Page:William-morris-and-the-early-days-of-the-socialist-movement.djvu/37

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
14
WILLIAM MORRIS

This strife reached a climax in December 1884, when Morris and the majority of the London Executive seceded from the Federation and formed the Socialist League.

The cause of this split need only be briefly recorded. It arose, as happens in most such cases, partly from a dispute over political matters and partly from a quarrel of a personal nature. The chief political ground of contention was the question of parliamentary policy. Contrary to the views of Morris and his friends, Hyndman, Champion, Burns, and others on the Executive were resolved to make palliative measures and electioneering objects of the Party. In particular they had decided to approve two 'wild cat' candidatures for London parliamentary seats at the then impending General Election—that of Jack Williams for Hampstead and Fielding for Kennington, who polled the ridiculously small votes of 27 and 32 respectively. John Burns, whose candidature at Nottingham was well organised, polled 598 votes out of a total poll of 11,034.

Morris and his side opposed the Hyndman-Champion policy mainly on two grounds: (1) that parliamentary action, so long at any rate as the movement was in merely a propaganda stage, was contrary to Socialist revolutionary principles, and was besides wholly inopportune while as yet the people had hardly the least notion of what Socialism meant; and (2) because the money for running the Williams and Fielding candidatures was obtained from the Tory Party—a fact which Hyndman and Champion not only admitted but approved.

But to these political considerations, which were the ostensible grounds of the dispute, there was added a bitter personal feud between Hyndman and Scheu, both leading members of the Party. Regarding the circumstances of this personal squabble I know nothing and have never desired to know. Mr. Hyndman in his 'Record of an Adventurous Life' declares that this personal feud, the blame of which he casts wholly on his opponent, was really the chief cause of all the trouble. But that I feel sure is