Sources: The Liverpool Mercury, paged 3, and the Liverpool Daily Post, page 6, both published on Wednesday 3 March 1886
Note: The Daily Post qualifies the title with 'in relation to the London riots', causing Eugene Lemire (in Unpublished Lectures of William Morris) to list it as a delivery of an otherwise unknown talk; however, the text the two newspapers actually printed is a summary of the lecture Socialism without any additions.
Transcription: by Graham Seaman for MIA, October 2022
Last evening. under the auspices of the Workers' Brotherhood, Mr. William Morris, of London (author of "The Earthly Paradise"), delivered a lecture on "Socialism," in the small concert hall, Lord Nelson-street. Mr. Arthur Baker presided, and there was a good attendance.
The lecturer, in the course of his remarks, laid down the basis of socialism, and, as he stated, treated the subject in somewhat of an elementary manner. He was of opinion that only by learning something of socialism could they really understand what the present state of society was, what were its ends, and how it agreed with their aims, When those things were understood, then they would know, in the negative, something of what socialism meant. The question naturally arose why were the working men, the beggars, the paupers, and the criminals in their present condition; and on the other hand, why were the rich men in their positions? Few people doubted the necessity of the existence of these classes, The Socialists considered why these classes existed, how they had grown into existence, and believed if they were inevitable they were not eternal, and would give place to a state of society in which there would be no rich, and consequently no poor. There was no question as to labour, but the point which did arise was, how was the labour to be proportioned? He then reviewed the present state of society, and contended that the class which lacked wealth was the class which produced it. He went on to say that if the masters disappeared the production of wealth would go on as before, but they hoped that the wealth would be very differently distributed. (Applause.) He was not attacking individuals, hut class. A class struggle was always going on between the employed and the employers. The interests of the two classes were opposed to one another. Under the present system, in this war the capitalists always won, and always would, until the working men got to that pitch that they would resolve to be the inferior class no longer. (Applause.) There were two classes of society, namely, the useless, which was called the upper class, and the useful or the middle class; One compelled the other to work for its benefit. They. as Socialists, required equality of fellowship. No man Was good enough to be master over other men. So only would they avoid this constant war. The Socialists wished to bring about such a change in the condition of things that there would be an equal chance for every one. (Applause.) This great change would certainly come. They desired to get rid of the expressions "This is mine" and "That is thine," and substitute "This is ours." (Applause) This alteration in the state of affairs lay in the hands of the working men, for what they demanded must be brought about. (Hear, hear.)
A vote of thanks was accorded to Mr. Morris for his lecture.
A meeting in connection with Workers’ Brotherhood was held last evening in the Concert Hall, Lord Nelson-street, the object of which was to hear a lecture delivered by Mr. William Morris (author of "The Earthly Paradise") on "Socialism," in relation to the recent London riots. Admission was free, and there was a numerous auditory, the bulk whom appeared respectable working men and youths. There was also a sprinkling of ladles present. Mr. Arthur Baker, B.A., presided, and suitably introduced the lecturer.
Mr. Morris was warmly received. Explaining the basis of Socialism, he said that society at the present day was founded on the necessity of the human race for constant labour, for the ceaseless contest with nature which, without labour, would give us nothing. For ages both work and the wealth won by that work had been unequally divided. There had always been in communities called civilised a class that had much work and little wealth alongside another class which had mush wealth and little work. The last-named class could, under the present constitution of society, compel the poor, who had nothing but a power of labour inherent in their bodies, to sell their labour to the rich on terms which ensured the continuance of their riches. The consequence was that the workers died before their time—in other words they were starved to death, and they would die outright but for the workhouse, which was made as prison-like as possible to hasten the process. Though masters did not now possess the whip of earlier feudal times, they held one equally potent in the shape of the workers’ fear of starvation. Lawyers, clergymen, and the like were described as the parasites of the system, never producing wealth any more than the prize-fighter, however hard they might work (applause, and slight hisses). There was a struggle going on between employers and employed, although it might appear not appear on the surface and It was a war which the capitalist must always win. till it get to the pitch in which the workers resolved to an inferior class no longer (hear, hear, and applause). This state of society was the sorry result of all the struggles of the human race towards civilisation. In sober earnest he asserted that no man was good enough to be master over other men (hear, bear, and applause). Whatever the result might be to the workers it certainly half-ruined the master, and therefore equality of fellowship was necessary for developing the innate good and restraining the innate evil of mankind. Combination and a chance of equality for everyone was what Socialists wanted to bring about. Socialists claimed that progress bad been steadily made in the direction they advocated, that all they had to do was to help onwards the outcome that progress. The history of what were called civilized ages recorded three systems—slavery under the classical peoples, serfdom in the middle ages, and wage labour at the present time. Thus two systems had disappeared. and It was manifestly absurd to say that the third would not also be swept away; indeed, there were abundant signs of the approaching change. With cheap generosity the rich classes of the present day could afford to say that all should be equal in the eye of the law, so long as they knew that the poor could not avail themselves of that equality. They wanted all that to be swept away; they wanted people to leave off saving “This mine, and that thine.” and to say instead, “This is ours," Property at the present time meant the power of preventing wealth from being used for the good of the community. For example, a man might have a large tract of land which could be made to yield abundantly, yet which he would not cultivate, and refused to allow others to cultivate. It rested with the workers themselves to bring about the desired change. Whatever they demanded must be yielded if that demand were consonant with reason. For instance, the Chartists claimed political freedom, and we had that now notwithstanding great opposition. Like that, Socialism would put upon its trial. What amount of resistance it might meet most none could tell, but it was certain it would meet with no forcible resistance unless the upper classes could induce a portion of the working classes to take an active part in pernicious opposition.
Votes of thanks were accorded to the lecturer and the chairman before the close of the meeting.