found a means of imposing his will on England. This resemblance is all the greater in that Pamell's authority did not rest only on the number of votes at his disposal, but mainly upon the terror which every Englishman felt at the bare announcement of agrarian troubles in Ireland. A few acts of violence controlled by a Parliamentary group were exceedingly useful to the Pamellian policy, just as they are useful to the policy of Jaurès. In both cases a Parliamentary group sells peace of mind to the Conservatives, who dare not use the force they command.
This kind of diplomacy is difficult to conduct, and the Irish after the death of Pamell do not seem to have succeeded in carrying it on with the same success as in his time. In France it presents particular difficulty, because in no other country perhaps are the workers more difficult to manage: it is easy enough to arouse popular anger, but it is not easy to stifle it. As long as there are no very rich and strongly centralised trade unions whose leaders are in continuous relationship with political men,[1] so long will it be impossible to say exactly to what lengths violence will go. Jaurès would very much like to see such associations of workers in existence, for his prestige will disappear at once when the general public perceives that he is not in a position to moderate revolution.
Everything becomes a question of valuation, accurate estimation, and opportunism; much skill, tact, and calm audacity are necessary to carry on such a diplomacy, i.e. to make the workers believe that you are carrying the flag of revolution, the middle class that you are arresting the danger which threatens them, and the country that
- ↑ Gambetta complained because the French clergy was "acephalous"; he would have liked a select body to have been formed in its midst, with which the Government could discuss matters (Garilhe, Le clergé séculier français au XIXᵉ siècle, pp. 88–89). Syndicalism has no head with which it would be possible to carry on diplomatic relations usefully.
