ON Sunday evening, 17th inst., was held the final meeting—in Kelmscott House—of the Hammersmith Socialist Society. "Kelmscott", as all the world knows, is the transformed coach-house attached to the house by the river at Hammersmith which was for so many years the residence of William Morris. Mrs. Morris and her daughters are now travelling in Egypt, and we understand that the Hammersmith property is to be sold. This will necessitate the ending of the lectures held for so many years in the little "meetinghouse," henceforth famous and immortalised by our comrade's description of it in his delightful "News from Nowhere."
Mr. Carruthers, an old friend of Morris and one of the founders of the society, occupied the chair, and briefly explained that that being the last meeting of the society in Kelmscott House, the committee had deemed it well to invite a number of speakers representative of all sections of the Socialist movement. He suggested that it would be fitting for the occasion if the speakers would devote part of their remarks to the subject on which their departed comrade had been deeply interested in and anxious for—a united Socialist Party.
Herbert Burrows expressed his pain and sorrow that that was to be the last meeting in that room of the long series held there under the fostering care of their great and greatly loved comrade, William Morris. In his (Burrows') opinion a united Socialist Party, in the sense of getting all Socialists in England in one society, called by one name, was an absolute impossibility for years to come. Not much could be accomplished by guerilla warfare, even in Socialism, and he was strongly in favour of one organisation only, yet
THEY MUST RECOGNISE THAT INDIVIDUALITY
was, after all, the body and soul of human nature, and it was really their extreme individuality which compelled them to become Socialists. (Hear, hear.) It followed that although they might all agree on fundamental principles the methods, tactics, and details they favoured must differ according to their individual idiosyncracies and views. The S.D.F. bad been reproached, for instance, with looking too exclusively at the material things of humdrum life, and it was natural and inevitable that those who were of a broadly religious temperament should desire an organisation in which the higher or spiritual view of Socialism should be worked out. Although still a member of the S.D.F., and devoting much attention to the materialistic side of the movenent, he was largely in sympathy with that higher outlook. The best thing to do was for each society to work out its own line of thought and action. and not quarrel with those who differed from them. (Hear, hear.) Whenever a great Socialistic question came before the country a conference should be called of the more prominent workers of every organisation—a series of round-table conferences, at which they should lay their ideas before each other, and agree on some common ground of action. if they failed to agree, the reasons of the failure should be frankly and publicly announced. (Cheers.) Let them take the unemployed question, for instance, and face the fact that the state of feeling in the Socialist Party in regard to it was chaotic. When the Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry was formed,
NO SOCIALIST ORGANISATION DEALT WITH IT IN THE RIGHT WAY
In his opinion they ought to have called together representatives of the. S.D.F., I.L.P., Fabian, and any other definitely Socialist organisation, and endeavoured to agree on some definite line of action to be taken before the Parliamentary Committee. They should have published in the Socialist papers the reasons which led them to form certain conclusions and proposals. They might have commissioned a spokesman—Keir Hardie at the time—to speak in their name, and put their proposals before the house of Commons. They might have called meetings throughout the country, and put the Socialist proposals before the people. If carried, they could have asked the members for each constituency which had endorsed them to press the proposals in Parliament. If he refused, then their duty would be to make it hot for him at the next election. (Cheers) That was a sample of what might he done by united action, and it did not mean the merging of the different societies into one—each would be left free to follow their own methods and details on minor questions; In the sense he had laid down be saw a chance for a united Socialist Party, if each section would leave off hitting heads and take more to shaking hands, and they might so pave the way for international unities (Cheers.) The idea that Morris's Socialism was a sort of flash-in-the-pan sentiment, founded only on
THE HATRED OF UGLINESS AND LOVE OF BEAUTY
was absolutely false. All who knew him knew he was profoundly convinced that so long as private ownership in the means of life obtained a true material, intellectual, and moral human life for the mass of the people was impossible. Yet he could not conceive William Morris sitting down satisfied with the mere alteration of material and physical conditions. He grasped that the main thing to be done was to give opportunities for character to grow. It was the building up of character. The true worth and value of human life lay in the fact that every man, woman, and child was an improvable being; that there existed in the world certain artificial conditions that hindered, crushed, and degraded human life; that it was the duty of society to change those conditions, in order that the highest possibilities of human life might have free play and develop—that made Morris's Socialism that of the true Social Democrat, and the Hammersmith Socialist Society would best perpetuate his memory by carrying on its work on those lines. (Cheers.)
Pete Curran said he could fairly claim to represent, not only the I.L.P., but a large portion of the trade-union movement. He had often listened to big demonstrations of dockers singing,
"What is this the sound and rumour?"
and as often heard a gasworker, after doing his eight-hours' shift, stand up among his mates and recite,
"Come hither, lads, and listen."
The popularity of that song and that poem with the uncouth docker and rough gasworker proved what he wanted to tell them—that William Morris was loved,admired, and revered by the common people as much or more than he was esteemed in the artistic, literary, or any other class of society. He (Curran) had had active connection with the S.D.F. for years, and close and official connection with the I.L.P. ever since its birth. At every conference of the latter body he had done his utmost in urging the desirability of one Socialist Party. He believed it would come about in the ordinary course of evolution as a growth—they could not force it.
HE SOMETIMES WISHED AN ANTISOCIALIST LAW
in this country; then they would not have time to quarrel with one another. (Laughter.) Coercion made the Irish movement. But the Government was wily. Instead of an anti-Socialist law they gave them an occasional smell from the political chloroform bottle. As a matter of fact there was hardly any difference among the rank and file of the two organisation. In the provinces he spoke on the platforms of the I.L.P. and the S.D.F., and they were practically the same people. When the rank and file of all sections of the movement clearly grasped their power and duty no one need fear that any individual would be allowed to stand in the way of amalgamation. He was not a sectarian socialist—he recognised only two opposing classes—Socialists and anti-Socialists. The latter he considered as avowed opponents and the former as comrades in the cause of the emancipation of Labour. (Cheers.)
Robert Blatchford ("Numquam") thought they were engaged in a ridiculous and very undemocratic performance. He did not approve of putting men on a platform separated from the rest of the gathering to make speeches. To have a lot of men sat there all in a row as Superior Persons, and then for them to protest against “leaders” was absurd. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He would like to see one Socialist Party. If they thought more about Democracy and less about Socialism, they would have it. Nearly all causes—good or bad—were wrecked by leaders. They did not want leaders—nor platforms. They would not get one Socialist Party by talking about it. It would come when they were driven into it by the recognition that they could not win the battle without it. (Cheers.) Before long there would be a severe tussle between the forces of progress and reaction—then they would discover that the reactionary forces were a great deal too strong for them.
THE TORY PARTY HAD ONE GOOD IDEA.
—they were always united—and they were not afraid to pay for their politics, they were always ready to buy other parties out, they would even buy all their newspapers. (Laughter.) If they had any clever men qualified for leaders let them hang them at once—he did not say that as a joke. He was tired of leaders; they all talked too much and did too little. He was tired of hearing speeches and writing articles. (Cheers and laughter.)
Walter Crane said be had always been strongly in favour of one Socialist Party, and for that reason he had joined every section of it. He was convinced it could not be achieved by forcing. They could already see signs of the begining of the crumbling of the walls of capitalism by the forces of economic necessity. (Hear,hear.) That was a memorable occasion. They could not help reverting to other days when their comrade, William Morris, occupied the chair, and the memory of those days and that room was crystallised for ever in the pages of “News from Nowhere.” As long as they had the feeling of unity in their hearts they need not trouble much about nominal formal unity. (Cheers.)
Andreas Scheu said his presence on that platform did not mean that he considered himself a superior person. Some leaders no doubt had done great mischief, but he thought Blatchford went too far in saying all leaders and platforms should be abolished. He (Scheu) would agree that a lot of journalists ought to be hanged. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Morris, he (the speaker), and others left the S.D.F. and started the Socialist League, partly by personal considerations forced upon them, but chiefly owing to a desire to have a party without politics and without leaders, both of which Morris hated and abhorred. They started the League, worked in it, and to-day they must admit it had been a failure—otherwise it would still be in existence. It was an honest attempt to do the right thing, but it could not be carried on. Morris admitted to him (Scheu) that to attempt to have a movement without leaders was to fail. It might be there were other mischief-makers than speechmakers in the movement. The movement had grown to what it was by speechmaking. It was not so much leaders as officials and organisations that were against unity.
OFFICIALISM WAS THEIR CHIEF ENEMY
There should be a Socialist Party in which there would be room for all sections of the Labour Church. It should be of a catholicity that would embrace all. The best thing they could do for the memory of William Morris was to strive for that.
Edward Bernstein, speaking on behalf of German comrades, said Morris was well known in Germany by his writings and greatly appreciated. His memory would live there, as here. (Cheers.) He (Bernstein) had for twenty-five years been a member of the united Socialist Party of Germany. Previous to that they had four parties in Germany. He would not say that all that had happened in Germany should happen here; still, all reason went for a united party. It was foolish and misleading to talk against leaders. Even the Anarchist movement had their leaders. If they spoke to a rank-and-file Anarchist he would begin to tell them about what Kropotkin or Reclus said. He agreed that journalists were dangerous. He had seen things done even by Socialist journalists in this and other countries worse than anything leaders could commit. If they had a party well organised they could control leaders better than they could the rank and file. When the German Socialists became strong enough to act together and get representatives in Parliament, the latter had to act together, and so, in order to get practical results, the sections had to come together also. Since the abolition of the anti-Socialist law in Germany they had unity of action and diversity of opinion.
Mrs. Schack, on behalf of the Anarchists. denied that they had or ever would have leaders. They believed only in the people and by the people. Where they found truth they took it, whether it came from a Kropotkin or a Beaconsfield. (Cheers.)
George Bernard Shaw (the Fabian Society) doubted whether any lecturer had occupied that platform more than he. Whenever he had changed his mind he had come to disburden himself to the H.S.S. So he was cut off from the artful idea of Blatchford, who had thought to himself : "With all these clever fellows on the platform what must I do to make a success? I will denounce platforms and leaders. Then I—as The Clarion—will be looking after one particular person." (Laughter.) He (Shaw) emphatically believed in leadership. If the Socialist Party would make him leader it would get on very much better. (Laughter.) Much that had been said about the necessity of a united Socialist Party was puzzling to him. They had not greater disunion amongst them than belonged to society in general. A friend had told him that no good would be done until they chucked out Hyndman, Burns, and Shaw. That was not a bad idea—(laughter)—but how would they be able to muzzle them? If they put out Hyndman they would have a new S.D.F. in a week, and if they put him (Shaw) out they would have a new Fabian Society directly. (Laughter.) They hare to put up with them. (Laughter. ) After all,
WERE THE QUARRELS VERY TERRIBLE?
Speaking for the Fabian, the sort of thing there was something like what follows: They would receive a letter:
"Dear Comrade.—Our branch of the S.D.F. (or I.L.P.) is going ahead magnificently. We have absorbed all the local Fabians. Will you kindly send us down a Fabian Book Box. also complete information in regard to what we must do on the Parish Council, also how to get our man in?" Or the letter would state: We are holding a series of meetings. and would like to have Bland, Webb, or Shaw. Yours fraternally, "JOHN SMITH."
That was called the wipe-out of Fabianism! Still, they always sent the books, information, and speaker, just as if Fabianism were not wiped out! Everybody knew that it was impossible for the same room to hold Hyndman and himself (Shaw), yet when the former contested Burnley the local S.D.F. secretary wrote asking him (Shaw) to go down and support him. He replied that if be did it would be on the extreme Fabian platform. Strange to say, the reply came, “You had better come.” (Laughter.) So also he went down to East Bradford and endeavoured to persuade the electors that the only reasonable thing for them to do was to vote for Keir Hardie. He saw the editor of The Bradford Observer, who expressed his high appreciation of Hardie. Very well, then, would he allow him (Shaw) to write a letter in his paper giving reasons why all sensible electors should vote for Hardie. He did so, no doubt with most excellent results. (Laughter.) What could be have done more if he had been a member of the I.L.P.? (Cheers.) With regard to the purely formal idea of unity,
HE HAD "BEEN THERE.”
(Laughter.) It was far better, instead of making an attempt at amalgamation, to try something in the line of federation. (Hear, hear.) There was a desire now, whenever an emergency arose, for joint action. To force a more formal tie would destroy the understanding. The last attempt at formal unity did no good, and had far better not have been tried. He (Shaw) did not agree that they were all agreed on principle but not on tactics. The reverse was the fact. There was practically no difference between the I.L.P. and S.D.F. tactics—they both ran candidates in the same way, and it was difficult to choose between them; even the Fabians had to support those tactics from pressure of circumstances. But on principle they did not agree. When they had the principle broad enough for all Socialists, they would have got something on which the whole human race would unite. The Fabians believed that in one sense Socialism was a much narrower thing than was generally believed. They believed that a small body of Socialists would have to go on fighting, and make up their minds that Socialism would never be carried out by themselves. There would be glory and money involved. The minister who carried it would be famous and popular. But it would be carried out bit by bit. Socialism must be handed over to the politicians bit by bit. So, on principle, it was not likely the S.D.F. and Fabian could work together, but they could work together federally. The fact was, if they could draw a line of cleavage between the Socialists and non-Socialists, and found it exactly coincided with the line of those who call themselves Socialists and believe in organisation and those who do not, something might be said for it. If they got the I.L.P., S.D.F., and Fabian Societies joined together, and said, ″That is English Socialism,” they would very much understate English Socialism. Why not join all societies together? Why not join all Socialist newspapers together-The Labour Leader, The Clarion, Justice and others? Why not extract all the Socialism in every paper into one? It was not desirable.
THE MORE DIVISION OF THAT KIND THEY HAD THE BETTER.
And as he did not believe in the united Socialist newspaper, neither did he believe in the united Socialist Party. The attempt to force union would be an obstacle to progress. About William Morris, let them not make a mistake. He was not dead, and would not be for centuries. He (Shaw) did not feel even that he had been taken from him. If they imagined they know Morris because they had seen and conversed with him never so often, they were much mistaken. If they would take the trouble to read his works they would find as they went on and gained greater experience of life and art that they did not know Morris when he was alive. (Cheers.) They as Socialists had no exclusive property in Morris—he belonged to the whole world. (Cheers) The doctrine he put forward did not belong exclusively to Socialism—it was wider than they could grasp. He (Shaw) did not like the feeling of grief that had been expressed at the loss of Morris, as if he were like another comrade who had gone and left nothing but memories behind. He could not feel even sorry about him. Elation and happiness were the only impressions he had whenever he thought of him. It he ever had any other feeling he would begin to fear that he was getting disloyal to his memory. (Cheers.)
Good-bye to Kelmscott House!
Anonymous
Labour Leader, 30th January 1897 p. 6
Graham Seaman, September 2020.