MIA > Library > Glasier > William Morris and the Early Days of the Socialist Movement
Among the few treasures I possess are letters, books, and photographs of my co-workers in the Socialist movement, and among the most valued of these are those relating to William Morris. Small as is my little collection of relics of Morris, it includes, besides autographed copies of several of his books, and one or two photographs, one very great treasure, namely, a collection of letters written by him to me between 1885 and 1901. These form in themselves an exceedingly interesting record of Morris' views and of his intense absorption in the work of the League during its period of greatest propaganda activity. Mr. Mackail did not know of their existence when he wrote Morris' Life, though he has since read them. May Morris, however, has made a number of extracts from them in her biographical introductions to her complete edition of Morris' works. She has also most kindly had the letters handsomely bound for me in red leather by Mr. Douglas Cockerell, who, together with Mr. T.J. Cobden-Sanderson, has done so much both by his writings and his own handiwork to revive and advance the art of bookbinding.
In vol. xx, page xlii, of the complete edition, May Morris introduces several quotations from these letters in a paragraph in which she says that Morris looked forward to his provincial tours, especially those to Glasgow and Scotland generally, as 'his annual holiday,' so to speak. 'Wearied by efforts in London to keep the peace between impossible elements in the League, it was no small pleasure to him to meet these men who delighted in him, and who gathered around him in the evenings clamouring for news from down south, and singing him old ballads and rollicking college songs till the small hours. Like their friend from the south, they had their minds fixed on the ultimate goal of perfect freedom and on the immediate study and understanding of the claims of Socialism. Bruce Glasier, perhaps thanks to his mother, a sympathetic lady of Gaelic blood, had a strong poetic strain in him too, and enthusiasm of a quality that years have not impaired.'
Morris was so frankly outspoken in all his utterances, public and private, that except with regard to occasional personal remarks about his colleagues and other people, and concerning some of his more private affairs, his letters rarely reveal any shade of opinion or deliverance, which those who are generally acquainted with his writings would discover with surprise. But they reveal some of those traits of point-blankness of opinion, or right-downness of conviction, and above all those whimsicalities of mood, which as a rule he only permitted himself to express in his freest conversations with friends.
In all I received some seventy letters from him, but possess now only fifty-six of them, as I gave some away to comrades who were eager to possess a memento of him. The letters cover a period of ten years, from February 1886 to September 1896--a few weeks before he died. The majority of them were written between the years 1887 and 1889, when I was associated with him in the work of the Socialist League. After that period I rarely corresponded with him by letter, as I had during the succeeding three or four years to go more frequently to London, and saw him often at Hammersmith.
The letters relate chiefly to the work of the Socialist League, especially to the internal controversies in the party, and to the Commonweal. They contain, however, frequent allusions to public affairs, and are sprinkled over with characteristic obiter dicta concerning the personalities of the movement.
My intention at first was only to give a very few extracts here and there from them, but on reading them over afresh I feel that for Socialist readers, at any rate, they possess so much interest--alike because of the intimate light which they throw upon the early circumstances of the movement, and because they display not only Morris' intense earnestness in the work of Socialism, but the zeal and sound common-sense with which he tackled the practical difficulties and controversial problems which beset the movement in its beginning--that I have decided to give the greater portion of them as they stand. Besides simply as letters coming from his pen, they are, as I have said, so characteristic in purpose and form, that I feel sure they will be welcomed by all lovers of Morris.
Morris had the disability, if it be such, of being incapable of assuming any character or views other than his own. He could never have been an actor; he had no histrionic talent. In his speech, his writings, his art, in all things that he did, he was always William Morris. There never perhaps was an artist or writer whose work was invariably so unmistakably his own. From but a sentence or two of any writing of his, or the smallest scrap of one of his designs, his authorship can be discovered at once.
It follows from this that one can hardly, as in the case of many authors, speak of his letter-writing as being different in character from his book-writing. His letters are just as his books, except that in the former he is sometimes more blunt in phrase or whimsical and off-hand in his mood of the moment. Whether, therefore, he is to be classed among those authors who rank as great letter-writers, I am unable to give an opinion. There appear to be as many varieties in what is reckoned first-rate letter-writing as in every other department of literature. Chesterfield, Rutherford, Cowper, Burns, Byron, Shelley, Lord Acton, are all famed as letter-writers, yet how different in substance and style are their respective productions!
Kelmscott House, Upper Mall, Hammersmith
February 20th (1886).
Dear Mr. Glasier,--I must ask your pardon re your 'Law and Order.'[1] We shall not have room for it this month; but I will try to put it in next (April). You will excuse me, I hope, for keeping other poems out in favour of my own; but as mine is a 'continuation' the effect is bad if I slip a number, as I have sometimes been obliged to do. I think your 'Ballade' is good; brisk and spirited.
Yours fraternally, William Morris.
The Commonweal Publishing Office,
13 Farringdon Road, London, E.C.
My dear Glasier,--About coming to Glasgow. I have promised the Industrial Remuneration people[2] to lecture (the same lecture) at Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dundee, beginning on June 23rd. I could not come before as the weekly Comm. and my Dublin journey absolutely prevented me. Perhaps something might be done as to giving a special lecture under the auspices of the branch when I come. Commonweal:--I want you to write for us whatever you think you can do well, and please let us have something soon.
Kelmscott House, Upper Mall, Hammersmith,
April 24th (1886).
My dear Glasier,--Thanks for your note. Perhaps an extra lecture or lectures could be managed on my return from Dundee, which is the last place where I give my lecture for those folk. See how it can be done and make proposals; as the Ind. Rem. people pay me, it would be well to use the occasion.
As to your letter re Bax, I am not quite sure that it would be wise to put it in as it would be cutting the dam of the waters of controversy, since, of course, Bax must be allowed to reply. I will consult with him next Wednesday, and do you please consider the matter yourself. The letter is well written and there is of course much reason in it, but on the whole I agree with Bax. The religion-education-family question is a difficult one, if one looks at it from the point of view of transitional Socialism, and we might, I think (not agreeing with Bax here) be content to let it alone in that stage. But when Socialism is complete the new economics will have transformed the family, and this will clear up the difficulty; nor do I believe there will be any necessity for using compulsion towards rational education. Meantime we must be clear about one thing, that, in opposition to the present bourgeois view, we hold that children are persons, not property, and so have a right to claim all the advantages which the community provides for every citizen. Again, as to the woman matter, it seems to me that there is more to be said on Bax's side than you suppose. For my part, being a male man, I naturally think more of the female man than I do of my own sex: but you must not forget that child-bearing makes women inferior to men, since a certain time of their lives they must be dependent on them. Of course we must claim absolute equality of condition between women and men, as between other groups, but it would be poor economy setting women to do men's work (as unluckily they often do now) or vice versa.
However, this is rambling. I hope you will do all you can to push Commonweal, and have a little patience if it is not all you could desire at first. I think the May 1st number will be a good one. Notes especially on Labour questions are much looked for from the branches; we want to keep alongside the times as much as possible.
August 16th (1886).
My dear Glasier,--Please send us some more copy for Commonweal; for I am very anxious sometimes about the supply of that article. You will see that we are in hot water again with the police here, and for my part I think it a great nuisance. It is, after all, a side issue, and I grudge everything that takes people's attention off the true economical and social issues, which are the only things of importance. Still, we must fight out this skirmish, though I hope wisely.
With fraternal greetings from all of us.
December ist, 1886.
My dear Glasier,--Many thanks for your long, interesting, and hopeful letter. I was well pleased with all you had to tell me, except that you had been ill and were out of work. I suppose you will think I am teaching, if not my grandmother, yet at least my grandson, to suck eggs, when I say that it is most important that you should get more fuglemen. It seems to me that it would be good winter work for you to 'mutually improve' each other in Socialism and in public speaking. At Hammersmith we are having a class on Sundays to bring out young speakers, and try to cure them of 'stage-fever,' and their wrigglements to avoid speaking are amusing. I am much pleased to hear your views as to the parliamentary side of things; all the more as, to say the truth, up here we are having some trouble with some of our friends on that point. I think needlessly, because, after all, they have no more wish than the others to push the League into electioneering.
Yes, I did say that to Kropotkin; but I did not mean that at some time or other it might not be necessary for Socialists to go into Parliament in order to break it up; but again, that could only be when we are very much more advanced than we are now; in short, on the verge of a revolution; so that we might either capture the army, or shake their confidence in the legality of their position.
At present it is not worth while even thinking of that, and our sole business is to make Socialists. I really feel sickened at the idea of all the intrigue and degradation of concession which would be necessary to us as a parliamentary party; nor do I see any necessity for a revolutionary party doing any 'dirty work' at all, or soiling ourselves with anything that would unfit us for being due citizens of the new order of things. As for the S.D.F., if their leaders really believe in the usefulness of the measures which they are putting forward, let them go on; but if they do not believe, they are playing a dangerous game. And in any case their present successes are won at the expense of withdrawing real Socialism from view in favour of mere palliation and 'reform.'
For the rest, I think it is a mistake to play at revolt; it is but poor propaganda to behave like a dog sniffing at a red-hot poker, and being obliged to draw his nose back in a hurry for fear of being burnt. As to Hyndman's patronage of me, I am proud enough to be humble, and am glad not to be put down as an enemy by any section of Socialists; but as to what he says about the League in London, that be damned! As a party of principle, we are not likely to number as many members as an opportunist body; but we have several solid and increasing branches here. A good South London branch has lately been formed; we Hammersmith chaps have formed a Fulham one now flourishing; Hackney is not bad; Hoxton is good; Mile End is being reorganised; North London is much improved; Bloomsbury is very much so; Mitcham has been set on its legs by Kitz; Croydon is sound, though somewhat sleepy. Of course we ought to do much more, but we are suffering from the lack of energetic initiative men, who are not overburdened with work and responsibilities. It is true that we have far too much bickering over our Central Council work; but I feel sure that the branches will take care that we shall not spoil all by that, if we haven't the sense to do so ourselves, which, however, I think we shall do. I mention this as you will possibly have heard exaggerated reports of it, from S.D.F. people or otherwise. I don't suppose that any body of men can be quite free from such troubles. I know that S.D.F. is not, in spite of all their being bossed by three or four men.
As to Edinburgh, it would appear that they know more of my movements than I do myself; but I suppose I must assume that they have the gift of prophecy, and go north in March next; all the more as I want to visit Lancaster again, where something is to be done, I hope. So of course I will come to Glasgow that while.
By the way, what about this lock-out and strike in Dundee? Can any of our friends do anything there? As to my pars on Salisbury and Churchill, you must remember, 1st, that I make them stalking-horses for bringing Constitutionalism into contempt; 2nd, that in London there are people inclined towards Socialism who haven't got as far as Radicalism yet, and think Tory Democracy might help them, save the mark!--but I will mend, I will mend.
With fraternal greetings and best wishes all round.
February 18th (1887).
My dear Glasier,--Cunninghame Graham is going to speak at a meeting in Glasgow on Wednesday. In case you have not heard of it before, though I suppose you will have, I write to tell you, so that you may roll up there all you can.
I send you my hearty congratulations on your meeting of last Sunday.[3] I think you have acted both boldly and prudently in not letting the matter slip away from you, and carrying out your meeting well; and you seem, to judge from the reports, to have said just the right thing. Good luck be with you.
P.S.--Cunninghame Graham's address in Glasgow is George Hotel, George Square.
March 18th, 1887.
My dear Glasier,--As to lecture: it has yet (alas!) to be written, and by whatever name it were called would smell as sweet or as sour. I am not very likely, I fear, to overload it with economics; but in case anyone should think himself beguiled by false pretences, suppose we call it 'True and False Society.'
I note April 3 for the date of the Glasgow lecture; and Hamilton, when will that be? Also could we arrange for a Dundee trip and lecture? Edinburgh, of course, will expect another dose; and there was some talk of Aberdeen; but that I think I can scarcely manage, as Lancaster expects me on my way back. Will you talk to the Edinburgh folk and sketch out some plan, and I'll see if it can be done.
As to the proposed new paper, I didn't mean that we should have but one or two always. I only thought that there was not a public large enough at present, and that pushing Comm. was at present the only thing to be done. We ought to increase the circulation by one thousand this year and then it would be safe. There have been so many advanced papers which have been born to die that it would be a most serious advantage if we could make one Socialist paper relatively immortal. I put this before the Edinburgh friends and they quite agree. Of course I am very loth to even appear to throw cold water on a scheme of propaganda; I only want no energy wasted.
We had a fine meeting last night to celebrate the Commune--crowded. Kropotkin spoke in English, and very well.
So you will write and tell me what you think I had better do, and I will consider your plans.
By the way, your paper about the grocer[4] is amusing; but if the portrait is recognisable it is libellous, and the C. cannot bear a libel case for anything short of high treason. How about the libellousness of it?
December 21st, 1887.
My dear Glasier,--Many thanks for your letter. I am very pleased to hear that you stick together well....
Yes, I think that Champion is going all awry with his opportunism; but after all that is but natural, since it is after all the line that the S.D.F. has taken all along; only they have mixed it up with queer Anarchist or rather sham terrorist tactics, and frankly I think under the circumstances he is right to drop that; so that he is properly a consistent S.D.F. man, taking the lines upon which we split off from them. I cannot believe, however, that he is a self-seeker, and so hope that he will one day see the error of his ways.
Last Sunday, as you will see, went off well. I must say I expected a big shindy; but was very glad that I was disappointed, for it would have led to nothing. As it is, it was a victory, for it was the most enormous concourse of people I ever saw; the number incalculable; the crowd sympathetic and quite orderly.
However, I shall be glad to let the Pall Mall Gazette go on its ways now, and get to work harder on our special business which all this demonstrating has rather hindered; rather in the united action of the body in London, however, than in me. I mean ordinary meetings have been somewhat neglected for these bigger jobs.
I send herewith a photo; the artist has done his best in it, I do believe. But what would you have?
Let me know soon about what time you expect me to come down, that I may make arrangements for a regular tour. I may as well do as much as I can.
I think I am more likely to write an epic on your (spiritual) birth than on that of your namesake of Bannockburn; but I apologise to all Scotchmen for my irreverence that you twit me with.
By the way, I must say that Mrs. Besant has been acting like a brick. She really is a good woman; though, as you know, in theory tarred with the opportunist stick.
Greetings to all.
April 18th, 1888.
My dear Glasier,--You will see that a comrade rather attacks your last production as frivolous; it however (not to make you vain) did something to sell the paper.[5] At Victoria Park the Weal was going very slow, and then one speaker began to quote from you and straightway Weal began to flow. So don't mind Catterson Smith, but send another.
I am just going to begin printing a new book, not Socialistic except by inference: I will send you a copy when it comes out, though there is nothing about Wallace Wight in it.
P.S.--I say, 3 quires seems but a little to sell in the commercial capital of Scotland.
May 19th (1888).
My dear Glasier,--I quite agree with your views about the future of the League and the due position of a revolutionary party of principle as to its dealings with Parliament.
As to affairs at the Conference, I am of course most anxious to avoid a split, and so I believe is everyone, and I hope that some modus vivendi will be found. As to myself, you may be sure that I will not be pedantically stiff about non-essentials. At the same time there are certain convictions which I cannot give up, and in action there are certain courses which I cannot support. If you will re-read the Editorial of the first number of the weekly Commonweal, you will see my position stated exactly as I should state it now, and which was the position taken by all of us when the League was first formed. If the League reverses its views on these points it stultifies our action in leaving the S.D.F., and becomes a different body to that which I first joined. I should therefore be forced, to my very great sorrow, to leave it, not for the purpose of sulking in my tent, but in order to try some other form of propaganda. I ought now to explain what would drive me out of the League, and how far I could meet our friends who are so anxious to have us take a part in Parliamentary action:
A mere abstract resolution that we might have to send members to Parliament at some time or other would not drive me out. But I believe, with you, that, whatever they may think, our Parliamentary friends would not be able to stop there, and that a necessary consequence of the passing of the Croydon resolution would have to be the issue of a programme involving electioneering in the near future, and the immediate putting forward of a programme of palliative measures to be carried through Parliament, some such programme, in short, as the 'stepping stones' of the S.D.F., which I always disagreed with. Such a step I could not support, for I could not preach in favour of such measures (since I don't believe in their efficacy) without lying and subterfuge, which are surely always anti-social.
As to my conduct at the conference, my branch has instructed me as delegate to try to get the furtherers of the Parliamentary resolution to pledge themselves against this palliative programme (in case the Croydon resolution is carried). If they will do that I personally can still go on with them; if not, I cannot, much as I should wish to do so. I almost fear that they cannot give this pledge; but at the same time I do not think they wish to drive matters to extremities. The best plan therefore would be to withdraw their resolution, and so avoid committing themselves to a course of action which would risk breaking up the League.
I hope you understand my position; I recapitulate. 1st, under no circumstances will I give up active propaganda. 2nd, I will make every effort to keep the League together. 3rd, we should treat Parliament as a representative of the enemy. 4th, we might for some definite purpose be forced to send members to Parliament as rebels. 5th, but under no circumstances to help to carry on their Government of the country. 6th, and therefore we ought not to put forward palliative measures to be carried through Parliament, for that would be helping them to govern us. 7th, if the League declares for this latter step, it ceases to be what I thought it was, and I must try to do what I can outside it. 8th, but short of that I will work inside it.
You can show this letter to any of our friends, to each and all of whom I send fraternal greetings.
July 27th (1888).
My dear Glasier,--You must not be too downcast because of my London views of the movement; but you can easily see that from the time when the Parliamentary section in the League made up their minds to press the question to extremities the League was practically split. Of course I shall do all I can to prevent a formal split, and shall work my hardest whatever happens, either in the League or out of it; nor is there any probability of the really active amongst the section of principle being discouraged or separating. But you will see that the whole of the work in London is now on our shoulders, and since we were but shorthanded before, you may imagine that it is hard work now. By the way, I am writing a paper on the policy of abstention, which I should like to read in an informal manner to Socialists only when I come your way.
As to Commonweal, here are the hard facts: with the present circulation of say about 2800 we are losing £4 per week, supposing the number sold are all paid for. There are monies owing to us of about £40, but about half that must be written off as bad, owing to a bad habit that those branches and individuals have got into of not sending up the money for the sales they made and accumulating a debt, which now they cannot pay. Well, I already pay £2 a week to Commonweal (this £4 loss being in addition to that) and absolutely cannot pay the extra £4: nor ought I to do so, as 1 1/2 d. (three half-pence) a week from each member of the League would tide us over, and if that cannot be raised it is a sign that the League members don't care about Commonweal.
Perhaps you will put these facts before our friends, who I am sure are anxious to do their best in the matter. You see when so very little more would save us, it does seem a pity to drop the only satisfactory English-written Socialist print.
I shall be glad to hear from you as often as convenient.
August 29th (1888).
My dear Glasier,--I was very glad to have news from you, and thank you for it. I wish I could give you as good news from London as you give us from Glasgow, but I consider we are in a poor way mostly. Our own branch is very good still and keeps up wonderfully; I don't know that we increase in mere muster roll, but we do in members who take an interest in the work, and we really are brisk. Elsewhere I can't say much for us, the few who take an interest are pig-headed and quarrelsome. The Sec. is (to speak plainly) a failure as such, though a very good fellow. The East End agitation is a failure; the sale of Commonweal falls off, or rather has fallen off all round; which of course was inevitable after the business of the Conference.
This sounds very gloomy; but, after all, I doubt if we are worse than we were before; a great deal of the excitement of our East End Leaguers was the result of 'indoor' agitation, i.e. quarrelling amongst ourselves, and the Parliamentarians having gone off the excitement has gone with them, and the excited friends withal. Now all this does not discourage me simply because I have discounted it; I have watched the men we are working with and know their weak points, and knew that this must happen. One or two of them are vainglorious humbugs; a good many are men who, poor fellows, owing to their position cannot argue, and have only impulsive feelings based on no sort of logic, emotional or otherwise, and fall back when there is nothing exciting going on; since they have never had any real grasp of the subject. Many also are so desperately poor that they cannot work much for us; some one or two like your McLaren 'have married a wife and therefore cannot come.' Some again are hot-headed; some, like poor Lane, in bad health. With all this the worst of them are no worse than other people; mostly they are better, and some very much better; so that supposing we broke up the band, any new band we got together would be composed of just the same elements. Therefore the only thing is to be patient and try to weld together those that are work-worthy.
Of course, the secession has given us a rough shake; several of the seceders did fair work, and they bought and sold some Commonweal if not much. If any compromise had been possible between us and them I should have favoured it; but it was not possible: the other side were determined to use us if they could, quite reckless if in the attempt they knocked the League to pieces. I ought to tell you, by the way, that the Norwich branch, which at one time showed signs of dissolution, has got on its legs again, and is really both numerous and enthusiastic. So you may depend upon it that we shall not drop all to pieces. We are quite determined here at Hammersmith to keep things going if no one else will. We must never forget amongst other things that there are always times of reflex in these movements, and all politics are very dull at present owing largely to the deadlock in the Irish question, and the feeling among persons really progressive that we are being played upon by politicians for their benefit; the end of the Irish question will, I feel sure, mark a step in revolution, Meantime we have to stick to it and be patient, as I have no doubt you feel.
As to your own affairs: cannot you manufacture speakers, deliberately inaugurate a speakers' class? Commonweal: I admit that it has been dull lately, and for the reasons you stated. You see what we want here is, once more, three or four able writers that we can depend upon; we are obliged to shove in all sorts of twaddle from time to time to fill up--such is unpaid journalism, which, however, is not so bad as paid ditto. I shall be very glad to have Mavor's help. Kindly give me his present address. As for your article, which I hurried you so for: mere printers' consideration joined with the fact that it had not to do with passing events kept it back. We are going to get together a meeting of all our London speakers to see if we can shove the thing ona bit here. I am more and more sure that what we want at present is not mere numbers but a good band of steady workers who will stick to it and who understand the subject--only we want a good many of them.
Once more I am much encouraged by your letter, and am not in the least inclined to give in.
Good luck all round.
December 15th (1888).
Dear Glasier,--Thank you for the paper, which I will read when it is in type. I by no means have Arnold's book of Essays, not always finding them easy to read. I am sorry I can't help you in the matter. I was very sorry to hear the sad private news of your last letter.[6]
The Anarchist element in us seem determined to drive things to extremity, and break us up if we do not declare for Anarchy, which I for one will not do. On the other hand the 'Moderates,' Mrs. Besant and Co., by their foolish wooden attacks on us are taking away from the reasonable party inside (if alas! we must use the word 'party') all chance of holding things together. The only thing to be done is to go on steadily trying to strengthen the local bodies. Hammersmith remains satisfactory and is increasing in solid strength, especially in speakers. But it is getting into bad odour with some of our fiercer friends, I think principally because it tacitly and instinctively tries to keep up the first idea of the League, the making of genuine convinced Socialists without reference to passing exigencies of tactics, whether they take the form of attacking (and running away from) the police in the streets or running a candidate for the school board. I find that living in this element is getting work rather too heavy for me. It is lamentable that Socialists will make things hard for their comrades. All this I ask you to keep strictly private and confidential, i.e. not to talk to others about it, as I don't want to discourage young members: but you are I think old enough in the movement to have discounted a good deal of it, and therefore will not be discouraged. All this after all is but one corner of the movement, which really taken as a whole and looked at from some way off is going on swimmingly. Leatham wrote to me (not on a card) in much the same tone; I am very glad he is so young and happy. I shall be glad of your articles in any case. I have an idea that the weekly might be resuscitated if we are careful, even if we drop it now. I shall be glad to hear from you. Good luck all round.
January 21st, 1889.
Dear Glasier,--Your article seems all right, only 'tis so abominably cacographical that I find it very difficult to read: also I think we had better have more of it before we begin to print.[7] Thanks for your explanation about the testimonial, though of course I did not want any explanation.[8] Now--I am coming to Glasgow it seems to give two lectures on Art, and I had better give a Sunday one for you, and see as much of the branch as I can during my stay: please arrange with Mavor. You understand that I would not have gone merely for the Art gammon and spinach; but it was an opportunity of seeing you chaps free of expense. I have much to say to you... As to Commonweal I rather imagine that it will come to trying the four page sheet for a while, but I honestly confess to myself that I don't feel very sanguine about it. The truth must be faced, the Communists of the League are in a very weak position in the Socialist Party at present. We have been much damaged both by parliamentarians and Anarchists, and I don't think we are strong enough to run a paper; although, numbers apart, there is something to be said for us.
You see John Burns has got some of his desires--rather him than me in the position--ugh![9]
May 13th, 1889.
Dear Glasier,--Have you seen Grant Allen's article in the Contemporary 'Socialism and Individualism'? It is of little importance in itself: but as the manifesto of Herbert Spencer etc. against Herbert Spencer is of some interest.
I suppose you have seen or read, or at least tried to read, 'Looking Backward.' I had to on Saturday, having promised to lecture on it. Thank you, I wouldn't care to live in such a cockney paradise as he imagines.
I hope to hear from you soon that you are getting on.
August 15th (1889).
My dear Glasier,--Thanks for the letter, the business transaction does not seem likely to call me to Glasgow just yet: so I shall put off my visit if I can till I can be of most use to the propaganda up there. As to the Scottish Land and Labour League, I think one may assume that the Parliamentary Party have had something to do with the business, though it may not be so. But I don't think 'tis worth much bothering oneself about; because if they will be parliamentary, names will neither keep them back nor thrust them forward. If it were possible I for one part should be only too glad to see the whole quarrel drop, on the grounds of letting each branch do as it pleases as a branch. Because really the organisation of the League is, and always has been, so loose that if all the branches were merely affiliated bodies doing what they pleased within the necessary Socialist lines of attack on the monopoly of the means of production, pushing the sale of the paper, and communicating often with the Council (which would then be only a body for such intercourse), we should not be worse off than we have been all along, and to boot might escape these weary squabbles.
So on the whole, the least said soonest mended on that point.
As to the Commonweal I by no means feel overwhelmed at the prospect of its again becoming a monthly. It sold well under those conditions before, and had some good articles in it; and that might be so again. True it would be a defeat; but we must get used to such trifles as defeats, and refuse to be discouraged by them. Indeed, I am an old hand at that game, my life having been passed in being defeated; as surely every man's life must be who finds himself forced into a position of being a little ahead of the average in his aspirations.
There is perhaps somewhat of a slack in the direct propaganda at present; but the big world is going on at a great rate to my mind towards the change, and I am sure both that steady preachment of even a dozen men (as in the Christian Legend) will make steady progress for the cause, and also that those who have really learned Socialism can never any more be persuaded that water runs uphill of itself. And you and a few men cannot be prevented from preaching by anything external to themselves. However, I am getting a little more hopeful of keeping the League together on something like its present terms, and we ought to try to do all we can, because a new start would be pleasant enough at first; but who shall ensure us against getting into the selfsame difficulties again, as we began, as we certainly should, to increase in numbers?
Tuesday Morning.
We held our London members' meeting last night as advertised in C. and though the attendance was not good, I think they showed signs of renewed life; we are going to open two new stations, hold concert for benefit of paper (by the way, couldn't you do something in this line), send out a flying missionary column on Saturdays beginning next Saturday. You see the London workmen are blasé of politics, and have none of the solidarity which the workmen of big industries have. On the other hand, London is a big place, and there are all sorts of people in it, and we ought to be able to get some of the good 'uns.
October 3rd (1889).
My dear Glasier,--I ask your pardon for not writing to you before. The fact is I don't like writing letters. I could almost wish sometimes that the art of writing had not been invented--at any rate, I wish the postmen would strike, on all grounds. Now, as to business. Yes, I will come if you will get me an audience; but I expect that you will have to put up with a rough lecture enough as I have not time for a literary production. Crane, I have no doubt, would do what he could; so would Walker, but he is no speaker. C. Sanderson might be able to help: but I doubt if he would speak in the open air. You had better arrange with Glasse about my day in Glasgow, always remembering that I shall want to go South to the pock-pudding as soon as I can; for my business needs me sorely.
With best wishes, even for the wicked of your branch, let alone the good like yourself.
March 19th (1890).
My dear Glasier,--I have been a long time answering your letter: need I make any excuses? Thank you for your kind estimate of my last work; I am truly glad that it pleases you. It is not popular, but I think some people read it and like it. As to the movement, between you and me the League don't get on--except like a cow's tail, downwards. Up here there is now a great deal of quarrelling (in which I take no part), the basis of which is that some of them want the paper made 'more revolutionary,' i.e. they want to write the articles themselves (which they can't do), and to do a little blood and thunder without any meaning, which might get me into trouble but couldn't hurt them. In all this there is no great harm (and no malice) if we were flourishing; but we are not. I am now paying for the League (including paper) at the rate of £500 a year, and I cannot stand it; at Whitsuntide I must withdraw half of that, whatever may happen: which will probably be the end of Commonweal, followed by the practical end of the League. A little while ago this would have seemed very terrible, but it does not trouble me much now. Socialism is spreading, I suppose on the only lines on which it could spread, and the League is moribund simply because we are outside those lines, as I for one must always be. But I shall be able to do just as much work in the movement when the League is gone as I do now. The main cause of the failure (which was obvious at least two years ago) is that you cannot keep a body together without giving it something to do in the present, and now, since people will willingly listen to Socialist doctrine, our rank and file have nothing to do. But of course you know more about all this than I can tell you. Meantime, it is a matter of course that I shall do what I can to put off the evil day for C'weal, and I am sure you will help. Try to make arrangements to come up at Whitsuntide; I will find you quarters. This letter is hurried and rough; so please keep it to yourself.
April 6th (1890).
My dear Glasier,--Thanks for your letters; you know I am a bad correspondent.
I heard of _______ last year at Dundee, and they said then he was damaging them much. I saw the carl at Edinburgh more than once; a good speaker (sometimes drunk, however--once notably so at one of my meetings), a plausible dog, an extractor of money in small sums by dint of diplomacy--in short, a statesman lacking the larger opportunities.
Commonweal appears to have discovered the widow's cruse; for it goes on buying and selling, and living on the loss quite triumphantly. The (genuine) sale is a little going up, and I think we shall be able to keep it going through the year. Kitz is by no means a bad sec. in that respect.
Otherwise I can't say that I call the League prospects good. Outside the Hammersmith branch the active (?) members in London mostly consider themselves Anarchists, but don't know anything about Socialism and go about ranting revolution in the streets, which is about as likely to happen in our time as the conversion of Englishmen from stupidity to quickwittedness. A great deai of our trouble comes from Messrs. D_______ and M_______, who have been rather clever at pulling us to pieces, but could do nothing towards building up even their own humbugging self-seeking party.
Now I must do notes for C'weal. I don't like the job, as I have a new book on hand which amuses me vastly.
October 7th (1890).
My dear Glasier,--As I was away from Hammersmith when your letter came, I did not see the 'Laird of Logan' till yesterday, for they did not send it on. Thank you very much for thinking of me and sending it. It has a queer old-fashioned look about it which would seem to make it amusing, but I have only had time to look at it.
I have been down at Kelmscott (where Ellen vanished, you know) off and on for some weeks now, but London has begun to collar me, and next week I shall be there; and shall try to be a little more virtuous about propaganda work. In truth I have not been very well (am all right again now) and did really need a rest. Not that it was not full of work though.
I shall now presently begin to touch up 'N. from N.' ['News from Nowhere'] for its book form, and will publish for a shilling. It has amused me very much writing it; but, you may depend upon it, it won't sell. This, of course, is my own fault--or my own misfortune.
As to League affairs: I have really been a good bit out of them. I don't think there is much life in it anywhere except at our branch, which so far is really satisfactory. Sometimes feel rather sick of things in general. The humbug which floats to the top in all branches of intelligence is such a damned greasy pot-scum.
But I must not get to mere railing. Good luck.
December 5th (1890).
[Note.--This is private. I mean the very words are.]
Dear Glasier,--I have seen your letter to Walker anent the League and the H. Society, and am thinking that perhaps you are thinking I owe you an apology or at least an explanation, so here it is; I hope not a long one. In the first place I did not write to you before because I wanted to avoid all appearance of plotting or colloguing. So much for my apparent neglect of you. As to the event itself: there is really little to say beyond the circular (sent only to the branches and the Council). The whole thing lies in this, that, as of course you noticed in the last conference, there were two parties in the League, the old Communist one with which it began, and the Anarchist. Now supposing these two parties remaining in the League, each must necessarily try to use the other for purposes which it did not approve of. Hence constant quarrel; one party always attacking the other instead of the common enemy. I have gone through this, as you will know, before, and I am determined never to stand it again. As soon as there are two parties in any body I am in--then out I go. Yet you should know that the H. Branch would have gone out six months ago if it had not been for respect of my sentiments; they have been very discontented for a long while. As to detail: please understand the H.B., though as numerous as all the rest of the League I think, had no power on the Council; if we had stayed in and fought the matter we should have been outvoted every time by at least 8 to 3, so what was the use of our being there? Something I might have done in keeping Commonweal rational, but only by threatening withdrawal of supplies: such a 'censorship of the piper' would be too odious for me to endure. And again what would have been the use since I was in any case going to withdraw my subsidy at the end of the year, as I now have done, paying all up to the end? Nay, supposing I had gone on with that subsidy, it would not have saved the paper, which was making a fresh deficit every week. I must have doubled it, as I did the early part of the year--up to the Conference in fact.
Well, now, what were we to do? Go once a week to a private hell to squabble causelessly with men that after all we like? Or withdraw from the Council? That would have been only a covert and less honest way of leaving the League, and would have hampered both them and us. Call a general conference? To what end? What more could we discover at it than that we didn't agree? Besides, these conferences are really bogus affairs.
In short, my dear boy, whenever you want to get rid of me you need never put on your boots. I never wait to be kicked downstairs. Don't misunderstand the affair: we have borne with it all a long time; and at last have gone somewhat suddenly. For my part I foresaw all this when we allowed the Bloomsbury branch to be expelled. They deserved it, for it was that pig of a D_______ who began it all; but they being out, it was certain that the Anarchists would get the upper hand. I rather wonder at your being surprised. My article, following on Nicol's folly, should have told you what was up. I meant it as a ' Farewell.' It was, and was meant to be, directly opposed to anything the Anarchist side would want to say or do. If I had remained in the League after that I must have attacked their position persistently. And why should I? I shouldn't have converted them.
You understand, I don't want to influence your action up there: none of us do. Your position is different from ours; because you are so far away that you cannot take any part in the management; whereas, in my judgment, we must as long as we profess to belong.
We have no wish to proselytise amongst the League branches. Anyone can join us who pleases, League or no League; but we don't ask them. And I have no doubt that we shall be just as good friends with you whatever you do.
Personally, I must tell you that I feel twice the man since I have spoken out. I dread a quarrel above all things, and I have had this one on my mind for a year or more. But I am glad it is over at last; for in good truth I would almost as soon join a White Rose Society as an Anarchist one; such nonsense as I deem the latter.
You will have our manifesto soon; and I know you will agree with it, as it will disclaim both Parliamentarianism and Anarchism.
To change the subject: I am going to send you my new translation-book to-morrow. 'News from Nowhere' is already printed in America, and I am going to print it here for a shilling: the Yank, I fancy, is a dollar.
Well, goodbye, and don't be downcast, because we have been driven to admit plain facts. It has been the curse of our movement that we would lie to ourselves about our progress and victories and the like. Aha! What do you think of the awakened conscience of Mrs. Grundy re Mr. Parnell? Ain't it delicious--as Miss Mowcher says.
December 16th (1890).
My dear Glasier,--Thanks for your letter; I might say so much, that at present I will say little: In the first place I agree with you almost wholly, including Parnell. In the second, I am not going to retire. In the third, we mustn't trouble ourselves about the babble of the press. In the fourth, we Hammersmith'ers will, I have no doubt, be eager to join in any arrangement which would bring us together. Lastly, as to the paper, I don't like papers; and we have after a very long experiment found out that a sectional paper cannot be run. Two things we might do or might be done. First, we might set up a penny monthly merely as a means of communication. Second, a general Socialist paper might be started to include all sections. As to the first, I would do nothing in it as long as a monthly Commonweal exists; I would rather support that if I could. As to the second, it looks promising; but you, of course, know the difficulties. Who is to be editor? How will it work under the jealousies of the different sections? Are the Anarchists to be in it? etc., etc. Pamphlets are good: won't you write us one? For the rest, speaking and lecturing as much as sickened human nature can bear are the only things as far as I can see.
I am in hopes that I may manage to come your way in the Spring and then we can talk these matters more at length, and I could tell you things in speaking which in writing slip out of the head. I want to see Glasse, and the Aberdeen'ers also; only, of course, I shall avoid any influencing the League branches.
March 9th, 1892.
My dear Glasier,--I have been trying to find time to write a long letter to you; but, seeing that I have not found the time for that, I had better write a short one at once.
Thanks very much for your last letter. As to the subjects of it I had perhaps better get over the disagreeable part of them, and say that it does not seem as if I shall be able to come to you this spring, though I should very much like to do so. If I possibly can come I will turn the matter over. Isn't autumn a possible time?
For the rest, I quite agree with your views as to the present position, and so I am sure do all here. I sometimes have a vision of a real Socialist Party at once united and free. Is it possible? Here in London it might be done, I think, but the S.D.F. stands in the way. Although the individual members are good fellows enough as far as I have met them, the society has got a sort of pedantic tone of arrogance and lack of generosity, which is disgusting and does disgust both Socialists and Non-Soc. Their last feat in trying to spoil the Chelsea election for the L.C.C., although they had no programme better than theirs, was a wretched piece of tactics; and now the Anti-Soc., both Whigs and Tories, go about saying that the Chelsea Socialists are only 170. Whereas that means nothing more than the branch of the S.D.F.
What do you think of the said L.C.C, election? I am pleased on the whole. It is certainly the result of the Socialist movement, and is a Labour victory, as the affair was worked by the Socialist and Labour people. Of course I don't think that much will come of it directly; but I do think it shows a great advance. Item, the L.C.C. so far has to my experience shown itself an amazing improvement on the old red-tape public bodies: the antiscrape[10] has on three separate occasions had deputations to them and has been received in a human point of view; arguments listened to and weighed, and opinion changed in consequence. This for a public body is certainly wonderful. Of course, I don't think much of gas and water Socialism, or indeed of any mere mechanical accessories to Socialism; but I can see that the spirit of the thing is bettering, and in spite of all disappointments I am very hopeful.
I send by this post a copy of the last song book: you will find some of the old well-worn fellows amongst them.
Well, I hope we shall meet somehow. Walker (by the way) is going to Scotland at the end of this week. He will tell you all the news.
Consider about the autumn and tell me. Meantime, Good Luck.
1. The 'Ballade of Law and Order,' verses by myself which appeared in Commonweal, April 1886.
2. A series of additional lectures carried on from the Industria Remuneration Conference held at Edinburgh, January 1886. See footnote to Chapter III.
3. A special demonstration held under the auspices of the Glasgow branch of the Socialist League in support of the Lanarkshire miners' strike.
4. 'Men who are not Socialists,' one of a series of articles which began in Commonweal, May 7, 1887. I assured him that the characters were fictitious and unidentifiable.
5. The article in question was one on 'Why I don't like Clergymen.' A supposed humorous skit. The Comrade who objected to it was Catterson Smith, the well-known translator of Burne-Jones' drawings for the Kelmscott edition of Chaucer. He, Catterson Smith, and myself had an amusing discussion over the 'Ethics of Humour' afterwards. He was one of the most earnest and delightful of the Kelmscott House' Brotherhood.
6. The death of my eldest sister, whom he had met.
7. The article was never published. It was a long criticism of Belfort Bax's Ethics of the Family, etc.
8. In consideration of the fact that I had been for a long time out of employment, the Glasgow branch of which I was secretary raised a 'testimonial' for me which I accepted, but handed over to the funds of the branch.
9. Elected as Liberal-Labour member on the London County Council.
10. Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings.