and duty, as you can only be on really very big matters, your life may be made wholly tasteless and intolerable both to you and your friends. And what is life worth then? In a word then, I tell you I am not an anarchist, and I had as lief join the White Rose Society, or the so-called "Liberty and Property Defence League," as join an anarchist organisation.'
When delivering this exposition of his views on anarchism Morris walked about the floor, and spoke as in the heat of debate. It was a subject which, as has already been said, caused him no end of bother at that period, as there was already growing up in the League a strong anarchist faction—a faction which eventually succeeded, in fact, in driving Morris from the editorship of the Commonweal, and splitting and destroying the Socialist League.
The multitude of the topics dealt with by him in his replies was, I have said, remarkable. Some idea of their range and variety may be gathered from the following synopsis which I noted at the time:—Did he believe in 'Scientific' as opposed to 'Utopian' Socialism? Did he accept the Marxist or the Jevonian theory of value? What was the real point of difference between him and Mr. Hyndman? and were they still personal friends? Did he regard the Fabians as being genuine Socialists? Did he not think that the Socialist agitation would strengthen reaction, by detaching working men from the Liberal Party and frightening middle-class people into the Tory ranks? Was it consistent for Socialists to ally themselves, as they virtually were doing, with the Irish Party, seeing the latter sought to establish Peasant Proprietorship, which would make Land Nationalisation more difficult? Did he not think the Henry George Single Tax proposal an adequate solution of the economic problem? Did he think Trade Unionism was a help towards Socialism? Was it consistent for Socialists to be capitalists? Why did he not consider St. Paul's Cathedral beautiful? Was it true that he pre-
