled to hold group meetings on its own account. Usually these groups meet independently, in order to consider questions of policy and other matters, before they assemble together as the British section.
The first meeting of the I.L.P. group was held on the Sunday afternoon at the close of the opening ceremony of the Congress. The group at once proceeded to consider what names it would put forward for the various offices in the British section. It was generally felt in the group that Hardie and MacDonald were entitled to the highest honours that the British section could confer upon them, and both names were suggested for the chairmanship of the section. Hardie explained, however, that he had already held that position at the Amsterdam Congress, and that he was in favour of the honours going round. It was then agreed the group should support MacDonald, who it was understood would be nominated by the Labour Party group. It was further agreed that as the section would be asked to appoint four representatives on each of the committees, the group should act upon the principle that each of the four groups in the section, viz., the I.L.P., the S.D.P. the Fabian Society, and the Labour Party should have one representative on each committee. The group before separating decided that every member of the I.L.P. group would be expected to vote in conformity with the majority decisions of the group, and in the event of any member feeling himself unable in any instance to do so conscientiously, he should intimate his intention to the group.
Monday morning saw the business of the sections and committees begun, though according to the official agenda the Congress was not to meet again in full assembly until Wednesday—as a matter of fact it did not, as would be observed in my last week's report, reassemble till Thursday morning. The first order of the day was that each of the national sections should meet to appoint its officers and its representatives on the committees, and to verify the credentials of its delegates. In the afternoon the Commissions were to be constituted, and would proceed to discuss the resolutions.
At 10 o'clock, therefore. on the Monday morning, the British delegates gathered together in one of the many small halls upstairs of the Palace of Concerts. Then began the long and weary and often loudly acrimonious struggle of the S.D.P. delegates against fate in the shape of the I.L.P. and the supporters of the Labour alliance—a struggle which they renewed for several hours at each daily meeting of the section until Saturday, when at last there remained no further occasion for controversy, and the section was closed in an outburst of harmonious congratulations to MacDonald as Chairman. This conflict was in fact but a renewal of the battles in the British section which took place at Amsterdam and at Stuttgart, but whereas at Stuttgart the S.D.P. delegates, though representing one of the smallest organisations, constituted the largest group in the section, at Copenhagen they formed less than a third of the whole section. Thus it happened that while at Stuttgart the S.D.P. delegates were able to have things all their own way, at Copenhagen they had to submit to the overpowering vote of the I.L.P. and the two other groups, an experience of democratic rule which they hotly resented.
The strife began with the election of the Chairman of the section. Against MacDonald, who was nominated by the I.L.P., they put up Quelch, but MacDonald was carried by 49 to 20. He proved, as they themselves afterwards fully acknowledged, an admirably capable and impartial president of the section. Against Anderson, who was nominated for the Vice-chairmanship, they also put up a member of their own party, but Anderson was elected by 41 to 20. They contested the re-election of Alderman Sanders as Secretary—an office which carries with it the duty of acting as Secretary of the British International Committee in London until the next Congress—but their nominee, Gorle, was defeated by 46 to 24. Then came a less contentious interval during which representatives were appointed to the five committees. In making these appointments, the basis of one representative from each of the four groups was fairly well observed but not rigidly adhered to.
Then came the crucial question over which the S.D.P. continued to wrangle afresh for several days—the appointment of the British representatives on the International Bureau. The sitting representatives were Hardie and Hyndman, and the S.D.P. proposed that there should be no change. But change there must be, our side insisted, so far as Hyndman was concerned.
The S.D.P. contended that the use and wont had been that the S.D.P. should have one of its members on the Bureau, and that the I.L.P. should have the other. They pointed out that MacDonald, as the representative of the British Labour M.P.'s on the Inter-Parliamentary Committee which met as a section of the Bureau, already gave the I.L.P. and the Labour Party a preponderating influence on the International Board. They urged that at Amsterdam and at Stuttgart they had supported the election of Hardie along with Hyndman, and that the status quo should be maintained. Hyndman's reputation as a Socialist, together with the pioneer work of the S.D.P. for Internationalism, entitled him to election.
In reply, we stated that our objection to Hyndman was not influenced by narrow party considerations, but on the ground of the interests of International Socialism and Peace. There was no subject upon which it was more important that the Socialist and Labour movement in Britain should make a clear and unequivocal pronouncement than that of Anti-militarism, and as Mr. Hyndman had chosen the part of backing up the Jingo Capitalist forces of Great Britain in demanding increased armaments and in exciting public feeling against Germany, he had rendered his position as a representative of the British Socialist movement on the Bureau untenable. Were we to re-elect him to the Bureau our action would be regarded by our German comrades as a direct insult to them, and by the Socialists of the world as a distinct disavowal of International principles.
We further pointed out that we did not admit that the representatives on the Bureau should be divided between the S.D.P. and the I.L.P. but that the representatives should be selected by the whole British section, and that the immensely preponderating numbers and influence of the Labour Party entitled them to have their views represented on all International questions. We pointed out incidentally that the S.D.P. themselves had not adhered to the dual principle, but had at the Paris Congress in 1900, when only one or two I.L.P. and Fabian delegates were present, elected two of their own members to the Bureau—Mr. Hyndman and Mr. Quelch.
In the course of the discussion great bitterness of feeling was manifested by several of the S.D.P. delegates, and considerable diversity of opinion among them was revealed on the question of Militarism. Mr. Quelch, for example, defended Mr. Hyndman's position, whereas Mr. Burrows, though he rose to support the re-election of Mr. Hyndman. completely dissociated himself from the Militarist opinions of the latter, and in doing so got into conflict with several members of his own party. Dan Irving insisted that Hyndman's views on the question of Militarism were a matter of minor importance, and that Hyndman's long services to the Socialist cause and the fact that he represented the S.D.P. policy as opposed to that of the I.L.P should in justice to the minority he taken into account.
Hardie, Barnes, Anderson. Robinson, myself, and other speakers who opposed the re-election of Hyndman made it, I think, perfectly clear that on our side we regarded the enormously increasing armaments as one of the gravest dangers to civilisation, and that we held it to he our duty above all other considerations to sustain in the Bureau the Anti-Militarist principles which the International Congress had affirmed at Stuttgart, and which we knew the Copenhagen Congress would re-affirm. We again and again reminded the S.D.P. delegates that to re-elect Mr. Hyndman would he equivalent to repudiating the chief purpose for which the International was brought into being.
Finally the vote was taken on the proposal that the two sitting representatives on the Bureau should be reelected, and there voted:—
For the proposal ... 26
Against the proposal .... 50
Fresh nominations were then invited by the chairman. Hardie was nominated by the I.L.P., MacDonald by the Labour Party, and Quelch by the S.D.P., with the result that Hardie and MacDonald were elected. The figures were:—
Hardie ... 61
MacDonald ... 41
Quelch ... 34
Hardie and MacDonald were therefore declared elected as the British representatives on the International Bureau.
We thought that we had settled this matter for good, but the S.D.P. having failed to get their own way in the British section resolved to invoke the intervention of the Bureau in their behalf. They lodged a protest against the election of MacDonald on the ground that, according to the constitution of the Congress, the S.D.P. constituted an independent group in the British section, and as such were entitled to elect one of the two representatives on the Bureau.
Then came a surprise for us all. The Bureau, when the matter was brought before it, discovered what nobody—not even our representatives on the Bureau or Huysmans, its Secretary—appears ever to have known, namely, that MacDonald, as the representative of the Labour Party in Parliament on the Inter-Parliamentary Committee, was ipso facto a member of the Bureau, and that that being so he could not sit as a representative of the British Section without at least resigning his seat as the Inter-Parliamentary representative!
MacDonald had therefore been. it appears, for three whole years a member of the Bureau without being aware of the fact! Not only so, but on the previous day when he had been present at a Bureau meeting when, as he thought, it was sitting as an Inter-Parliamentary Committee, Quelch had objected to his presence on the ground that he was not a member of the Bureau, and Huysmans, the Secretary, sustained Quelch's objection and MacDonald retired.
Here was a quaint and curious situation indeed.
When, therefore, the British Section met next day the fat was all in the fire again. The S.D.P. delegates insisted that seeing MacDonald was already a member of the Bureau (though neither he nor anybody else had been aware of the fact) his election on the previous day was invalid, and that Quelch, as the only other nominee, was therefore ipso facto elected.
Before, however, proceeding to deal with the new situation, the Section proceeded to discuss a memorandum submitted by MacDonald as chairman of the Section in reply to the statement made to the Bureau by the S.D.P. on the previous day in which they had claimed the right of permanent representation on the Bureau by a nominee of their own. There was a divergence of opinion between MacDonald and Quelch as to whether the Bureau had admitted the claim. Quelch declared that Vandervelde had allowed it: MacDonald, on the other hand, stated that his impression was that the Bureau had suspended judgment until the matter had been considered by the British Section. No official communication had been received from the Bureau on the subject.
Needless to say the S.D.P. delegates strongly objected to the memorandum, and contested the accuracy of certain of its statements. For nearly an hour, notwithstanding MacDonald's earnest appeals for fairness and order, practically no progress was made in the discussion. Several of the S.D.P. members, including Dan Irving and Jack Jones (I hardly think they will object to their names being mentioned in this connection) signalised themselves by continually interrupting speakers, rising to points of order every minute, and by throwing abusive remarks across the room. Eventually, however, the vote was taken, and by 45 to 24 votes it was decided that the memorandum should be sent to the Bureau. It was agreed, however, at the request of the S.D.P., that the terms "the S.D.P. dissenting" should he added where necessary to indicate that the S.D.P. did not endorse the statements referred to.
The Section then proceeded to discuss the question of electing a representative in place of MacDonald. It was moved that a new election should take place. To this the S.D.P. moved an amendment that Quelch be declared elected. In the course of the debate I, and several others on our side, intimated that in view of the fact that the whole matter was to be brought under the consideration of the Bureau and that our main purpose at present was simply to establish the right of the British Section to elect whomsoever it wished as its representatives we would, in this instance, support the S.D.P. nominee.
On a vote being taken the motion in favour of a fresh election was carried by 42 to 28.
Sanders, Robinson, and Quelch were then nominated. Sanders and Robinson however withdrew, and Quelch was then elected by the Section.
The S.D.P., by thus taking part in the new election and Quelch by acceptiag election by the vote of the Section, have endorsed the right on the part of the British Section as a whole to elect each of the two representatives irrespective of the group to which either of them may belong.
This must close my account of these contentious proceedings in the British Section. In connection with the resolutions before the Congress remarkably little difference of view was expressed in the Section, and on every occasion the vote of the Section was delivered undivided. But I shall have occasion to refer to the attitude of the Section towards the resolution in my report of the Congress sittings.
It is pleasant to add that at the final meeting of the Section held on Saturday a motion of thanks was proposed by Gorle from the S.D.P. side to the Chairman and Secretary, and that Burrows and Belfort Bax bore cordial testimony to the splendid services of MacDonald in the chair, and to the great fairness he had displayed in all his rulings. Next week I shall resume and conclude my report of the Congress.
It was rather a misfortune to be on this Commission, because, though it contained many very able people, it did not include any of the great ones. Now, even the most tumultuous gatherings of the Congress were hushed to silence when the great folks had the word, but on this Commission the most perfect equality of inattention reigned throughout. The British delegates found themselves therefore (being poor linguists and utterly ignorant until then of the very strange features of continental procedure) at a great disadvantage, and in spite of hard struggling on their part the results were wholly unsatisfactory. The resolutions reported to the Congress were indeed so little in accord with British views that the British delegation, with absolute unanimity, refused to vote for them.
The difference between the German section, who certainly dominated this Commission, and the British delegation seems chiefly due to two circumstances. In the first place, the German Social Democratic Party will have nothing at all to say to the unorganised worker, and in the second, the problem of unemployment in Germany is not so largely as it is with us one of under-employment or casual labour leading to unemployability. Moreover, the complete absence of democratic control over all sides of administration has led to a great distrust of present State action, and to a tendency on the part of German Socialists to look to the Trade Unions alone to alleviate the miseries of unemployment. Thus, while we in England are claiming under the "Right to Work" that the State shall find the way back to productive labour for every unemployed worker, man or woman, our comrades in Germany are still satisfied for the purposes of today with a programme which goes little further than British Liberalism. They have not yet realised that by knitting together and extending all these proposals, by casting over for ever the palliatory measures of Relief works, we may gain not merely a palliative for present misery but a great scheme for the State control of the nation's labour market, one of the most important steps we can take towards our final end of the ownership of the means of production.
With Labour Legislation generally the British delegates found the same difficulties before them. The two great questions of boy and girl labour (not child labour) and of sweated home-work were left untouched, while the questions put forward were urged with the moderation of a Mr. Balfour.
The power of the International is growing. The solidarity of the workers is being achieved as the fight against militarism grows keener. On the most vital question which remains, the British Labour Party stands forward as the leader of the Social Revolution. That question is the one of the Right to Work, which holds within it the right to full citizenship, to labour and to live. It is our task to bring the other nations into line with us in this struggle.
MARION PHILLIPS, D.Sc. (Econ.).
Top of the page | Next article