SOCIALISM IM ENGLAMD. 31I
previously the best known, belong to a society called the “ Social
Democratic Federation.”
This society was originally formed in 1881, under the name
of the “Democratic Federation.” It appears to have been
suggested by the success of the Irish Land League, and originally
it acted mainly in concert with that body. It was not until
1883 that the Federation declared itself openly a Socialist body,
and issued its manifesto in the form of a pamphlet entitled
“ Socialism made Plain.” The Federation carries on an active
propaganda by means of pamphlets, lectures, public meetings
in the parks and elsewhere, and conducts a weekly newspaper
called Justice, and a monthly magazine called To-day. I
have no means of estimating the number of its members. In
answer to an inquiry on the subject, Mr. C. Fitzgerald, assistant
secretary, writes to me (3rd of Sept, 1884) as follows
‘ We have at the present moment twenty-one branches ; six new ones
forming, and there are in addition over twenty pioneer classes, as we call
them, composed of young men who are studying Socialism for the purpose
of forming the nuclei of future branches in their localities. Since October,
1883, our progress has been remarkable. It is not possible to give any
approximate estimate of our numbers, for the reason that thousands who
would join us are kept back by the fear of losing employment, as too many
have done already. ”
Mr. Hyndman, one of the most active members of the
Federation, has advocated its programme by voice and pen.
He recently engaged in a public debate with Mr. Bradlaugh on
the subject, “ Will Socialism benefit the English People ? ” in
which Mr. Bradlaugh, by contrast at least, appeared as the
champion of the rights of property.* Mr. Hyndman is the
called “Art and Socialism,” with much of which it is impossible not to
sympathize. He states his claim on behalf of labour thus :—“ It is right
and necessary that all men should have work to do which shall be worth
doing, and be of itself pleasant to do ; and which should be done under
such conditions as would make it neither over-wearisome nor over anxious.”
This is an ideal much to be desired, but is it likely to be realized by the
State-marshalled industrial armies which Mr. Morris and his friends wish to
enrol by universal conscription ? Mr. Morris says that we gave up Art three
centuries ago for what we thought was light and freedom, but that it has
turned out to be light and freedom for the few alone. Does he really think
that by surrendering such light and freedom as we possess we shall bring
about a new renaissance in Art ? The Socialist régime, whatever it may be,
>s certainly not calculated to encourage individuality.
* A verbatim report of this debate has been issued by the Freethought
