Source: The Paisely Daily Express,
9th April 1887, page 3
Note: This is a delivery of the
lecture Socialism: the End and the Means
Transcription: by Graham Seaman for MIA, January 2023
Last night Mr Wm. Morris delivered a lecture on "Socialism" in the Good Templar Hall. Provost Cochran presided, and he was supported on the platform by Mr. R. F. Muirhead. M.A., Mr Archd. McLaren, M.A., Mr Robertson, Mr J. Bruce (glazier) [sic, MIA], and Mr. Jas. Mavor.
The Chairman, in introducing the lecturer, said he had pleasure in introducing one of the most gifted sons of England, who was to lecture on the question of Socialism. Socialism was a pleasant term—to be social to one another. But there was something hanging about it that people thought was of an unpleasant character; something identified with the interference of land and property. He believed Socialism was to do good to their fellow men. He did not know much about the principles of socialism, but he knew something of another subject, and that was the land; the land, he held, ought to belong to the people (Hear, hear, and applause). He believed the time was not far distant when this would be so. With the people thoroughly educated and their principles propagated, this would be carried into effect. Our country was abounding in wealth, but notwithstanding being so plentiful there was a large proportion of the population in pauperism. We had more than a million paupers in the United Kingdom, and another million bordering on pauperism, and the working classes as a whole lived just from hand to mouth—taking all that they earned to keep their wives and families in existence. This was a melancholy state of things. The great question of the labouring classes was that of bettering mankind, and they had to consider how they could best make the wealth accumulated through the labour of the working classes available for the working men in this country. (Applause)
Mr Morris in the course of his lecture said that socialists had to consider what they were to do with the wealth which they as a civilised people produced in such huge quantities—they could not help producing it—should they waste it or use it? Why did they waste the wealth now? The answer, broadly speaking, was a simple one: it was because we were cowards and therefore unjust. The wealth was made by all, and therefore should be used for the benefit of ail (Applause) One man could not be said to make a thing; that table before them was the result of ages of thought and skill, else it would not exist. Society had made it. According to Ruskin property was something which was good in itself, something which one had acquired justly, and which one could use rightly. That might be accepted as the Communist view of property. One must have worked to have acquired things justly, and if one has not then he has behaved unjustly to the rest of the: community by thrusting his share of work on them. The view of property in our present system was something which one could prevent other people from using—that was to say, it was a monopoly. A man owned 100 acres of land, and though he did not require more than a small corner of it, yet since he had got it, he would prevent others from using it, and therefore he abused it, and the State supported him in his denial of its use to others by providing policemen and soldiers to even kill the people who might try to take it. The monopolising and possessing class made it their business to live without producing, and the reward for a man being industrious and working hard was that he should bring up his children to be burdens on the State. When a thief injured a fellow man by stealing his week's earnings from his pocket while be was going home to his wife and family they felt that he should be punished, and he was put in prison, but for this same proceeding men were much respected when they acquired large fortunes—(hear hear)—they were very much more respected than other who had risen through industry. The worker did not get the use of the very things he has made, and as he was of a numerous class, it meant that our system in the long run produced more than it could consume. The producer should also be a consumer, or else there must be waste. (Applause.) The end of Socialism was to bring society to to basis of common honesty in the ordinary daily transactions of life. In the present social system a man could only thrive at his neighbour's expanse. If there were tigers there must be tigers' meat. Our present society might tumble to pieces before Socialism had had time to realise itself. In that case there would be terrible times for the well-to-do because those who have nothing to look for will be cast against the dead wall of society, and overturn it. Therefore, it was the duty of all to look into Socialism, and see what there was in it. He held for his part that Socialists were the great insurance company to prevent well-to-do, rich, and refined men from having their throat cut suddenly. (Applause.)
The following resolution was proposed by Mr Glasier, seconded by Mr Robertson, and unanimously agreed to:-
That this meeting believes that onr present social system, based on competition and private monopoly, is inherently vicious, and is hastening towards inevitable dissolution, and that true society, securing equal rights and opportunities to all its members, can be realised only through common possession and common use of the land and of all the means of production and distribution.
Votes of thanks to the chairman and the lecturer brought the meeting to an end.