between the League principles and Anarchism, just as on the other hand many Fabians found no obstacle to their supporting Liberalism in opposition to Labour. Even Morris himself, clear as he was in his own mind as to the fundamental distinction and opposition of the two philosophies, could not always in precept or in practice separate them. Especially was this the case when dealing with his immediate associates at the headquarters of the League, some of whom he personally liked though disapproving their autonomist views and inflammatory utterances. The consequence was that already at the headquarters, as well as in some of the branches, Anarchistic ways of a disquieting nature were beginning to establish themselves.
The Anarchistic emphasis on no rules, no censorship, no 'bourgeois' morality, was, in fact, beginning to sap the stamina of certain of the branches and clubs; and a tendency was noticeable, not only of a lapsing from Socialist principles, but from moral standards. An affected bravado of 'do as you please and damn public opinion' was accepted as a substitute for any declaration or witness of Socialist conviction; and the specious catchword 'propaganda by deed,' which was beginning to allure some of the more earnest members from the drudgery of holding public meetings into dalliance with revolutionary heroics, was not always interpreted in a political sense. The Autonomie Club, becoming bolder and bolder, were about to issue a few years later (1894) leaflets entitled 'Vive le Vol' ('Long live Theft'), and even to justify theft not only on the part of the poor from the rich, but by comrades from comrades.
It was the apprehension aroused by these personal bizarre extravagances, more than their mere political intransigence, that vexed and repelled Morris. Strongly opposed as he was to the diversion of Socialist propaganda from its real object, 'the making of Socialists,' into attempts to excite insurrections that would only lead to fruitless blood-
