pelled to vote for one of them, he was at a loss for an answer.

During the next few days the contest continued. The hired orators
continued to pour forth their streams of eloquence; and tons of
literature flooded the town. The walls were covered with huge posters:
'Another Liberal Lie.' 'Another Tory Fraud.'

Unconsciously each of these two parties put in some splendid work for
Socialism, in so much that each of them thoroughly exposed the
hypocrisy of the other. If the people had only had the sense, they
might have seen that the quarrel between the Liberal and Tory leaders
was merely a quarrel between thieves over the spoil; but unfortunately
most of the people had not the sense to perceive this. They were
blinded by bigoted devotion to their parties, and--inflamed with
maniacal enthusiasm--thought of nothing but 'carrying their flags to
victory'.

At considerable danger to themselves, Barrington, Owen and the other
Socialists continued to distribute their leaflets and to heckle the
Liberal and Tory speakers. They asked the Tories to explain the
prevalence of unemployment and poverty in protected countries, like
Germany and America, and at Sweater's meetings they requested to be
informed what was the Liberal remedy for unemployment. From both
parties the Socialists obtained the same kinds of answer--threats of
violence and requests 'not to disturb the meeting'.

These Socialists held quite a lot of informal meetings on their own.
Every now and then when they were giving their leaflets away, some
unwary supporter of the capitalist system would start an argument, and
soon a crowd would gather round and listen.

Sometimes the Socialists succeeded in arguing their opponents to an
absolute standstill, for the Liberals and Tones found it impossible to
deny that machinery is the cause of the overcrowded state of the labour
market; that the overcrowded labour market is the cause of
unemployment; that the fact of there being always an army of unemployed
waiting to take other men's jobs away from them destroys the
independence of those who are in employment and keeps them in
subjection to their masters. They found it impossible to deny that
this machinery is being used, not for the benefit of all, but to make
fortunes for a few. In short, they were unable to disprove that the
monopoly of the land and machinery by a comparatively few persons, is
the cause of the poverty of the majority. But when these arguments
th