into bad odour with some of our fiercer friends, I think principally because it tacitly and instinctively tries to keep up the first idea of the League, the making of genuine convinced Socialists without reference to passing exigencies of tactics, whether they take the form of attacking (and running away from) the police in the streets or running a candidate for the school board. I find that living in this element is getting work rather too heavy for me. It is lamentable that Socialists will make things hard for their comrades. All this I ask you to keep strictly private and confidential, i.e. not to talk to others about it, as I don't want to discourage young members: but you are I think old enough in the movement to have discounted a good deal of it, and therefore will not be discouraged. All this after all is but one corner of the movement, which really taken as a whole and looked at from some way off is going on swimmingly. Leatham wrote to me (not on a card) in much the same tone; I am very glad he is so young and happy. I shall be glad of your articles in any case. I have an idea that the weekly might be resuscitated if we are careful, even if we drop it now. I shall be glad to hear from you. Good luck all round.
January 21st, 1889.
My dear Glasier,—Your article seems all right, only 'tis so abominably cacographical that I find it very difficult to read: also I think we had better have more of it before we begin to print.[1] Thanks for your explanation about the testimonial, though of course I did not want any explanation.[2] Now—I am coming to Glasgow it seems to give two lectures on Art, and I had better give a Sunday one
- ↑ The article was never published. It was a long criticism of Belfort Bax's Ethics of the Family, etc.
- ↑ In consideration of the fact that I had been for a long time out of employment, the Glasgow branch of which I was secretary raised a 'testimonial' for me which I accepted, but handed over to the funds of the branch.
