# William Morris and the Early Days of the Socialist Movement/2

CHAPTER II
the socialist league
It is necessary to ask my readers who wish to follow understandingly the story of these chapters to bear with me while I give a short account of the position of the modern Socialist movement in this country at the period when the narrative in these pages begins. Without some notion of the origin of the Socialist movement and the circumstances that led to the formation of the Socialist League, under whose banner William Morris accomplished the greater part of his work as a Socialist agitator, many of the references in these chapters would be unintelligible to the reader, and the true significance of his career as a Socialist pioneer would escape observation.
I shall confine myself, however, to the barest outline of events.
There was at the period when Morris began his Socialist career, early in 1883, only one political Socialist body in this country—namely, the Democratic Federation. This body was, in fact, the first political Socialist organisation formed in this country. Needless to say, Socialism itself, or rather Socialist ideas and Socialist teaching, did not originate with the Democratic Federation, or indeed with any modern movement. The prophecy and power of Socialism has come down the ages of history with the growing idealism and social culture of mankind. Only in recent times, however, has the industrial and political progress of civilisation rendered the achievement of Socialism ​on a large community or national scale possible by means of political organisation.
Already by the time of the formation of the Democratic Federation there was a widespread unrest in thoughtful minds with the existing conditions of society, and heralding voices of the coming Socialist movement were heard in every land. Robert Owen in this country, and St. Simon and Fourier in France, and Fichte and Weitling in Germany, had earlier in the century brought forward their various schemes of co-operative workshops and communistic associations, and in the revolutionary outbreaks of 1848 abroad, and in the Chartist agitation at home—notably by the voice and pens of Bronterre O'Brien and Ernest Jones—the cry of 'the Wealth for the Workers' in almost clear, class-conscious notes had resounded throughout the world. But the extraordinary advance of capitalist industry, aided by steam production and transport, together with the great exodus to America, Australia, and other colonies, had distracted the attention of the people from their misery, and aroused hopes of more prosperous days. Nevertheless, the gathering currents of Socialist thought were pressing on and rinding fitful expression in the writings of Carlyle, Disraeli, Ruskin, Mill, and the more earnest Radicals, and in the Christian Socialist movement of Kingsley, Maurice, Ludlow, and Mackay. Lastly, there came upon the scene about 1880 the outbreaks of the Irish and Highland Land Leagues, and the 'Land for the People' propaganda of Henry George, Michael Davitt, Alfred Russel Wallace, and Philip Wicksteed, which aroused widespread discussion.
But as yet, notwithstanding these signs of social insurgency, Socialist ideas had not assumed any definite political form in this country. The working-class in the bulk were completely under the sway of the capitalist political parties—whose most advanced projects were embodied in Mr. Gladstone's Midlothian speeches of 1879–1880, in which no reference whatever to Socialism, or even to ​Labour in a political sense, occurs. There were no Socialist meetings, no Socialist literature. The Guild of St. Matthew, founded in 1877 by the Rev. Stewart Headlam, the Rev. W.E. Moll, and a small group of earnest Church reformers, who avowed themselves Socialists and declared that Socialism and Christianity were one, may rightly claim to have sounded the note of the forthcoming Socialist movement, but it had a religious rather than a political basis.
Such was the state, or stage, of Socialist thought in this country when the Democratic Federation was formed in London in March 1881. The Federation was not itself an avowed Socialist body at the outset, though its chief promoters, H.M. Hyndman, Herbert Burrows, Miss Helen Taylor (stepdaughter of John Stuart Mill), and Dr. G.B. Clark, were Socialists. The most advanced item on its programme was the Nationalisation of the Land; and although Mr. Hyndman (who himself had just been converted to Socialism by reading Marx's 'Capital') at the opening meeting distributed a little booklet, 'England for All,' which was the first publication in this country that laid down the new 'scientific' doctrine of Socialism and called for political action for Socialism, it was not until nearly four years later, September 1884, that the Federation adopted a definitely Socialist basis and changed its name to that of the Social Democratic Federation.
By this time the Fabian Society had also come into being, emerging, early in 1884, from a group of social and ethical research enquirers, calling itself the Fellowship of the New Life. But the Fabian Society, though adopting political Socialist aims, was a middle-class group of controversialists, who sought to permeate existing political parties with Socialist ideas, rather than to create a new Socialist party.
Morris joined the Federation when as yet it was only 'becoming' a Socialist body, on January 17, 1883, exactly ten years, it may be noted, before the Socialist movement ​took its wider political form in the formation of the Independent Labour Party. He had, however, for several years previously taken a great interest in Socialism, and had both in his art lectures and occasional political addresses spoken from a definitely Socialistic standpoint.
'I am truly glad,' he wrote to Lady Burne-Jones, 'that I have joined the only society that I could find is definitely socialistic.'
A few months later he wrote her: 'I am sure it is right, whatever the apparent consequences may be, to stir up the lower class (damn the word) to demand a higher standard of life for themselves, not merely for the sake of themselves and the material comfort it will bring, but for the good of the whole world and the regeneration of the conscience of man; and this stirring up is part of the necessary education which must in good truth go before the reconstruction of society. For I repeat that without laying before the people this reconstruction, our education will but breed tryants and cowards, big, little and least, down to the smallest who can screw out money from standing by to see another man working for him. The one thing I want you to be clear about is that I cannot help acting in this matter and associating myself with anybody who has the root of the matter.'
The Federation was then a small organisation consisting only of a few dozen affiliated branches or clubs, the majority of them in London, and each with a score or two of members. Shortly after joining it Morris was induced, very reluctantly, to become treasurer of the Party, an office which, besides compelling him to bother with keeping accounts, a thing he detested, also entailed a constant drain upon his own purse, as the outlayings always exceeded the intakings of the treasury.
Small in membership and still young in years as the Federation was, it had already by the time I am speaking of become afflicted with the disease of internal dissension. ​This strife reached a climax in December 1884, when Morris and the majority of the London Executive seceded from the Federation and formed the Socialist League.
The cause of this split need only be briefly recorded. It arose, as happens in most such cases, partly from a dispute over political matters and partly from a quarrel of a personal nature. The chief political ground of contention was the question of parliamentary policy. Contrary to the views of Morris and his friends, Hyndman, Champion, Burns, and others on the Executive were resolved to make palliative measures and electioneering objects of the Party. In particular they had decided to approve two 'wild cat' candidatures for London parliamentary seats at the then impending General Election—that of Jack Williams for Hampstead and Fielding for Kennington, who polled the ridiculously small votes of 27 and 32 respectively. John Burns, whose candidature at Nottingham was well organised, polled 598 votes out of a total poll of 11,034.
Morris and his side opposed the Hyndman-Champion policy mainly on two grounds: (1) that parliamentary action, so long at any rate as the movement was in merely a propaganda stage, was contrary to Socialist revolutionary principles, and was besides wholly inopportune while as yet the people had hardly the least notion of what Socialism meant; and (2) because the money for running the Williams and Fielding candidatures was obtained from the Tory Party—a fact which Hyndman and Champion not only admitted but approved.
But to these political considerations, which were the ostensible grounds of the dispute, there was added a bitter personal feud between Hyndman and Scheu, both leading members of the Party. Regarding the circumstances of this personal squabble I know nothing and have never desired to know. Mr. Hyndman in his 'Record of an Adventurous Life' declares that this personal feud, the blame of which he casts wholly on his opponent, was really the chief cause of all the trouble. But that I feel sure is ​quite an erroneous view. The question of parliamentary policy was then as now one of vital importance in the Socialist movement, not only in this country but in all countries; and it is almost inconceivable that, soon or late, the conflict of opinion on the subject would not have divided the movement into two or more camps.
Besides, we can be quite certain that, as far as Morris at any rate is concerned, he could not have been a party to any attempt to promote the Socialist cause by means of political intrigue or irresponsible electioneering adventures. The acceptance of Tory money roused his utmost indignation. So much did he abhor dodges of that kind that he never spoke of the matter calmly, and in an article in the Labour Prophet, January 1894, in which he expressed the hope that a great political Socialist Party might be formed, he closed with the warning: 'One last word of caution. Especial care should be taken by Socialists engaged in politics to avoid even the shadow of a suspicion of an alliance with declared and ticketed reactionists. No one will offer us Liberal money; let it be a deadly affront to be accused of taking Tory money.'
In one of the last conversations I had with him he told me that not only had the 'Tory gold' affair of the Social Democratic Federation scared him against parliamentarianism, but that the allegation that Keir Hardie had accepted Tory money at the Mid-Lanark election in 1888 had deeply, and much to his regret, prejudiced him against Hardie for many years.
The Socialist League was formally inaugurated at a little gathering held in London on December 30, 1884, and immediately issued a manifesto setting forth its principles as a revolutionary Socialist body signed by twenty-three supporters. Among the names were Morris, Belfort Bax, E.T. Craig, C.J. Faulkner, Frank Kitz, Joe Lane, Edward Aveling, Eleanor Marx, Frederick Lessner, W. Bridges Adams, Robert Banner, Tom Maguire (Leeds), James Mavor (Glasgow), and Andreas Scheu (Edinburgh). ​Morris was appointed Treasurer and Editor of the new organ of the League, the Commonweal, with Dr. Edward Aveling as sub-editor, and J.L. Mahon was appointed Secretary. Headquarters and printing premises were opened at 27 Farringdon Street, and the first monthly issue of the Commonweal, which appeared in February 1885, contained Morris' song, 'The March of the Workers,' and the manifesto of the League.
The manifesto was mainly devoted to an exposition of the economic and moral principles of Socialism, or rather of Communism. No stress was laid upon anti-parliamentary methods. Mere 'State Socialism,' whose 'aim would be to leave the present system of capital and wages still in operation,' is repudiated, as are also 'merely administrative changes, until the workers are in possession of all political power.' The Socialist League, it declared, therefore aimed at 'the realisation of complete revolutionary Socialism, and well knows that this can never happen in any country without the help of the workers of all civilisation. For us neither geographical boundaries, political history, race nor creed makes rivals or enemies; for us there are no nations, but only varied masses of workers and friends, whose mutual sympathies are checked or perverted by groups of masters or fleecers whose interests are to stir up rivalries between the dwellers in distant lands.'
The manifesto indeed was such as any Socialist believing in parliamentary action directed towards 'complete revolutionary Socialism' might sign without reservation. In fact most of the signatories were avowedly parliamentarians. It was not until the friction between the Federation and the League had greatly sharpened their differences on the subject of political policy that Morris and the League members generally became definitely hostile to parliamentary methods of advancing the Socialist cause. And this hostility to parliamentary action, as we shall see later on, only lasted, as far as Morris and most of the original members of the League are concerned, for a period of a few years.
​As soon as the Socialist League was formed in London a number of the provincial branches of the Federation, wholly or in part, left the Federation and joined. In Glasgow about one-half of us belonging to the Federation seceded and formed the Glasgow branch of the League early in January 1885. The Scottish Land and Labour League founded in Edinburgh, or the Scottish section of the Federation, by Andreas Scheu, also seceded from the Federation, and affiliated itself with the League.
Such in brief was the history and position of the modern Socialist movement in this country at the period when these recollections of William Morris begin.
The Socialist League, short-lived as its career was, was nevertheless an important factor in the making of the British Socialist movement and in shaping its character. The influence of its early teaching, its high idealism, its communistic aim, its conception of fellowship as the basic principle of Socialism, and its emphasis on, not merely the political and economic claims of Labour, but the necessity of art and pleasure in work as a means of joy in life—these ideas, which were the staple of Morris' teaching, and infused by the League into the early movement, have remained germinal in its propaganda, and have helped to give British Socialism its distinctive character.