April 18th, 1888.
My dear Glasier,—You will see that a comrade rather attacks your last production as frivolous; it however (not to make you vain) did something to sell the paper.[1] At Victoria Park the Weal was going very slow, and then one speaker began to quote from you and straightway Weal began to flow. So don't mind Catterson Smith, but send another.
I am just going to begin printing a new book, not Socialistic except by inference: I will send you a copy when it comes out, though there is nothing about Wallace Wight in it.
P.S.—I say, 3 quires seems but a little to sell in the commercial capital of Scotland.
May 19th, (1888).
My dear Glasier,—I quite agree with your views about the future of the League and the due position of a revolutionary party of principle as to its dealings with Parliament.
As to affairs at the Conference, I am of course most anxious to avoid a split, and so I believe is everyone, and I hope that some modus vivendi will be found. As to myself, you may be sure that I will not be pedantically stiff about non-essentials. At the same time there are certain convictions which I cannot give up, and in action there are certain courses which I cannot support. If you will re-read the Editorial of the first number of the weekly Commonweal, you will see my position stated exactly as I should state it now, and which was the position taken by all of us when the League was first formed. If the League reverses its views on these points it stultifies our action in
- ↑ The article in question was one on 'Why I don't like Clergymen.' A supposed humorous skit. The Comrade who objected to it was Catterson Smith, the well-known translator of Burne-Jones' drawings for the Kelmscott edition of Chaucer. He, Catterson Smith, and myself had an amusing discussion over the 'Ethics of Humour' afterwards. He was one of the most earnest and delightful of the Kelmscott House 'Brotherhood.'
