There is one outstanding lesson I have learned is that wealth can only be acquired at the expense of others. I say this with the absolute assurance that it is an indisputable statement of fact. Also, that all of us, no matter how skilled we are, or however much ability we possess, do in fact depend on our daily bread, our comforts, and material pleasures on the toil and labour of the masses who often live unrequited lives of toil and hardship.

Lansbury's politics, rooted in bitter experience of unemployment and hardship as an emigrant in Australia in the 1880s, and belonging to the oldest traditions of Christian Socialism and street corner demogoguery, were in some ways suited to the beleaguered opposition of 1931. One reaction to the crisis and defeat was an eagerness to return to fundamental principles: Lansbury reflected this mood.

With such a massive imbalance between the two sides in Parliament, there was a real danger that the opposition powers of scrutiny would fall into disuse; Lansbury had to see that Government Bills and Votes of Credit were subjected to as vigorous a criticism as in a normal Parliament. He also had to keep up the morale of outnumbered and outgunned backbenchers, organise the very small number of articulate Labour MPs to speak on every conceivable topic, and provide an inspirational lead for the demoralised rank-and-file outside. It was a measure of his success that when he found his position untenable in 1935 because of his pacifist objection to Labour's support for sanctions in the Italy-Abyssinia dispute, a large majority of the PLP asked him to reconsider his resignation.

Lansbury's reputation as a left-winger was based on his pacifism, his support for minority causes and his refusal to compromise on matters of principle, not on any inclinations towards marxism. He had little sympathy for the rebellious ILP. When Maxton gave trouble, Lansbury was as firm as Henderson that ILP members must subscribe to Labour Party Standing Orders or get out. On domestic policy he was essentially orthodox, believing that Labour and the Nation and the 1931 Election Manifesto contained "the real guts of the position". Before foreign policy became a major issue his only serious disagreement with official policy was one in which the Party was to the left of him: Lansbury favoured a personal means test (as opposed to the Government policy of a household means test), while the official Party view was against the means test altogether.

Yet Lansbury's emotionalism and lack of incisiveness infuriated trade unionists like Bevin and Citrine, while an irreverence of authority, and a stubborn resistance to influence when his convictions were challenged, irritated "respectable" leaders outside Parliament and helped to create a gulf between the PLP and Transport House; from 1934 relations deteriorated badly over his refusal to countenance the possibility of armed resistance to the Dictators.

I was returned to Parliament as Member for Bow and Bromley. I had previously fought many elections, but failed to secure the magic letters M.P. until reaching the age of 52. My life since a boy has been a strenuous one, always working from early morning till late at night. Earning my living took tip only a small part of my time. I can truthfully say most of my days have been spent trying to help forward the cause of the common people, to whom I am proud to belong. At this moment, when asked to assist in founding a daily Labour paper, I was a Member of Parliament, a Poor Law Guardian, Borough Councillor, and member of the London County Council. In addition, I was in business, earning my living by the sweat of my brain.

In my spare moments I wrote articles, served on Labour committees, and spent nearly every weekend addressing two or three Labour meetings in towns and villages from John o' Groats to Land's End.

Muriel Countess de la Warr also sent a subslantial sum (to the Daily Herald), and has always been one of the first and most generous of our friends; there has never been a crisis overcome without her help. She is one of the few titled women in our land who for years past has sleadily supported our Movement; and not only the Labour cause, but other unpopular rnovements - the Irish and Indian demand for Home Rule, Women's Suffurage, and the great cause of Pacifism. Her son, Earl de la Warr, was a member of the first Labour Government. If he serves the Cause as wholeheartedly as his mother has served all good causes, Labour in him will have secured one of its finest recruits.

I am a Communist, one who believes that the ultimate goal which the Labour Movement exists to reach is the social ownership of all the means of life to be organised for the use and service of all; my differences with the Communist Party are purely concerning organisation and method.

I never agreed entirely with Dyson's method of expression. Theirs was mainly the good old gospel of hate. I can hate conditions with the best or the worst of men, but I never have felt hatred of anybody. It is possible to dislike people's ways, but who am I to think I am worthy to judge them? Dyson's cartoons were masterpieces of cynicism and sardonic humour. Ramsay MacDonald, Philip Snowden, J. H. Thomas, the Webbs, Shaw and all the fabian family were stripped bare, shorn of all their glory, and treated like ordinary, stupid, or, on occasion, rather cunning people.

Campbell-Bannerman was kindness itself. I often wonder what the developments in English politics would have been had this genial, kindly Scotsman lived. There might have been no war in 1914; the course of the Labour Movement might have been different - for this man believed in peace and was not afraid of the word Socialism, and did believe unemployment was a national problem and the unemployed the care of the State.

The Jew, whether British or foreign, wherever he was born and whatever his colour or creed, was for me even when I was a boy "one of God's children". There are certain distinctions between all of us, and there are distinctions between races too, though these latter seem less marked when we investigate closely.

Jews do seem to have a facility for the quick acquisition of wealth which the Gentiles would be only too glad to imitate. When times are bad they never seem to suffer quite so badly as others; they stand together and by one another. They care for their parents, and their children are really loved. In the poorest parts mothers carry their little ones to school wrapped up from the rain.

When trade unionism among the casual labourers and unskilled workers was at a very low ebb - indeed, it was almost non-existent - it was Jewish agitators who, by persistent propaganda, helped to bring them into the British trade unions.

Some Jews are good Tories, others are Liberals, Communists and Socialists, Trade Unionists and Co-operators. In the main, the best description of them is that they are good citizens. I have known thousands of them of all ages intimately and have received great kindness from many of them. As I consider the change in East London's population I am convinced that it is nonsense to pretend we have been injured by the huge Jewish immigration. I think we have become better.

I was a great admirer of Henry George and believed firmly in the taxation of land values. During the years 1886 to 1892 I came more and more under the influence of William Morris and H. H. Hyndman, Will Thorne, Tom Mann, Ben Tillet, and decided to join the Social Democrats.

I have heard some remarkable women orators. Some of them stand head and shoulders above all others. There was Catherine Booth, mother of the Salvation Army, who was one of the simplest exponents of the gospel of love I have ever heard. I think her speeches, sermons and appeals on behalf of the weak and the fallen were among the finest pieces of simple arresting oratory I have ever heard.

Her theology was rather hard and narrow, and very dogmatic. Later on she threw her energy into work on behalf of young girls and illegitimate babies. Her whole soul and spirit was poured out in an unceasing effort to make men realize their responsibility. In politics, she demanded legislation to raise the age of consent and provision for the maintenance of these unfortunate victims of our lack of individual and social responsibility.

Another very gentle and lovable woman was Mrs. Josephine Butler. Once, in the big St. Mary's schoolroom in Whitechapel, I listened to her with tears running down my cheeks as she told of the cruel and barbarous workings of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Mrs. Butler left a comfortable rectory to fight this fight on behalf of womanhood. She had to face tremendous opposition, gross distortion and misrepresentation. There was at the beginning no organisation, either of women or men, to stand with her. Nor did her own sex support her. But the unremitting toil of this fine Christian woman, not overblessed with physical strength, and not an orator in the accepted sense, at last won her victory, and the "C.D." Acts were repealed.

George Lansbury was not yet the Mayor of Poplar and leader of the movement to make the rich districts of London contribute to the upkeep of the poor ones, not yet chief of the Labour Party or even in Parliament, was nevertheless set to become father-confessor and Santa Claus to all the most "ornery" spirits of the Left; he was a strong pacifist on Christian grounds, and was occasionally worried by the eagerness with which his Socialist contributors greeted mild outbreaks of violence in industrial disputes. (His daughter Daisy married my brother Ray.)

The Daily Herald had never emerged entirely from the first stage of its existence as a daily strike sheet a year or two before the war. While the war was on, it became a weekly with a bite to it. In 1919 it resumed appearance as a daily with so much of the old bite left that it gained ground slowly. Most supporters of Labour have Tory tastes. They dislike actual changes, however loudly they may demand future reforms. They were used to a certain type of daily newspaper; the Herald did not conform to type. Also it attacked most of the leaders whom Labour people had been taught to revere. Those leaders hated Lansbury, the founder of the paper, who had, with immense energy, collected funds for its rebirth. They did more to hinder than to help it on.

What an extraordinary drama it was, with its secret messages, its nocturnal meetings in prison board rooms, its almost miraculous yielding of prison bars! It would have made a splendid Bolshevik play, only it was so essentially British that no other country but our own could possibly have produced it. But it is all very well to jest: the Poplar problem has not been solved nor ever will be by any melodrama, however daringly conceived and played. The bitterness, the want and suffering which is at the root of it all will remain with us until men and women have learned what Socialism has to teach. Feeling and fighting does its bit, but collective thinking and the intelligent application of thought to social life are better and stronger weapons by far.

Let me tell the story of Poplar as I remember it, for quite contrary to my inclination I had a remarkable part to play in the drama.

The slump after the war found many of the East End boroughs in a pretty bad plight. The high cost of living and the increasing amount of unemployment were reflected in the rates, which rose to hitherto unheard-of heights. In Poplar particularly the position had become unbearable, and the Borough Council found themselves faced with precepts from the London County Council, the Metropolitan Police, and the Metropolitan Asylums Board due for payment before September 30, 1921, amounting to no less a sum than £195,52 18s. The local rate was already equal to 18s. 1d. in the pound exclusive of the precepts mentioned, which would amount to another 9s. 2d. in the pound, or 27s. 3d. in all. This was in striking contrast to the wealthier parts of London. In Hampstead, for instance, the total rate was 12s. 9d. in the pound, while in Westminster it was 11s. 1d.

For many years an agitation had been going on for an equalization of rates over the whole county of London which, if adopted, would have meant a rate of 16s. 6d. for Poplar in this particular year. Nothing of any substance had been done in this direction, however, and the borough councillors felt the time had come when something drastic must happen in order to focus attention "on the glaring injustice of the existing system." So they decided to refuse to levy rates for the central authorities, and only the rates for local purposes were collected.

This action caused the greatest consternation everywhere ; a number of conferences took place between the Minister of Health (Sir Alfred Mond) and the bodies I have mentioned; and finally the London County Council decided to apply for a mandamus compelling the Poplar Borough Council to function. Legal formalities were proceeded with and summonses were issued against the revolting councillors, who responded by marching in state to the Law Courts with the Deputy Mayor (Charles Key) and the mace at their head, to show cause, etc., in truly legal style. An order was made upon them as well, and their appeal went against them too. They then refused to obey the order, and the County Council, having once put its hand to the business, had to go on, and the rebels were committed to jail for contempt of court.The twenty-five men, including the Mayor (Sam March, L.C.C.), were sent to Brixton Prison, and the five women-Miss Susan Lawrence, L.C.C., Mrs. Minnie Lansbury, Mrs. Julia Scurr, and Mrs. Cressall - were sent to Holloway.

The Minister of Health and the London County Council were thus temporarily triumphant: the majesty of the law had prevailed and the Poplar Borough Council was its prisoner!

It is obvious that no members of a public authority can act individually - they must act collectively - and the whole object of the Poplar Council certainly was to secure collective action. But in prisons collective action is unknown. Such care is taken to preserve the individuality of prisoners that they are actually kept in separate rooms.So we now had the position that nobody could speak for the Borough Council, and yet it was unable to speak for itself. It was bad enough that the councillors were in separate cells, but when the cells were in two separate prisons on opposite sides of London what was to be done? This kind of thing might have gone on for ever!

As a matter of fact it became evident soon enough that although it had been a tedious business and had taken a long time to put them safely under lock and key, this was a comparatively simple task compared with getting them out again. And, after all, it would have to happen some time or other.

The Minister of Health was no doubt by this time being asked questions in Parliament as to what he proposed to do, and no doubt he in turn reminded the chairman of the London County Council that his precious body had brought all this about and asked him what he proposed to do? Apparently the suggestion of the chairman was that Sir Alfred Mond should send for me!

He did so and, obviously in dire despair, told me all his difficulties, how these troublesome borough councillors had got put into jail, and now nobody seemed to know how to get them out, and could I possibly do anything? I said I would do what I could, and volunteered to go and see the rebels.

But there were the prison gates, and there were the locked cells, and a hundred difficulties besides, which for the moment seemed to make any progress in the matter impossible. I went to Brixton and asked to see the Mayor of Poplar, and intimated to the Governor that I wanted to see the twenty-four other councillors as well. But he pointed out that that would take practically the whole day. I told him that as I had promised to do something I would not let time stand in my way ; would it not be possible for me to see them all at once? By way of reply he read to me so many regulations that I began to wonder if I should ever see any of them at all!

Lansbury was by nature an evangelist rather than a Parliamentary tactician. Yet during those years in which he led the small Party in the House he showed great skill and powers of everyday leadership. A leading Conservative once replied to a Labour Member who said that he thought George Lansbury was one of the best men he had ever known - The best! Is that all? He's the ablest Opposition Leader that I have ever known." It was, of course, a great source of strength to him that he commanded the personal affection of his followers. He had also a wise tolerance - an attribute which is not so common in the enthusiast.

The Labour opposition was led by George Lansbury who, as a sincere and devout churchman, did not hesitate to invoke Christian principles in his search for a solution to the problem of poverty. This led to the Tory riposte that "there is nothing in the Bible about a seven-and-a-half hour day." To the rising growth of left wing feeling, the Government replied in a way that failed to satisfy those who were worst hit - notably the unemployed who were soon to number three million. The problems arising from the international economic crisis touched every consumer in the country - some very cruelly. The middle and upper classes became troubled by the social unrest amongst the working-class unemployed, and many were finding it harder and harder to see the working-class reaction as altogether blameworthy. I was becoming aware that the world was subject to forces that hitherto had not been brought to my attention but which I could no longer ignore. I did in fact have one last try at doing so during the coming university long-vacation.

In my quest for a room, I had become acquainted with the London Daily Herald, organ of the British Labour Party. I was attracted by its editorial policy and its approach to events, including comments on the war just concluded and the Civil War in Russia. I decided I would like to talk to Robert Lansbury, whose byline was prominent in the paper. He was its editor and publisher, as well as being one of the leading figures of the British Labour Party. I went boldly to the paper, asked for Mr. Lansbury and had no trouble getting into his offices. The dingy offices on Fleet Street were in what Americans would call a loft building. I found Mr. Lansbury in a sort of cubbyhole, behind a desk piled high with papers and surrounded by newsmen. He quickly dismissed everybody and we started to talk.

He was anxious to find out about conditions in the United States, especially those faced by the Negro. Finally he invited me to do an article on the Negro's problems for the Herald. When I told him of the limitations of my experience, he still insisted. So I wrote an article, which was published while I was still in London, describing the development of the struggles of the Negro in the United States as I saw them. I drew heavily on my reading of the Messenger and the Crisis.

In our talks, Lansbury probed into my reasons for wanting to go to Africa. When I explained, he said, "Well, you're running away from struggle. You tell me that you want to fight for human rights and dignity, yet you are trying to get away from the main fight. Why don't you return to the States? Your country is going to be a great center of struggle for human rights and liberty. What will the position of the Negro be as the struggle develops?" I had no answer to his questions.