The Labor enquirer., 1885-01-31

LONDON, January 8.
A serious disruption has taken place
In the Social Democratic Federation.
For many months past there have been
two conflicting parties in the Executive
Council, and at last thingshave come to
an ISSUE On Saturday. December "a,
1884, the council resumed the discus
sion, adjourned from previous sitting,
on a motion proposed BY William Nor
ris that, "This council bSs:snll confidence
in Andreas Scheu; that r z a dsss dst DO
lieve the charges made against him by
H. NJ Hyndman, and that, therefore, it
has no confidence in H. NJ. Hyndman." ."
After two nights, or about six hours dis
cusslon, this motion was carried by ten
votes to eight. There are nineteen
votes on the council, being one vacancy.
Those who voted for the motion were ;
William Morris, Edward Aveling, Robert
Banner, Joseph Lane, Eleanor Ave-
ling, Z. Belfort BaX, John L. Mahon,
S. Nainwaring, w. ]. Clark and j.
Cooper,
Those who voted against the motion
were: John Burns Herbert Burrows, H.
H. Champion, R. P B. Frost, Annie
Hicks, j. f. Murray, H. Quelch, J. E.
Williams.
Mr.. Hyndman abstained from voting
the chairman of the meeting was allowed
to vote and voted for Hyndman. AS
soon as the votes were counted William
Morris arose and read this statement:
"Since discord has arisen in this coun-
ell, owing to the attempt to substitute
arbitrary rule for fraternal cooperation,
contrary to the principle of Socialism,
and since it seems to us impossible to
heal this dlscOrd, we, the undersigned,
think it better in the interests Of the
cause of Socialism to cease to belong to
this council, and accordingly hand in
our resignation" Then'foIlOws the ten
names given above as having voted for
the motion.
After having hadded in this paper we
withdrew. see from "JuStce' of Jan
uary 3, that meeting of the remnant
Of the council was held on December 30,
and a resolution adopted which fatly
denied the charge, declared such
charge to be "frivoIous," because made
by a majority against a minority, and
that we bad failed to fulfill
our duty to those WHO Rejected the coun-
ell, by leaving it in the hands of mi
nority.
/ suppose this piece of news will be a
surprise to our comrades in America or
that it may even have a disheartening
effect upon them to find that, when they
that we in Britain had been
working together in solid body with fra
tprnal trust in each other, after all have
not been proof against the old, old dis
ease of mutual distru8t and interncUne
All will say at this point
about such feeling is that the mere
fact, looked at by itself, may seem dis
cOuraging that it may look as if at the
best tine progress of the cause had been
injured by such spit but there is
wider view of the question to be taken.
will try to put this view before you
and perhaps you, like myself, may be
encouraged and your hopes frightened; !;
for | really feel that this split in our
party, when looked al in the right way,
indicates an immense advance that
a few years, perhaps few months
will prove that the revolution in the So
ciaIist party may be decided gain to
the Revolution in society of which So
ciaIists everywhere are the exponents
and champions.
Perhaps our enemies will be jubilant
to see an internal quarrel among the
men who preach the ideas of universal
peace and cooperation but we need
not mind our enemies. We generally
despise theih, or at best pity them on
this occasion we will disregard them.
The Social Democratic Federation
was a paradoxicaI body, Founded by
politicians, with political programme,
with no stated principles whatever,
working unsuccessfully as a political
party and suddenly blazing forth a de-
nunriation Of capitalism, with a series
of political reforms and social stepping
stones. The grow tn was too sudden to
be real it has proved to be an abortion.
II. NJ. Hvndman was one Of the first
prominent men in the Democratic Fed
Grafton. He had in 1880, only four and
a-half years ago, issued an address to a
London constituency and was desirOus
of standing as a parliamentary Candi-
date but from the reception accorded
to his address thought it better not to
test the opinions of the electors at the
ballot box. 1t is nothing against man
that a constituency declines to have him
for its mouthpiece in parliament. But
it is something against him, from So
cialist standpoint. that he ever asked
them. Hyndman was not rejected be-
caus he was Socialist, for at that time
he did not even pretend to be so; nor
because he was literal, for no one al
leges that he was so; nor because be
was a conservative, for that he denies
but because he was a jingo and at that
time the Gladstone fever was at its
81 Il ~ IL