1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9430b80127c6293781407ff8cd2c6c07.pdf?Expires=1773878400&Signature=rqT6ji-lX8X9gtoTBfW-tCYr6COpCIU9QRrgtcCPo8kjca6p3CYhyWOLstOi6tBWtOqTjoKcDwG66Sg7bR2BzbGFxkZGB9HqxzcGRhp7SDvYjS7FFazkDqDR18FN9eU1S8BpPOXmvaOcg7eA-r8hkL%7Eig4OWrJnywIpA5kg3Kk5upa4CSVLw3zdLdaFTNGirJQMgfDYKmGQ5LUyn7NOthD6u5C0yIAue-DyZoKR6Yl2e0ohu2Ym1fOT%7E6b%7E9Nwp-6HyqN9XLD3fm4mH9uwRxrHGoP3FqXBIartf2VfHyqN0pG9PBjHu714G46dQectAg8jywM%7EudfHWEVGY8pStkAg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4ac589f2ac1a1207e00ef2a7742d92cb
PDF Text
Text
ON ITS
A REPLY TO PROFESSOR FLINT.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
EDINBURGH :
^rottxsl)
nnb Xabflxir jbRngue,
4 PARK STREET.
1 8 8 7.
�“Justice
is the freedom of those who are equal:
Injustice is the freedom of those mho are unequal.”
~Jacobi.
�SOCIALISM ON ITS DEFENCE
A REPLY TO PROFESSOR FLINT.
r-T^HE community is indebted to Professor Flint for
calling its attention to Socialism, and for this ser
vice Socialists must be specially grateful. We have
confidence in our position. The more our system is con
sidered, the wider will be its acceptation. The prelates
were recommended by a sagacious observer during the
Reformation to burn the martyrs in cellars, and the news
papers, in the exercise of a similar discretion, generally
exclude the utterances of Socialists from their columns.
We must, however, thank Professor Flint not only for
lecturing on the subject, but for the kind things he has
said with respect to us—-a fact we are apt to forget in the
midst of his misrepresentations. Socialism has hitherto
been received with ridicule and reviling by many ignorant
but important people among us, who will now, after the
assurance of an eminent theologian, believe there is some
thing in it. Dr Flint has at least confessed the importance
of the subject, and has therefore led many to its considera
tion. It does seem singular, however, that it should have
been left to the faculty of Divinity to undertake this work,
but the persistent indifference of the lecturer on Economics
is more than a sufficient excuse for entering on his pro
vince. He seems engrossed with the depreciation of silver,
�— 4 —
and only recognises the existence of Socialists to denounce
them, on the authority of imperfect statistics, for repeating
the conclusion of Fawcett and other orthodox economists,
that in relation to the increase of wealth the rich are grow
ing richer, and the poor, poorer. The statement may be
true or false, it matters little to Socialists, and has no
special bearing on their system. To the credit of Dr Flint,
economics is rather more to him than a question of the
currency. He does not seem to believe the condition of
the people is much aflectecl by the comparative value of
metals; and in this respect the disciple of the Master cer
tainly shows to better advantage than the nominee of the
merchants.
Even this, however, does not exhaust our reasons for
gratitude to the Professor. Socialism is a vague word
under which some shelter themselves with whose opinions
and methods few of us can sympathise. The system, like
every other, has its dangers, and it is well to face them : it
has also its false and foolish friends, and it is well to know
them. A good critic would at present be a true benefactor
to us, but, unfortunately, it is only in a very modified sense
we can apply this term to Dr Flint. We frankly admit a
real value in his lectures, but they are vitiated at the outset
from want of a proper definition, and rendered ineffective
throughout from want of sufficient discrimination. It may
seem daring to question the information of the learned
Professor, considering the reputation he deservedly enjoys
in all circles, but our imputation of ignorance is sufficiently
justified in his treatment of Socialism. With the origin
and history of the movement, up to within fifty years ago,
he shews a certain familiarity, but this sketch of it stands
in striking contrast to his superficial acquaintance with its
�— 5 —
modern revival. It would, however, be as reasonable for
one ignorant of the physiology of the last half-century to
undertake its instruction to the students of to-day, as it
is for one to speak of the Socialism of the present from a
study of its literature in the past. Mere reading indeed gives
one little insight in either case. Words half conceal as well as
half reveal the thoughts of men, and it is only after mixing
much with them you can be very confident about their
ideas. We not only suffer from misrepresentation, but, the
fact is, we hardly ever experience anything else. Much of
this is no doubt the result of ignorance more or less culp
able, but some of it is produced on purpose to discredit us.
Our sayings are perverted and our doings defamed. It is
difficult, therefore, for an outsider like Dr Flint to know
much about us with accuracy, but even he would have
known more if he had come to his subject with the sym
pathy of the critic instead of the partiality of the polemic.
There has in fact been rather much logic in his treatment
of Socialism, and this concession is not meant by way of
■compliment; for conclusions drawn rigorously from defec
tive premises are bound to be erroneous. We venture to
affirm, there is not a Socialist of any intelligence prepared
to accept the definition of it given by Dr. Flint, or willing
to admit any validity in the objections urged by him against
it. He may, of course, affect to despise the one, but he
cannot be indifferent to the other. No controversy can be
conducted to any satisfactory issue, unless the combatants
agree about the point in dispute. Argument otherwise is
a mere beating of the air. The Socialism of these lectures
however, is, in the opinion of Socialists, partly an anachron
ism and partly a figment; while the reasons of his opposi
tion to it resolve themselves into its interference with the
�— 6 —
liberty of the individual, and of its realisation by violence.
Now, we do not altogethei’ deny the applicability of this
criticism to certain forms of Socialism and its supporters,
but a definition must not confound a part with the whole.
It would really be much fairer to say that all Christians
believed in the Mass than to bring such objections against
Socialism ; for they not only do not belong to the essence of
the system, but, even as accidents, apply to a very limited
number of its advocates. As a matter of fact, there are
many Socialists averse to war in every shape and form, nor
could Dr. Flint find one disposed to prefer war to peace in
the realisation of his ideas. The worst one can say about
the most of them is, that they will not turn their cheek to the
smiter. Force will be met by force. The Socialists of Germany
for example were constitutional reformers till Bismarck
passed repressive measures against them; and Britain has
nothing to fear from violence on our part so long as her
military and police do not interfere with our rights of pub
lic meeting and political action. It is scarcely candid, more
over, to represent even the militant attitude of Socialism as
peculiar. History unfortunately shows the sword has been a
frequent and efficient instrument of enfranchisement. There
were circumstances when even Christ seemed to think it
would be the duty of His disciples to part with their gar
ments and buy one, and certainly much has been yielded to
violence that never was given to entreaty. It was the
battle-axe of the barons that compelled a craven king to
sign Magna Charta. The Commons of England could only
get its Petition of Rights by the Ironsides of Cromwell.
There were riots enough before even the middle classes
secured the Reform Bill of ’32. Nor are the powerful any
wiser to-day. Ireland has triumphed by dynamite as well
�7 —
as organisation, and the action of our politicians must be
held largely responsible for the spread among the people of
the deplorable conviction that petitions are mere paper
unless presented on pikes. The language of the most
sanguine Socialist indicates nothing worse than the belief
that history will in this respect repeat itself in connection
with his movement. Let us hope he may be mistaken, and
there is no reason in fact for the fulfilment of his prophecy.
The Government has only to treat Socialists with justice to
avert this calamity. Their scheme could be realised to
morrow with felicitation instead of fighting, if our mer
chants and manufacturers would simply resolve to use
their influence and power for the welfare of all instead
of for their own. The capital and intelligence so much
wasted at present in internecine competition would then be
concentrated for the benefit of the community, instead
of employed for the glorification of individuals. Let them
continue, on the contrary, to exploit the workers for their
own profit, as well as oppose the machinery of law to
the demands of justice, and violence will characterise the
triumph of Socialism, as it has done that of every great
and good movement. May God, however, avert the omen !
We shrink from the contemplation of such a conflict, but
must protest with all possible vehemence against Dr Flint
throwing on Socialism the responsibility of such a result.
If he is in earnest about the maintenance of peace, let him
preach to the originators of war, and this, if all stories are
true, will mean plain speaking directed to high quarters.
May we shed our blood for the restoration of a Battenberg
and not spare a drop for the emancipation of our brethren ?
The curse of Capitalism, however, is even worse -than the
influence of Courts. It sent out our soldiers to Egypt to
�— 8 —
slaughter the poor peasants for not paying exorbitant taxes
to meet the claims of avaricious bondholders. They gave
their money freely to minister to the sensuality of a vicious
Viceroy on condition of receiving a high rate of interest
wrung from the extreme poverty of his industrious subjects,
and would, for the same inducement, supply the sinews of
war to the greatest enemy of their own country. So much
for the morality of Capitalism, which at this very moment
is anxious to get up a Continental war for the sake of im
mediate gain. It must all, however, be done under the
name of patriotism. Patriotism ! It would burn the palladia of the country to cook its potatoes. It would be
worthier, therefore, of Dr Flint to attack, in our exchanges
and cabinets, the promoters of war, than to make sport for
the Philistines by throwing ridicule on the lovers of peace.
Even Goethe, with all his heathenism, saw in the conduct
of the rulers the real cause for all popular risings, and a
nation like Scotland, honouring the Covenanters for resist
ing with then- blood the imposition of a liturgy, is not
likely to censure their descendants in contending for a
living.
In connection, however, with violence, we may be par
doned a passing reference to the revolutionary character of
Socialism. Dr Flint said very truly it was not “ A system
merely of amendment, improvement, and reform.” It holds
the condition of society to be “ essentially one of anarchy and
injustice,” and for this reason it is impossible to tinker at
it, as if it were essentially sound. Industry must be carried
on for the good of all instead of the gain of one, and
nothing short of the realisation of this ideal will content
Socialists. We are certainly revolutionary in this sense
but in no other. Such a term neither of necessity implies
�— 9
the use of violence nor indifference to circumstances. We
know full well theories cannot be carried out unless in har
mony with the nature and surroundings of men. We are
in no danger, therefore, of degenerating into doctrinaires.
Our revolution is based on evolution, and is no more
“ momentous and unparalleled ” than other changes through
which industry has already passed. The movement from
competition to co-operation is really in no way greater than
that from communal to private property in land, and will
be accomplished from the same motive, and perhaps by the
same method. Socialism can only be realised by people
believing it to be for their interest. We are not likely to
imitate the conduct of the Emperor of Russia in construct
ing a railway between Moscow and St Petersburg. He
merely asked for a map and drew a strait line from the one
town to the other, utterly regardless of the condition of the
country lying between. It is not after this fashion we
desire or expect the institution of Socialism. There are
signs of decrepitude about the system of Competition. Grey
hairs are upon it. The crust is cracking, and multitudes
are going down to the abyss. Society is groaning under its
insecurity. Infinite mischief is produced by its periodical
crises and its limited companies. Capital is being con
centrated. Manufacturers and merchants are collapsing
around us, and falling into the ranks of the workers, while
the workers are, by the extension of machinery, being
driven to the streets. The drones are drawing dividends
and the industrious are eating dust.
This inequality,
however, has stimulated the sentiment of justice. The
better nature of rich and poor is rising in rebellion against
our oppressive circumstances.
Righteousness can alone
exalt a people, and the effect of iniquity in the land is to
�induce many to cast their idols of silver and gold to the
moles and to the bats, in order to lift the beggar from the
dunghill and set the poor among princes. The forces of
our revolution are thus busily at work, and cannot be
stopped by a mere arrangement of words. It is for us to
secure control over them and guide them to a speedy and
salutary issue. Destruction need not be known within our
borders. The stones of our temple are being fashioned in
the quarry, and if only the wealthy and powerful would see
it to be their interest, as it undoubtedly is, rather to further
than to frustrate our efforts, the stately edifice would forth
with be erected amid the jubilation of a harmonious people.
Industry has but to follow the advice given by the lec
turer, and organise itself to secure this consummation so
devoutly to be wished. It would then become conscious of
its power, to the dismay of the idlers ; and, gathering round
it the wisdom and integrity of the community, its victory
would neither be doubtful nor difficult. But, whatever
may betide, the Socialists will be true to themselves.
*■ We are they who will not falter,
Many swords or few,
Till we make this earth the altar
Of a worship new.
We are they who will not take
From palace, priest, or code,
A meaner law than * Brotherhood,’
A lower lord than ‘ God.’ ”
We come at last to consider the definition given by Dr
Flint. He played, with his usual logical ability, between
the terms Individualism and Socialism, and reached, as
every sensible person might have expected, the somewhat
barren conclusion that the one was the opposite of the
other. He was, of course, wise enough to see that if the
one pole meant slavery the other stood at savagery, and
�— 11
therefore, he argued, we must have a judicious mixture of
both. The commonplace philosopher always comes to the
same conclusion. There is a good deal to be said on both
■sides. No doubt, but there must be some order in dealing
with them if we are to arrive at any satisfactory result.
The social toddy will never be perfect without this treat
ment of the separate ingredients. Dr Flint set himself to
pour out the whisky of Individualism and the hot water of
Socialism, as well as to add a little sentiment by way of
sugar, but he got scalded in the operation, and dropped the
kettle. It is impossible on any other supposition to account
for the energetic but irrelevant remarks that escaped him
at this time. He insisted upon paying no attention to the
method of mixing the several ingredients together, forget
ting that hot water is the basis of all good toddy. Enter
prise can only be mischievous unless inspired by justice,
and this is really the essence of Socialism. Nothing could
well be more erroneous than the idea of the two poles sug
gested by the lecturer. The Socialism of to-day, unlike
that of yesterday, is in no way opposed to liberty. It
really differs in this respect little from politics ; for just as
in politics you have one party inclined to favour and another
to oppose the action of Government, so is it with Socialism.
There is, however, a difference between the two, and it is
•one telling still more strongly against the statements of Dr
Flint. There is no system so anxious as Socialism to
secure the liberty of the individual. One of the planks of the
■Governmental or Marxist party is the extension of freedom
to every member of the community, while the devotion of
the Anarchists to the same idea puts even Herbert Spencer
to shame. These, however, are all Socialists. They are all
agreed in their love of liberty, as well as in their opposition
�— 12
to the .tyranny of majorities, and differ only about the steps
necessary to its realisation. Not only so, they are at one
in thinking the present system of competition is altogether
inconsistent with any sufficient measure of freedom to the
great mass of the people. Hunger enslaves one to purpose,
and so long as we are dependent on the few for the means
of livelihood, so long will they remain our masters. Social
ism sets itself to the solution of this problem. It proclaims
liberty to the captive, and the opening of the prison to
those who are bound. Instead of having any desire to'
interfere with our freedom, it is inspired throughout by a
purpose to extend it. The principle, therefore, repudiated
by all Socialists is really, by a strange perversity, the one
constituting the definition of Dr Flint, while that on which
they are all agreed is the one he systematically ignores.
Socialism is simply neither more nor less than an at
tempt to transfer the means of production and distribu
tion from the possession of the individual to the control of
the community, in order that every one willing to work
may get it, and be paid the full value of his labour. In
proof of this let me quote from an article in the Nineteenth
Century for February, by our comrade, P. Kropotkin, on
“The Scientific Basis of Anarchy.” “ In common with all
Socialists,” he says, “ the Anarchists hold that the private
ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time.”
The watchword of Socialism is, “ Economical freedom as
the only secure basis for spiritual freedom.” In spite of
such explicit definition, however, we find Dr Flint assuring
his admiring audience of exploiters and exploited that the
central idea of Socialism is, that labour is the source of all
wealth, and that labour is often confounded by us with the
mere use of our hands. There are no doubt ignorant
�— 13 —
people among us, and one would not like to become respon
sible for all their statements, but would the learned Pro
fessor not object if we went for an exposition of his creed
to a street preacher ? Intelligence, we maintain, on the
contrary, is essential for every operation, except the draw
ing of dividends, and ought to be rewarded if applied to
public welfare. This is the doctrine of Socialism. It is
really too absurd to blame us at one time for indifference
to land and capital in the creation of wealth, and at another
to denounce us for desiring to get possession of them by
legal means if possible, but by all means since necessary.
We know the value of these things in the production of
wealth, and maintain not only the right of all to what has
been created by none, but that every modification of natural
agents for human welfare has been brought about by com
bined labour, and ought not therefore to be in the posses
sion of individuals, but under the control of the community.
Capital, for example, is wanted very badly at present to
provide the poor with nourishing food, warm clothing, and
decent houses, but cannot be had for such purposes, since
its owners find it more remunerative “to supply the
Khedive with harems, and the Russian Government with
strategic railways and Krupp guns.” It would seem, how
ever, we ought to acquiesce in such an arrangement, and
refuse to say to any member of society, “ I have no need of
thee.” It is impossible for us to do so, and we presume Dr
Flint himself is not prepared to fully carry out this prin
ciple. It is really a platitude, meaning anything or
nothing, and therefore worthy of the ignorant applause
with which it was greeted. Are we willing, for example,
to apply it to the criminals in our midst ? Do we actually
require thieves? Certainly not. But if not, why not?
�— 14 —
The answer is of course obvious. They are taking what
belongs to others, and either living in Idleness themselves
■or devoting their energy to the production of mischief.
Just so ! We can do very well without them, and they
constitute a very large category. Mr. Ruskin somewhere
•divides society into robbers, beggars, and workers. It
■seems to us the last class should set itself to get rid of
the other two, for in so doing it would not only perform
a duty to itself, but confer a benefit on them. Nor should
this be a difficult task to accomplish, for the workers really
number two-thirds of the community, and are sufficiently
generous to keep only one-third of the national income to
themselves.
The lynx eye of the lecturer, however, sees the cloven
hoof in such statements. He would turn in holy horror
from our figures and suggestions. We are, according to
him, indifferent to the intellectual, moral, and religious
mission of society. Such objections do certainly surprise
us. Are we not doing, with our miserable resources, much
to persuade the community to consider its own interest ?
Can Dr Flint really believe people have much intelligence who
submit to such a chaotic and iniquitous state of matters, or
would he find a greater proof of it in their familiarity with
metaphysical problems ? Moral ! Do we know any morality
that can dispense with justice in our relation to each other ?
It is at least the aim of Socialism to extend this principle,
and we utterly fail to understand how any society can be
conscious of a moral mission that does not set herself to
deliver the oppressed from the spoiler. Has not the in
equality of the classes much to do with the immorality of
both ? We must have neither the luxury of the rich nor
the privation of the poor, if we desire virtue to prevail in
�15
the community. Wise man was he who sought neither
poverty nor riches, for the one brings temptations to extra
vagance and the other to avarice. Religious ! May wepresume to differ on this point from a doctor of the Church ?
We will not venture to discuss with him questions of
dogma, ceremony, or institution. These, we submit, are
not of the essence of religion. We read somewhere in an
old book for which, along with himself, many of us profess,
the greatest respect, that what God really requires of one
is to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly beforeHim. This is the principle of Socialism. We are bold
enough, in fact, to number in our ranks the Son of Man
Himself, and certainly His immediate followers went very
much farther than our present proposals. The religion of
Christ did not consist of sermons and sacrifices, nor did it
ever become indifferent to our temporal condition. One
was not only taught by Him to love his neighbour as him
self, but commanded to leave his gift at the altar till he
had been reconciled to his brother. There are religions, of'
course, indifferent to all moral and social considerations,,
but we generally speak of them as superstitions, and con
trast them, to their disadvantage, with Christianity. The
elementary principles of it demand that we stand in a right
relation to each other. It is, however, the desire of Social
ism to promote this, and therefore the statement of Dr Elint
that “ At present the main body of the Socialist army ”
looks on “ religion with a jealous and hostile eye,” may be
met with a direct negative. He is too good a logician and
theologian not to know the ambiguous use he is here making
of the term “religion.” What is religion? Is it to be
identified with Popery or Presbyterianism? Must it be
connected with temples and tithes? Many Socialists of
�— 16 —
course, like other sensible people, have grave doubts about
the value of much connected with our ecclesiastical religions.
They are not enamoured of priestcraft and dogma. This
suspicion, however, of what has proved so mischievous,
makes them prize all the more the evangelical religion of
justice and mercy opposed to it. Dr. Flint had also a sneer
at the “ so-called Christian Socialists,” for looking on Christ
as “a mere Social Reformer,” but, so far as any relevancy
in it was concerned, he might as well, like a popular orator,
have applied it to “this so-called nineteenth century.” Our
Christianity is a reality, and this is more than, with all our
charity, we can confess to be the case with much of the re
ligion sheltering itself under the segis of the Professor. There
was more of cavil than candour in contrasting to their dis
advantage the Christian Socialists of the present with
Maurice and Kingsley. It is impossible to admire either
the spirit or the accuracy of such remarks, for there is really
no essential difference between the Christian Socialism of
to-day and that of a generation ago. Maurice was intensely
opposed to the principle of competition—to buying in the
cheapest and selling in the dearest market—to every one
for himself and none for his neighbour. It was to him an
inspiration of Antichrist—utterly inconsistent with the
command to “look not every one on his own things, but
every one also on the things of others.” Competition
appeared to Maurice diametrically opposed to Christian
precept as well as example, and had therefore to be corn,
pletely rejected. Attempts to correct the evil results of it
are simply efforts to make Satan respectable, and are there
fore doomed to failure. We certainly agree in this view of
competition, and desire with him to substitute for it the
principle of co-operation. This, however, is the aim of
�17 —
Socialism. It is true he was not in favour of confiscation
or violence in carrying it out, but no more are the Christian
Socialists of to-day. They cannot, however, altogether de
termine the course humanity will take, or be allowed to
take, in the realisation of its ideals, but in doing what they
can to persuade the rich to consider the condition of the
poor and act justly towards them, they deserve not only to
be complimented for their noble purpose, but also for their
excellent method. Nor is it by any means the case that
Christ is reduced by them to “a mere Social Reformer.”
There is not only liberty to hold every variety of opinion
about His person and work, but the variety exists. Trini
tarian and Unitarian meet on the same platform of evan
gelical morality, and believe it is better to carry out the
gospel precepts on which they all agree, than dispute about
the theological dogmas on which they differ.
Controversy with Dr. Flint is not a pleasure to us, but
Caesar must yield to Rome. We expected larger know
ledge and wiser counsels from him. The community ought
to know the meaning of Socialism, and these lectures,
with all their merits, will only make “confusion worse con
founded.” They have certainly done harm to the lecturer.
Many familiar with the subject, and not without respect for
himself, have been asking in perplexity an explanation of
his statements, reluctant to account for them either through
ignorance or intention. It is not for us to deal with the
causes, but with the errors themselves. We can, however,
easily account for them without the imputation of any
unworthy motives to the lecturer, for Dr. Flint is, unfor
tunately, not the only wise and good man in the community
capable of saying foolish things about Socialism, and we do
not despair of his conversion. There were times, indeed,
�— 18 —
when even he seemed to kick against the pricks of his
conscience in his condemnation of our system, and we can
only hope that by the exercise of his trained intellect, as
well as under the inspiration of his better nature, he will
be speedily led to embrace it. None would receive a
warmer welcome into our ranks, and few could do more for
our cause. It is in this spirit of conciliation we desire to
criticise his statements. He has far too much good sense
ever to be influenced by the applause of an ignorant multi
tude, most of them in broad-cloth and seal-skin, while we can
wish him no greater honour than to become a leader in our
beneficent movement, for its aim is not merely the elevation
of man to the stature of Christ, but the realisation of the
Kingdom of God upon earth.
“ Then let us pray that come it may,
As come it will for a’ that,
That sense an’ worth o’er a’ the earth
May bear the gree an’ a’ that.
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
It’s cornin’ yet for a’ that,
That man to man the warld o’er
Shall brithers be an’ a’ that.”
“be
just and FEAR NOT.”
A. Hossack, Printer, 71 Bristo Street, Edinburgh.
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Socialism on its defence: a reply to Professor Flint
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Edinburgh
Collation: 18 p. ; 19 cm.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Scottish Land and Labour League
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1887
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
T466
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Socialism on its defence: a reply to Professor Flint), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Flint
Socialism